Ihedinobi3:

I'm considering that you are not fully aware what you did.

Loaded questions are a debate tactic used to trap a person into giving a false answer. That is what makes them dishonest questions. Your questions demanded that I give a false answer either way. But why should I if I know a right answer that is not part of your options?

In both questions that you have asked, it would have been false to say "yes" or "no". Both answers were wrong. And any insistence on a binary structure is essentially a logical fallacy posing a false dilemma.

You would need to get out of the yes/no structure in your mind to be able to get to the right answer.

Could God have intervened in that situation to save the girl without altering the "free will" of the perpetrators?

Assuming this ordeal is about to repeat itself and this time your daughter would be the victim,unfortunately you had an accident and you are in coma so you can't intervene in the real life and Yahweh appears to you and asks you to make a choice(again remember this is an assumption ) ,if you ask him to intervene he would prevent it from happening,but if you ask God to do things the way he wants (ie not interferring with "free will as you said),then that means this same ordeal that Junko Furuta faced would certainly happen to your daughter,what would your response be ?
WOULD YOU ASK HIM TO INTERVENE ?

bloodofthelamb:


Akin1212, In other words God's pity and love is truly leading us to what can indeed make us free, His word.

Hermes019:

False answer you say
I think not

So what you are saying is that I should not ask you questions that expose the flaws in your argument.
Am I hear to pamper you ?

Firstly,there is nothing like " false question" as long as arguements are concerned,what you are likely accusing me of is creating a false dichotomy in my questions now let's take a look at what I asked again

If you still think I am wrong then let's do this experiment,let's turn the tables,with regards to my position on this argument ask me ANY question at all,twist it the way you like,I would answer the questions EXACTLY the way you want them to be answered
Why ?
Because I am confident that my response is not flawed,but its unfortunate the same can not be said of you,the last question I asked was straightforward and an assumption as well so I had the writers license to create a scenario I liked,everyone knows what your response would be assuming that actually happens,you won't even think twice before asking God to intervene knowing that if you don't your daugheter would face hell,that is what you would do and that is what every other person would do,but why didn't you answer Yes,of course you knew that if you did so it would expose a fatal flaw in your argument so you refused to give a distinct reply choosing to combine the two and here you are claiming I'm asking you "dishonest question" while you are giving "honest answers" . Sorry your alibi doesn't fit my dear.

Remember my challenge,ask me ANY question concerning my position on this argument and I would answer you the way you want me to,I would be expecting your question,that would be the best way to prove you are right.

Akin1212:


You are such a lying machine. Keep it up. You said God is not driven by emotions and tears. Now that I called your bluff with verses from your bible, you want to extend the lie that God the same one that is not driven by emotions and tears has a pity that is leading us somewhere.

Is it the same word where he had to send himself as his son to come and die in order to forgive all of us? Who worships such a God sef? If not fools

You're a big time poppycock

Ihedinobi3:

This is not a conversation I set out to have. I figured you for a more experienced debater. But for the past few responses I have been wondering if you're a new (and therefore inordinately enthusiastic) atheist or just an inexperienced debater. This is not said to put you down. We all have learning curves and I was once both a new Christian (in fact, I was a very immature one for a very long time) and an inexperienced debater.

I imagine that you know what logical fallacies are. If, by some stretch of imagination, you do not, allow me to encourage you to do a little research. False dilemmas are a logical fallacy. What happens with them is that you create an "either/or" situation that forces your opponent to pick from two wrong options and thus prove your position right. But that is something that either an inexperienced debater or a dishonest one would do. Inexperience is not that big of an excuse here because this tactic is only ever used when the person using it is doing their best to avoid evaluating an argument completely.

This is a courtesy response, I hope you understand. I am no longer much interested in "playing with antichristians".

bloodofthelamb:


I normally ignore it, when people come with name calling but I'm moved to respond to this. Thank you that this is what you think about me, your words are insignificant and won't get to me because I am filled with the thoughts of who I am now in Christ. To me that is all that matters.

And you are such a nice and lovely guy!

