6 million Jews in a single war... So what was Yahweh thinking? I knw there are people who thinks that the Biblical God can be a pain in the ass. He punished the Egyptians like a sadistic demon before just because they preferred a different lifestyle..."Yeah either u vote for my Heaven, or I will burn u in Hell"...those were good old times for the Jews. You punch a Jew slave & Bam! God sends a Super Hero to kill you or punch u back. You kill another slave Jew & God sends ten plagues as revenge. You chase & trap them beside a river or a sea & there u go...God creates a brand new road in the middle of the sea.
So where was this Yahweh during WWII? & what was he thinking?
You are painting yourself into a corner with this. By hypothesising that the Yahweh of Abrahamic religion (perfect by definition) exists, you are rendering any actions (or lack of actions) that can be attributed to Yahweh, as perfect by definition.
In other words you can change the definition of 'Yahweh' to imperfect, or you can assert that Yahweh does not exist. But you can't say Yahweh exists and is imperfect. That's a contradiction in terms. It's the equivalent of saying: this perfect being is imperfect. Moreover if you change the definition, then you are no longer referring to the god of Abrahamic religions, rendering your question irrelevant to those religions. If you assert Yahweh does not exist, then you render your question meaningless.
Another issue is that your determination of the perfection/imperfection of any given action or lack of action, in the context of the entire history of the universe, is relative. To make an objective determination you would need to know every consequence and every outcome of every action of every moment of the past, present and future. In other words you would need to be omniscient. I think it's reasonable to tentatively suggest you are not omniscient and are therefore incapable of making an objective determination in this context. The most you can do is determine what actions or inactions appear to be perfect/imperfect from your point of view.
Therefore there is no argument here. Only an observation that: events in recent history don't appear from your point of view to be the result of perfect action or inaction. No more no less. That observation tells us exactly nothing about the truth or falsehood of the statement 'god is'. To imply otherwise you would need to turn a reasonable observation into a fallacious argument, which alas is exactly what you have done.
I will be as short as possible:
1. "Yahweh exists" is Jewish assumption not mine.
2. "Yahweh is perfect" another Jewish assumption, not mine.
3. Perfect/Imperfect should not be a major concern here as even a Perfect being may not involve itself in Human circumstances. My concern was the Actions of Yahweh not his state or condition.
4. The argument is based on the Jewish assumptions & claims that how Yahweh interferes with Human environment when something wrong happens to His subjects (Jews).
5. If u find it Fallacious argument then just dont waste ur time in this thread (unless u have an intention to hijack this thread).
1. Doesn't matter who's assumption it is. If you use it as the base of a hypothetical argument, your argument needs to be consistent with it.
2. same as above
3. The 'Yahweh' of Abrahamic religions is also described as a personal god, i.e. involved in human affairs. That's one of the attributes that distinguishes the Yahweh of Abrahamic religion. Indeed you've adopted that assumption yourself for the sake of your argument. If you want to say no such being exists, fair enough. If you want to say a deity exists but does not have the attributes of the Abrahamic 'Yahweh', fair enough. But you can't hypothesise that Yahweh exists and is not involved in human affairs without changing the definition of 'Yahweh', 'involved', 'human' or 'affairs'. If you do, then by definition, you are not referring to Yahweh of the Abrahamic religions.
4. Exactly. As such you are hypothesising that those assumptions are true for the sake of argument. So your argument needs to be consistent with them. If it isn't all you've done is create an inconsistent argument, which demonstrates nothing relevant.
5. By that logic people should not discuss anything they consider fallacious, and if they do their motivation must be to hijack the topic. That's self defeating. Clearly you find the concept of god fallacious, yet you are discussing the subject. Therefore (by your own reasoning) you are wasting your time and your motivation is to hijack the subject. If that's the case, then you have relegated your question to nothing more than a trolling exercise. If on the other hand your question has a serious intent, then what you've said is false and you and I are neither wasting our time nor hijacking anything.
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with what you are trying to conclude, i.e. a deity doesn't exist. I'm merely pointing out that the argument you are employing does not conform to a basic evaluation of logic. If your argument is that god-belief is inconsistent, fair enough. But presenting that in an argument which is itself logically inconsistent is probably not the best way to go about it.
I have to disagree but you can continue with whatever you think.
You seem unable or unwilling to address the issues with your argument, so I won't persist in pointing them out.
And thank you for giving me permission to continue thinking what I want, but it's unnecessary. It's already recognised as a human right as laid out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This protects people's right to believe whatever the hell they want to believe and to express that belief, regardless of whether someone else thinks it's delusional, strange, unbelievable or just idiotic.
You'll also be glad to know it protects your right to think it appropriate to use the death of more than 6 million human beings to try to score some cheap points in the god/no god debate. What an amazing thing freedom of thought and belief is.
