tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post2100586174471434913..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: Why Atheism and Polytheism are IllogicalRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-48461770824150792992019-07-19T11:19:46.006-07:002019-07-19T11:19:46.006-07:00First off, polytheism from a purely pragmatic pers...First off, polytheism from a purely pragmatic perspective is fully compatible with atheism; plenty of atheopagans will maintain the position the the Gods are psychological archetypes.<br /><br />Supposing a theistic polytheism, you seem committed to the assumption that a God must be defined as omnipotent etc, this is not necessarily the case within a polytheistic view, the only requirement one could feasibly impose is that the Pantheon (All the Gods considered as a Unity) be omnipotent etc.<br />In which case this would not be a violation of the law of identity - the Gods are Perfect in terms of this Individuality of Personhood and Existence.<br /><br />As to the Prime-Mover, I don't see you presenting a proof that the First-Cause is a Personal cause; since it is defined apophatically (atemporal, aspacial, immaterial, immutable), to arbitrarily assign person-hood to it, is nothing sort of special pleading to avoid necessitating that of an impersonal first cause.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289769659277900431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-87417958064964265102019-07-11T08:08:28.597-07:002019-07-11T08:08:28.597-07:00One of your most flawed assumptions regarding poly...One of your most flawed assumptions regarding polytheism is that absolute perfection, which does not exist, is necessary for an entity to be a God. None of the hard polytheistic paths teach this, quite the contrary.MijmerMaartenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08585127795935435505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-66712296335039818942019-05-14T15:40:39.204-07:002019-05-14T15:40:39.204-07:00Hello. In all due respect, just by reading your co...Hello. In all due respect, just by reading your comment, it makes it clear you haven't sat down and actually studied the scriptures and the context to each verses. Lets break down your points. <br /><br />Exodus 20:4-5 --> You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me." This is among the ten commandments , commanded to the Israelites. In short, this is an covenant between God and the Hebrews. A covenant is an agreement. Anyways, this scripture is clearly saying , when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful, and God has specified that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences--often for several generations. This not being fair isn't the issue. We know that sin is in the world and the consequence of consisting sinning affected many generation. Nevertheless, you can see that sin affected this wicked world today. <br /><br />Ezekiel 18:20 is is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch(Torah). The context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. When you read Ezekiel 18:19 it says, "Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live." For instance, in my case, my Father doesn't follow Christ but I repented for my transgressions and became a child of God. Everyone is responsible for all their transgressions individually. My father misled me at a point and made false accusations of the scriptures which led me astray at a point. After some years passed by I decided to read the scriptures and do some research. I came to the knowledge of who God truly is. I gave my life to Jesus Christ through his loving grace. <br /><br />Furthermore, there is a concept in the Bible called "Federal Headship". This means, the man represents the family. It all goes back to Adam and Eve. Eve was first to eat the fruit and first to sin. However, the Bible states that sin entered the world through Adam not Eve. This is because Adam was the Federal Head of all mankind. Even though Adam sinned and we're living in a fallen world infected with sin, we still have a chance to repent for our transgressions and accept Jesus Christ into our lives. We won't be judged off of what Adam did, we'll will be accountable for our own transgressions against God.<br /><br />Further, even if the Exodus passage implied that moral guilt was somehow also visited on the children, it would only be because they too, like their fathers, had sinned against God. Meaning that their fathers might raise them to hate God which goes back to Exodus 20:5 - "Do not bow down to them, do not let anyone make you serve them. For I, Adonai your God, am a jealous God, bringing the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those "WHO HATE ME". Noteworthy is the fact that God only visits the iniquities of “those who hate” Him not those who do not.<br /><br />Tariqnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-10431230708074375252019-02-26T17:28:16.963-08:002019-02-26T17:28:16.963-08:00Hello Rick Warden,
I would thank you not to misrep...Hello Rick Warden,<br />I would thank you not to misrepresent my argument. Please be assured I mean that in the best possible way. Whether intentionally or not, your argument above implicitly favors monotheism by excluding monotheism from the list of illogical beliefs. Agnosticism is a relatively little-known concept, and most of the beliefs it encompasses are commonly attributed to atheism. My point when referring to the bible was that it cannot be considered a reliable source for the proof of god. The body of evidence against it is not just my opinion, nor does it only apply to a few Bible verses. A full account of the Bible's inaccuracies would likely require a book as long as the bible itself, so I shall limit myself to a comparison of two passages from the Old Testament. Ezekiel 18:20 states "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father". Exodus 20:5 states "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation". A visual examination of these two passages demonstrates a clear inconsistency in how a father's iniquity should affect his children. This inconsistency undermines the reliability of the Bible as a whole. On this basis, I would like to momentarily remove the Bible from the discussion altogether. Do you then have any cause to believe that a single monotheistic god exists?<br />Thank you for your time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-44109136332207882012019-01-28T09:53:08.477-08:002019-01-28T09:53:08.477-08:00Hi Anonymous,
It looks like you are mustering an...Hi Anonymous, <br /><br />It looks like you are mustering an attack on a different type of argument. My argument here is not an argument in support of God's existence, rather, it's simply to show that there is no convincing evidence FOR atheism that is adequate to claim "the negation of theism" - which is the definition of atheism. Therefore, atheism is illogical, as opposed to agnosticism. If you support atheism, it's not enough to say that you believe some Bible verses are not historically accurate. That is not convincing. <br /><br /><br />1) With respect to agnosticism, if atheism means, "the negation of theism" and the “denial of God's existence,” and history shows that there is no convincing evidence to demonstrate that theism and God have been negated and denied, then choosing atheism is illogical. Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-2766000089080224832019-01-23T15:27:35.950-08:002019-01-23T15:27:35.950-08:00What would need to be verified is your supposition...What would need to be verified is your supposition that a single monotheistic god exists. Otherwise, monotheism would be as illogical as polytheism. Atheism claims that there is no evidence of divine beings like god, and therefore that it would be illogical to conclude there is one. Furthermore, there is a considerable body of evidence that many parts of the bible are historically inaccurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com