Ihedinobi3:

This is not a conversation I set out to have. I figured you for a more experienced debater. But for the past few responses I have been wondering if you're a new (and therefore inordinately enthusiastic) atheist or just an inexperienced debater. This is not said to put you down. We all have learning curves and I was once both a new Christian (in fact, I was a very immature one for a very long time) and an inexperienced debater.

I imagine that you know what logical fallacies are. If, by some stretch of imagination, you do not, allow me to encourage you to do a little research. False dilemmas are a logical fallacy. What happens with them is that you create an "either/or" situation that forces your opponent to pick from two wrong options and thus prove your position right. But that is something that either an inexperienced debater or a dishonest one would do. Inexperience is not that big of an excuse here because this tactic is only ever used when the person using it is doing their best to avoid evaluating an argument completely.

This is a courtesy response, I hope you understand. I am no longer much interested in "playing with antichristians".

Hermes019:

First off,I modified the post u quoted u can take a look at it again

@the bolded,there is a huge difference between false DILEMMA and false QUESTION,you never used the term false DILEMMA(directly for the questions I asked)what you u called them all along were false questions so I didn't think u meant false dilemma,only lately did you say the questions could lead to a fallacy of dilemma

Eitherway in the post you quoted which is now modified I explained why your accusations are wrong

You must be kidding yourself to think I am not well grounded with these things,these are elementary as far as logic is concerned,like I said I added somethings to the post u quoted,they may or may not be of interest to you
And why don't you try the challenge,come on its not to indict you I really wish to see things from your perspective I want to know if there is any question you can ask me that I would refuse to answer or claim its a " false question"

LordReed:


His question was not a false dilemma. The scenario presented you with a situation where you had only 2 choices, unless you count not responding as a choice in the matter.

Hermes019:
I don't know if you have come across the story of the murder of Junko Furuta,so many threads have been created about that and even though I wouldn't advise you to read it because of how graphic and dehumanising it is I would have to pick points from it.
I am an atheist,but I would describe myself as agnostic if God means "Creator of the universe" with nothing else attached to that definition. I know a lot of christians,muslims and other people who believe in God regard atheists as insolent,arrogant,immoral doubters who want to be free to live the way they like,well I wouldn't make a case against that but I want you to see another side to it.
Going back to the Junko Furuta story.I would describe it as one of the worse things to ever happen to anyone much less a teenage girl, I have been living with the awareness that " God does not exist"(going by the conventional definition of God) for 3 years now but even if I were to imagine that God as people describe to be exists I would have nothing but indignation and spite for it. You may think of me as an a$$hole or whatever u think of atheists as, but I can not convince myself that there was someone humane to say the least (God) who could have intervened while she was going through this ordeal but CHOSE not to .There were other persons who were aware of what was happening,maybe not in details but knew she was captured and did not intervene or report to the police due to fear,guess what happened to them,they were punished which means their nonintervention was considered wrong even though they had reasons not to intervene,but I guess God can never be wrong so we can't use the same scale for him. What is even worse is that she(Junku Furuta) must be burning in hell right now(since she is not a christian) and the perpetrators of this crime have all left jail,some didn't even serve up to 10 years and if any of them were to give his life to Christ he would go to heaven when he dies,VERY JUST IF YOU ASK ME

Junku's story is just one of countless cases of very gruesome experiences people have gone through,there are even worse cases,she was someone's daughter, God(if he exists as you say) had the wherewithal to save her but CHOSE not to do so,some christians would say he has his reasons,of course he always does,some even dumber persons would say "God gave us freewill", of course he did,and she used hers nicely and gave her consent when her nipples were chopped off so its not God's fault.

I may be the satanist you think I am since I am an atheist,but I can never serve a being(if such exists)that beheld that event occur and chose not to save her,if not directly(since it loves peek a boo) at least by causing the cops to appear or something like that, I can not even think of such a being as being anywhere close to the moral standard of an average human much less describing it as " All loving".

But do you know the most interesting part,no matter how terrifying and gruelsome you think that murder was,it is nothing compared to what God(particularly the Abrahamic ones) is promising to dish out to people who didn't worship him the way he wants or those who didn't worship or recognise him at all in "the after life",maybe the idea of a punishment or reward in the afterlife is " reasonable" but is the one that the bible and koran tells us of really equatable to the "sins" committed.