Its weird how you think there is no argument & still want me to argue with you. Im not sure whats wrong with u but I think u do need to work on your attitude bcoz when it feels like arse, looks like arse & smells like arse, it has to be an arse! But I have seen such idiotic nonsense attitudes before, so I wont mind.
I am not willing to address whatever issues u have mentioned earlier...not bcoz they are too brilliant to counter but because they are not worthy of addressing...but u can continue to think whatever u want...I can see u hav done PhD in Declaration of Human rights.
It's called a discussion and it's what a public web forum is for. Sometimes you may encounter someone who actually disagrees with your point of view. Sometimes they may even criticise your point of view. If you are not prepared to be disagreed with, or have your argument criticised, or if you don't want to discuss something, then why start a discussion about it in the first place? I find that weird to be perfectly honest.
Stranger still is the name calling. You start a discussion, someone disagrees with you, you are unwilling to discuss the subject itself, and instead respond with name calling. If I've insulted you, please point out. If not, then why throw insults?
If by any chance you realise I haven't insulted you, and if by any chance you realise my pointing out of the flaws in your argument was to help rather than attack you, then please ask yourself whether or not the defensive attitude you have adopted is actually warranted.
I think it is not a humane act to start name calling.
It is true that people will disagree with each others point of view in certain topic & thats how an argument forms but what so far I have read from both of ur posts, you are not sticking to the topic. Rather answering the topic question you came up with your silly conclusion that there should not be such argument. I think your love for God is hit heard & this is why you are trying to conclude the argument is flawed.
Well Rishy, sorry I mean The Darkened One (must have got you two confused for some reason, not sure why) as I said the question has serious logical flaws and I think it's reasonable to point that out. If the original poster does not like controversy or disagreement, then why post a provocative question in the religious forum of HubPages? Indeed why court discussion on a public forum full of diverse opinions, then complain when you get diverse opinions?
If you don't think the question is meaningless, then defend it with a reasonable argument, or don't. But don't tell me not to question the logic of it. Why shouldn't I? What makes this thread so special that it shouldn't be questioned? Is this thread immune from criticism? The original poster would be quick enough to question the logic of someone else's comments. Why should his own comments be treated any differently? Is he claiming some special privileged?
And making (incorrect) assumptions about me or my beliefs will not help. The attributes of the person making the argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. In other words, what I believe or don't believe does not make my criticism of your argument any more or less valid. Suggesting otherwise is an example of a logical fallacy, an ad hominem (argument to the person). You can only defend your argument with reason, not personal attacks. So far your comments have shown an abundance of the latter, but a distinct lack of the former.
In my opinion questioning the logic of other people's comments, then becoming defensive and insulting when someone questions the logic of your own is the epitome of silly. If you have nothing to offer by way of reasoned argument, or simply don't want to engage in reasoned discussion, no problem. But this non-discussion has grown wearisome, and I don't want to continue wasting my time with it.
lolz...I apparently dont see any problem with the argument. Of course there are problamatic people who loves to create problems in every single case. A perfect God interferes & disturbs the balance of nature just to free his chosen people somehow vanishes after 4000 years & keeps his mouth shut while his chosen people were tortured to death in greater level by the nazis. This undoubtedly creates the question whether there were really any intervention from that God earlier..its as simple as that. Why is it so difficult to understand?
You are so articulate, and I love your intelligent responses. Mind if I copy and paste your argument for my personal use?
That was very long-winded. I will keep my curious question short. Are you trying to say that an omniscient being, in seeing everything in the eternal context might consider millions of followers dying just part of the deal!?
No. I don't think a theist would say it's 'part of the deal'. But I think a theist could easily argue that although we know an event is 'bad', it's impossible for us to objectively determine what the ultimate consequences of that event are in relation to the universe, if any (think the butterfly effect). In the context of the entire history of the universe we'd literally have to know everything to determine what the consequences of any given event are. For the theist god is omniscient so that's not a problem. But we obviously aren't. This is simply a modern, and more technical version of "god works in mysterious ways". But it's consistent with the assumptions of the Abrahamic religions, which the question in the opening post is not.
You say a lot but you appear to fail.
You assume too much and you confuse personal assumptions to be logical assumptions.
you say, "No. I don't think a theist would say it's 'part of the deal'. But I think a theist could easily argue that although we know an event is 'bad'"
A theist is but a person who believes in God or gods. My point should be illustrated here, to those who actually do know logic, as opposed to say, those who can spell the word.
Don, I am a theist. I do not see any logic in what you are saying.
I thought it was clear from my previous comments that I'm talking about the Abrahamic religions. If that's not clear, let me make it so.
If you subscribe to any of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) the argument I suggested is consistent with the main assumptions they make about god, i.e. personal, only one, creator, involved in human affairs, omnimax. These assumptions are what distinguish the Abrahmic religions from other forms of theism such as deism or Hinduism etc. So if you are talking about a different form of theism, then obviously the above is not applicable. My point is about the form of theism represented by the Abrahamic religions. From the start that point has been that the implied argument in the OP is meaningless in relation to the Abrahamic religions, because it is not consistent with there assumptions. So it just sets up a straw man and then knocks it down.
The nature of the assumptions made in the Abrahamic religions are such that when taken as true you can't logically point to objective reality as a way of demonstrating inconsistency in them. As soon as someone assumes god exists and is omnimax (even for the sake of argument) they can always argue that your view of reality is too limited (relative to an omnimax being) to determine anything objectively about that beings interactions with humanity. In effect it makes your view of reality inferior by definition. This is exactly why the assumptions of the Abrahamic religions are so powerful.
The only way to counter this is to deny such a being exists altogether, or argue that god is different to that described in the Abrahamic religions. If you do the former, the question "where was this Yahweh during WWII?" is rendered meaningless. If you do the latter, then by definition you are not referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions. The god of deism, pantheism perhaps, but by definition not the god of Abraham, not Yahweh. As such the question is irrelevant to those who profess belief in Yahweh as described in the Abrahamic religions.
This is superfluous to your actual question so I've added it separately.
The reason for the above criticism is that if you're going to argue against the the god of Abrahamic religion, then it's pointless asking a hypothetical question in which the assumptions of the Abrahamic religions are taken as true for the sake of argument. Especially if your intention is to show the opposite. Because if your argument is then not consistent with those assumptions, you've simply created a straw man. You may knock that straw man down, but it's meaningless and doesn't challenge those assumptions whatsoever.
Better to simply reject the existence of a deity, or reject the assumptions about said deity and offer an argument for your rejections than to try this approach. The Abrahamic god as a concept is logically too strong and all encompassing for this to work. Arguments like the one presented in this thread can easily be countered by anyone who has a basic understanding of the core assumptions of the Abrahamic religions and a bit of logic. So to be successful, this argument depends on a lack of understanding. In my opinion an argument which relies on lack of understanding to be successful is a poor argument.
Rishy, why are you stirring the cauldron again?!
have you read Night by Elie Wiesel? whatever you believe, it's a book everyone should read at least once.
Being enslaved by the Egyptians was "good old times" for the Jews?
Compared to Nazi concentration camp that really was 'good old times'.
Did anyone see that story yesterday that claimed archaeological evidence doesn't support the story that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt?
May be...but again how many races had God to make them a road in the middle of the sea? How many races had a moses & a God who would send ten plagues to kill their enemies? Yeah, those were good old times whether u agree or not. Besides the recent archaeological findings suggest Egyptians built monuments & pyramids with architects rather than slaves. And unlike Biblical tortured slaves, they were highly paid & respected in the society.
Of course they had architects, but who do you think chiselled the tonnes of limestone and dug deep into valley walls to built the temple of Abu Simbel...Slave workforce! they also only used basic hand tools for this too
Architects draw plans not build pyramids. Not taking sides here, just sayin, architects ain't builders.
Actually the Egyptian architects were different than todays architects & are comparable to builders as well. The mummies & remains of the builders/architects indicate that the builders of pyramids & most famous Egyptian monuments were Egyptians in origin... not Israelis neither from any other ethnicity.
The commodities, jeweleries & papyrus found in those buried chambers also suggest they were paid, well fed & taken care of by the Pharaoh.
Their belief system was different than ours. WHIPPING & KILLING wasnt necessary...THEY WERE ACTUALLY GLAD TO BUILD PYRAMIDS FOR THEIR PHARAOHS.
Mom: good gosh there is nothing "ethnic" about being a jew. Jew is a religion.
The ignorance of some amazes me.
The Jews have a right to love the Creator-God Allah YHWH and be loved by Him.
The Jews also have a right to love the Creator-God Allah YHWH and be loved by Him.
Lets assume that all the stories about jew during egypt time are true. In WW2 the Yahweh seems to be unhappy with jews like he left them alone on the face of earth. Why? Because Yahweh turns his favors to Christians and then Muslims
by jay_kumar_075 years ago
Which one is correct of the followingJESUS died for our sin.JESUS died for sin.I think that JESUS died for sin is correct.It means that JESUS died and wone the globe for us not to allow sin to over come on us.JESUS told...
by Bovine Currency7 years ago
by Mark5 years ago
Before you post a response...Please use various sources to look up the actual definition of what freewill is. After you see the different definitions and then determine what it actually means to you; Do you, in all...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
Is Satanism or the Abrahamic religions, i.e, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the root of evil in the world?
by David Bowman5 weeks ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Don W wrote @Rishy Rich:1. Doesn't matter who's assumption it is. If you use it as the base of a hypothetical argument, your argument needs to be consistent with it.2. same as above3. The 'Yahweh' of Abrahamic religions...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.