Anyways all that doesn't matter at the end of the day God loves you even more than you can imagine so he knows best,innit ?

So folks, no need to argue u can agree with me that God is love



Cc Ihedinobi3,originalkalokalo,MutteyLaff,rekinomtla,
budaatum,
Johnydon22,CAPSLOCKED,XxSabrinaxX,JujuSugar,
Vaxx
Frank317,Seun

Hermes019:

First off,I modified the post u quoted u can take a look at it again

@the bolded,there is a huge difference between false DILEMMA and false QUESTION,you never used the term false DILEMMA(directly for the questions I asked)what you u called them all along were false questions so I didn't think u meant false dilemma,only lately did you say the questions could lead to a fallacy of dilemma

Eitherway in the post you quoted which is now modified I explained why your accusations are wrong

You must be kidding yourself to think I am not well grounded with these things,these are elementary as far as logic is concerned,like I said I added somethings to the post u quoted,they may or may not be of interest to you
And why don't you try the challenge,come on its not to indict you I really wish to see things from your perspective I want to know if there is any question you can ask me that I would refuse to answer or claim its a " false question"

theoriginalgood:


God loves only what is pure, good and perfect. This is why he himself deserves the most love. You think God loves humans and their reproductive organs? You think God loves humans and their excretion? You think sweaty and smelly aging humans are in God’s image? All humans die someday because all humans are truly evil beings. This is definitely not the same as God.

Wake up to reality and don’t deceive yourself. Humans are truly evil and God does not love evil. That’s why humanity suffers so much. Humanity is truly evil.

Ihedinobi3:

By the way, I never used the term "false question". Perhaps you were thinking of "dishonest question". That is something I definitely said. But I did in fact use the terms "false dilemma" and "loaded question" several times in my multiple follow-up posts. Perhaps you didn't read them attentively.

As for kidding myself, that really is on you. If you show inexperience or ineptitude in debate, I don't kid myself just by observing it. If you get upset when it is observed, then you never improve in ability. But then, atheism is a house of lies, so I can understand if you take issue whenever someone makes any observation that touches your ego.

Hermes019:

Is human suffering insignificant to God ?

Hermes019:

I think maybe we should go back to the questions I asked, let's agree to disagree I was wrong about the false dilemma stuff and I am inexperienced while you are highly experienced and logical,no problems sir.
Now please show how my questions pose the problem of a false dilemma that is what I am interested in

theoriginalgood:


The wages of sin is death. Since humans are mortal, this means humans are sinners. Does God love sin? No way.

Now, these sinners are suffering. Would you feel pity when a dangerous wild animal is killed? Would you feel bad for killing disease-spreading mosquitoes?

By choosing sin, humans have brought suffering upon themselves. God is good; he endorses the logic that bad things must die (or suffer). God cannot turn off the suffering, he can only eliminate sin. Eliminating sin means humans are left with nothing. This is practically eliminating humanity.

Ihedinobi3:

I already explained multiple times. Please refer to my earlier posts.

Loaded questions make debatable or false assumptions that lead to false dilemmas.

theoriginalgood:


God loves only what is pure, good and perfect. This is why he himself deserves the most love. You think God loves humans and their reproductive organs? You think God loves humans and their excretion? You think sweaty and smelly aging humans are in God’s image? All humans die someday because all humans are truly evil beings. This is definitely not the same as God.

MORE REASONS TO AVOID PERSONAL DEALINGS WITH CHRISTIANS IN THIS COUNTRY, ANYTIME I CAN.
THERE'S NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM THAT DON'T REASON LIKE A CRETĮN.

Hermes019:


Oh my goodness,how is my question creating a false dilemma for crying out loud

I created this thread to show the inconsistency in claiming that God is love considering the events that happen around us.
I cited a story of a girl that was brutally molested and murdered.
I hold the position that if God is love he should have intervened and saved the girl,you claimed that if he did so he would have to interference with the "free will" of the perpetrators. This now led to my first question


Could God have intervened in that situation to save the girl without altering the "free will" of the perpetrators?

This is the question you referred to as a false dilemma,and I am asking you to demonstrate how this question is a false dilemma.
Given the fact that God is said to be omnipotent the only answer suitable to the question is YES
So how exactly is this a false dilemma ?

Now you still maintained the position that God is Love even though he CHOSE not to intervene(because of the reasons you gave),I wanted to show you that those reasons are not good enough and this led to my second question

Assuming this ordeal is about to repeat itself and this time your daughter would be the victim,unfortunately you had an accident and you are in coma so you can't intervene in the real life and Yahweh appears to you and asks you to make a choice(again remember this is an assumption ) ,if you ask him to intervene he would prevent it from happening,but if you ask God to do things the way he wants (ie not interferring with "free will as you said),then that means this same ordeal that Junko Furuta faced would certainly happen to your daughter,what would your response be ?
WOULD YOU ASK HIM TO INTERVENE ?
Remember like I said,this is an assumption,you have two main answers,its either you answer is a straight YES or suggests you would ask God to intervene or your answer is a straight NO or suggests that you won't ask God to intervene.Your answer would be expected to be Yes or to suggest that you would ask God to intervene and I wanted to use that to show you that God was expected to have intervened in the girls case just like you would love him to do so if tour daughter was the one involved.
Again I ask what how is this a false dilemma

Time and time again you have accused me of trying to lure you to giving a " false answer" and I have tried my best to be as clear and honest with my arguments as possible,I have even gone ahead to explain why I asked the questions I did and you can see that it is in line with the argument and is an attempt to show the problems with your explanations.
I don't know what else you expect from me,show me how these questions are creating a false dilemma



P.S it is worth noting how you have continuously derided me and reiterated your stereotyped position on atheists being dishonest with arguments but I have tried my best to be as honest and clear with my points and that was why I often asked for a Yes or No answer,I wanted to keep the arguments simple and apt,it was nwvwr intended to limit your options,but its rather shameful that no matter how simple and clear I want this argument to be you have completely misunderstood my intentions, I even offered you the chance to ask me Any questions you liked about my position on the argument which I promised to answer the way you would want,go appease you and make things even,but once again its unfortunate that you choose to be difficult, there is nothing else I can do

Ihedinobi3:

I'm not sure how else to explain this to you.

Your questions were loaded. That means that they made questionable assumptions that I would be forced to agree with by answering yes/no. That is the dishonesty in that tactic. I gave you benefit of the doubt that rather than being deliberately dishonest, you were merely making the mistake of the inexperienced. You rejected that benefit of the doubt.

You keep saying that you are trying to demonstrate the inconsistency of God's Love with the actual experience of human beings in life. You don't appear to appreciate that you have been assuming that inconsistency as a given. As long as you are, you will take exception to any response I give that does not "line up" with it.

Loaded questions and false dilemmas can only work with your opponent's cooperation. That is why they can be as frustrating as you are finding them right now.

As to how your questions were loaded, I have explained several times and I really don't want to do it anymore. I came to answer your protest as you asked. I did not promise you an answer you would like or one that you would accept. If my answer does not satisfy you, you are free to reject it. So far, I have answered your follow-up challenges because it is my custom to defend my answers.

When you asked whether God could intervene without violating the free will of the evil men, you were assuming either that divine intervention in that instance can be mutually exclusive with violation of free will or else you were assuming that omnipotence is the power to do whatever Hermes019 demands. These assumptions led to a false dilemma. The correct situation (or, at least, the Christian position) is as follows (and as I have described several times now):

Omnipotence means that God has no true opposition to His Will. He can do anything He pleases because nothing and no one exists that can prevent Him from doing so.

But God has a stable Nature and a stable Character, otherwise He would not be God. It is impossible for God to go against His Own Nature and Character. So, for example, God cannot lie. This is not a test of Omnipotence. It is a test of reliability or assurance. God, by definition, must be "rock solid", in a manner of speaking, in His Existence, otherwise it would be impossible for creation to exist. So, He must have a fixed Nature and Character that are inviolable. So, God cannot change in those things. Or, at least, He simply does not.

In accordance with His Nature and Character, God was pleased to create Moral Creatures who have a right and a responsibility to choose their disposition toward Him and therefore their eternal destiny. So He did. And He structured Creature History to ensure that every moral individual has the perfect opportunity to exercise that right and responsibility.

Thus, every event that actually occurs in time is one where the only conclusion we can make is that all moral creatures involved are being given their opportunity to choose. We cannot then claim that things could have been different in any given case because unless God is pleased to change anything, we have no reason to think that things could have been.

In other words, I cannot say that, yes, God could have intervened and preserved the free will of the evil men in that story because I am not qualified to know more than that He did not intervene and that not doing so preserved their free will. Nor can I say that, no, He could not have intervened because He is God and if He was pleased to do so, nothing can prevent Him from doing so.

In summary, as I said before, God ordained things to happen like they did so that everyone involved could exercise their free will.


When you asked whether I would ask God to save my daughter or not, you were making the same assumptions as above in addition to one where God would give such choices to anyone.

As I told you, the Christian position is that we must not take God for granted. We must pray for protection and deliverance from evil because we live in an evil world today. That is what I strive to do. So, if I were put in that situation and I can make any choices about it, I would pray that God would deliver my daughter but I would also strive to believe in Him regardless what happens. That is what we are taught to do in the Bible. We are not taught that God ever shows up to give us a say in the outcome of events. He is the God. We are the believers. He rules. We pray.


As I said before, I am not obliged to answer dishonest questions. If you make mistakes asking loaded questions and committing fallacies as a result and I tell you that you do and you insist on continuing to do so, I have no responsibility to indulge you. I am not going to countenance any request to tolerate your fallacies anymore if you are not going to make an effort to make an honest argument. It is a waste of time to ask me to join you in committing fallacies. It is also a waste of time to talk about your good intentions when your actions are dishonest. I already warned you of it several times.

If you are concerned about having a simple and clear conversation, put in the work to create clear and honest arguments. Trying to box your opponents into a corner with underhanded methods is not the same as having a simple and clear conversation.

Hermes019:

I think this response reiterates my position on whether God is love,if such events like the one I cited and other such events occurred and still occur God despite being able to intervene (because he is omnipotent) does not intervene(because of the reasons you gave) then I do not regard such God to be love because he has other options,you can not rule that out,he is omnipotent which means his powers are endless,he has the option to do things differently but he CHOSE not to.
I have said it before the difference between you and I is that you think that God's reason for not interferring is good enough but I think it is completely flimsy,nobody makes a rule for him,he makes the rule for himself,if he changes the rule he made to intervene in a situation nothing would change after all he has done such into the Bible, when God hardened Pharaoh's heart was that not interferring with his free will ?
I am saying that I recognize what you are saying,God has a rule of allowing evil people to do what they want without interferring ,but I am saying that he should alter that,he shouldn't allow evil people to do what they want if truly he is love,I don't care what rule he makes or not.He should not allow such things to happen,if he does then he is not Loving as long as I am concerned,no matter the reasons you give,he is omnipotent like I said so he has infinite of options but chose the one he made.

Ihedinobi3:

Well, it is obvious then that you were never going to consider anything other than your own false ideas about this issue. You would use dishonest tactics and persist in doing so rather than give up any errors in your argument. That is not anything I can help or do anything about.

As for what God should or should not do, save me a seat when you become God and begin to run your own Universe.

Hermes019:

I think this response reiterates my position on whether God is love,if such events like the one I cited and other such events occurred and still occur God despite being able to intervene (because he is omnipotent) does not intervene(because of the reasons you gave) then I do not regard such God to be love because he has other options,you can not rule that out,he is omnipotent which means his powers are endless,he has the option to do things differently but he CHOSE not to.
I have said it before the difference between you and I is that you think that God's reason for not interferring is good enough but I think it is completely flimsy,nobody makes a rule for him,he makes the rule for himself,if he changes the rule he made to intervene in a situation nothing would change after all he has done such into the Bible, when God hardened Pharaoh's heart was that not interferring with his free will ?
I am saying that I recognize what you are saying,God has a rule of allowing evil people to do what they want without interferring ,but I am saying that he should alter that,he shouldn't allow evil people to do what they want if truly he is love,I don't care what rule he makes or not.He should not allow such things to happen,if he does then he is not Loving as long as I am concerned,no matter the reasons you give,he is omnipotent like I said so he has infinite of options but chose the one he made.

Ihedinobi3:



Edit: as for Pharaoh, I already mentioned and explained him, Laban and Jacob and Haman and the Jews in an earlier post. I think you should actually try to read my posts, not scan them to find confirmation of what you expect to see.

Ihedinobi3:

As for Pharaoh, I already mentioned and explained him as well as Laban and Jacob and Haman and the Jews in an earlier post. I think you should actually try to read my posts, not scan them to find confirmation of what you expect to see.

Hermes019:
If you presented a reason good enough to justify Gods's dormancy in that story I would have no option but to change my mind.
But so far he reasons you gave for God not interferring in that story is not consistent with what we know about God from the Bible,your reason is that God didn't intervene in that situation because according to his nature he does not interfer with a persons free will hence if he acted in that situation he would go against that and he did not want to do so.
I think first we should define free will

Free will is the ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily.

If this is the case be the case then God could have intervened without altering anyone's free will and I gave instances of how he could have made that happen
1)He could have caused rain to fall preventing the kidnap
2)he could have caused the girl to fall sick requiring her to be hospitalized,preventing the kidnap
3)He could have created circumstances that would require the girls family to move to another location
There are other ways too,and with these instances I pointed,God would have prevented the incident without interfering with anyones thinking or decision making


Your position that God does not interfere with free will is not stated in the Bible so could you tell me how you discovered that,in fact here are passages contrary to your opinion about free will

Proverbs 21 vs 1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they cannot see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them."

Romans 9:18
Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

Exodus 4:21
The LORD instructed Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put within your power. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Please show me where the bible says that God doesn't interfere with free will or is this question false dilemma too

I have demonstrated that your reason is inaccurate because
1)God does interfere with free will,from what we know in the Bible
2)Even if God does not interfere with free will he could have saved the girl without interfering with anyone's free will

Hermes019:
Free will is the ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily.

If this is the case be the case then God could have intervened without altering anyone's free will and I gave instances of how he could have made that happen
1)He could have caused rain to fall preventing the kidnap
2)he could have caused the girl to fall sick requiring her to be hospitalized,preventing the kidnap
3)He could have created circumstances that would require the girls family to move to another location
There are other ways too,and with these instances I pointed,God would have prevented the incident without interfering with anyones thinking or decision making

Hermes019:

So you are very sure that I went to scan your posts on other threads to come up with that question, what if you are wrong,do you know the implication of your accusation ?
You continue to deride me but I am not surprised,mock me all you want but that is not a problem to me,please answer the questions

Hermes019:
If you presented a reason good enough to justify Gods's dormancy in that story I would have no option but to change my mind.
But so far he reasons you gave for God not interferring in that story is not consistent with what we know about God from the Bible,your reason is that God didn't intervene in that situation because according to his nature he does not interfer with a persons free will hence if he acted in that situation he would go against that and he did not want to do so.
I think first we should define free will

Free will is the ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily.

If this is the case be the case then God could have intervened without altering anyone's free will and I gave instances of how he could have made that happen
1)He could have caused rain to fall preventing the kidnap
2)he could have caused the girl to fall sick requiring her to be hospitalized,preventing the kidnap
3)He could have created circumstances that would require the girls family to move to another location
There are other ways too,and with these instances I pointed,God would have prevented the incident without interfering with anyones thinking or decision making


Your position that God does not interfere with free will is not stated in the Bible so could you tell me how you discovered that,in fact here are passages contrary to your opinion about free will

Proverbs 21 vs 1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they cannot see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them."

Romans 9:18
Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

Exodus 4:21
The LORD instructed Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put within your power. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Please show me where the bible says that God doesn't interfere with free will or is this question false dilemma too

I have demonstrated that your reason is inaccurate because
1)God does interfere with free will,from what we know in the Bible
2)Even if God does not interfere with free will he could have saved the girl without interfering with anyone's free will

Hermes019:

Is Human suffering insignificant to God
Yes or No ?