Let me begin by paraphrasing Ludwig Feuerbach: "Yahweh has not created the Jews, but the Jews created Yahweh." I will prove that this is the case, in that the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the bible by Jews and Christians came from them, and are not based on the dispositions of an actual entity.
To "ascribe" something means to credit or assign, as to a cause or source; attribute; impute.
For example, the alphabet is usually ascribed to the Phoenicians. This however, does not necessarily mean that the Phoenicians are responsible for developing the alphabet, it just means that it has been ascribed to them as they are the most likely group to have first developed an alphabet. Another example would be ascribing the property of "brittleness" to chalk. We know this to be true, as we have experienced the brittleness of chalk.
Now let us examine the case of the Jews and Yahweh. Is their description of the attributes of Yahweh based on an actual entity with the attributes ascribed? In other words, is there an actual entity named Yahweh with the attributes ascribed to him by the Jews? Just as in the examples stated above, ascribed attributes do not necessarily mean that they are actual and real, based on an actual cause or source. I will prove using the best explanation argument, that they are not.
Let us assume for the sake or argument that the attributes ascribed to Yahweh are as stated in the bible by Jews and Christians. In the OT he is described as an angry, vengeful, jealous god, whose love is conditional to obeying his laws and commandments. In the NT, Yahweh is described as all-loving, and all-good.
I do not go just by definition, but by arguments as well. Problems with the attribute theory arise when we apply scripture to the Christian god. For example, let's assume what the bible, Tom Gilson and other Christians say is true, in that Yahweh/Jesus is love. The logic below tells us that he could not have the ascribed attributes of love and jealousy. Although the Jews and Christians ascribe the attribute of "love" to their god, the scriptures themselves make it clear that god is NOT love:
"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," Exodus 20:5
In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:
IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous. Therefore god is NOT love.
The above illustrates clearly that the bible is contradictory, and inconsistent, and Yahweh cannot have the attributes of love and jealousy ascribed to him, as according to the bible, they are inconsistent and contradictory, or it leads to absurdity that Christians must accept the fact that the bible is wrong as the definition of love that I cited above comes from the bible!! Therefore, the best explanation is that the Jews ascribed the attributes to their god that they wanted him to have, or, the Bible is wrong!
A similar problem exists for ascribing the attribute of being "all good" to Yahweh, which I have already proven in the following post: Christian Ethics Exposed
I reiterate my conclusion, "Yahweh has not created the Jews, but the Jews created Yahweh," or the bible is wrong, and the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the bible by Jews and Christians came from them, and are not based on the dispositions of an actual entity. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS FALSE! Otherwise, the Christian claim that Yahweh is "all-loving" is false, as he was jealous, and he can't be all-loving and jealous at the same time. Ahhhhh.......so either way, the bible is wrong!
To "ascribe" something means to credit or assign, as to a cause or source; attribute; impute.
For example, the alphabet is usually ascribed to the Phoenicians. This however, does not necessarily mean that the Phoenicians are responsible for developing the alphabet, it just means that it has been ascribed to them as they are the most likely group to have first developed an alphabet. Another example would be ascribing the property of "brittleness" to chalk. We know this to be true, as we have experienced the brittleness of chalk.
Now let us examine the case of the Jews and Yahweh. Is their description of the attributes of Yahweh based on an actual entity with the attributes ascribed? In other words, is there an actual entity named Yahweh with the attributes ascribed to him by the Jews? Just as in the examples stated above, ascribed attributes do not necessarily mean that they are actual and real, based on an actual cause or source. I will prove using the best explanation argument, that they are not.
Let us assume for the sake or argument that the attributes ascribed to Yahweh are as stated in the bible by Jews and Christians. In the OT he is described as an angry, vengeful, jealous god, whose love is conditional to obeying his laws and commandments. In the NT, Yahweh is described as all-loving, and all-good.
I do not go just by definition, but by arguments as well. Problems with the attribute theory arise when we apply scripture to the Christian god. For example, let's assume what the bible, Tom Gilson and other Christians say is true, in that Yahweh/Jesus is love. The logic below tells us that he could not have the ascribed attributes of love and jealousy. Although the Jews and Christians ascribe the attribute of "love" to their god, the scriptures themselves make it clear that god is NOT love:
"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," Exodus 20:5
In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:
IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous. Therefore god is NOT love.
The above illustrates clearly that the bible is contradictory, and inconsistent, and Yahweh cannot have the attributes of love and jealousy ascribed to him, as according to the bible, they are inconsistent and contradictory, or it leads to absurdity that Christians must accept the fact that the bible is wrong as the definition of love that I cited above comes from the bible!! Therefore, the best explanation is that the Jews ascribed the attributes to their god that they wanted him to have, or, the Bible is wrong!
A similar problem exists for ascribing the attribute of being "all good" to Yahweh, which I have already proven in the following post: Christian Ethics Exposed
I reiterate my conclusion, "Yahweh has not created the Jews, but the Jews created Yahweh," or the bible is wrong, and the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the bible by Jews and Christians came from them, and are not based on the dispositions of an actual entity. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS FALSE! Otherwise, the Christian claim that Yahweh is "all-loving" is false, as he was jealous, and he can't be all-loving and jealous at the same time. Ahhhhh.......so either way, the bible is wrong!
6 comments:
If my wife runs out on me with another man, and I am jealous, then that proves I do not love her? Your first premise is obviously false.
You have no conception of the meanings of words. You blew it in your last post with "ascribe." You blew it this time with "jealous" and/or "love." You have blown it frequently, I mean, really often, in the past, both in vocabulary and in the use of logic. I am proud of you, though, for knowing what modus tollens is. Very impressive.
Maybe at some point in your educational future you could study how proper nouns are capitalized in English.
I think this is all the interaction I care to have with someone who so obviously is not who she claims to be---meaning you, "Professor" Cooper. If you are anything but a liar, you give no reason for anyone to believe it.
@ Tom
How sad, that you must revert to ad hominem. You cannot win an argument by merely asserting that someone "blew it." You must show that the argument is not sound and/or not valid. In the case of an inductive argument, we must show that it is weak. You have done neither.
With regards to your attempted counter example of:
"If my wife runs out on me with another man, and I am jealous, then that proves I do not love her?"
Your counter example does not work. I can easily handle your counter example. For as I said, either the bible is correct in that you cannot love and be jealous, or, have it your way--the bible is wrong--and you CAN love and be jealous! See your dilemma, and how absurd your position is.
Remember the verse:
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4
Now, you say that you love your wife, AND you can be jealous, but the passage above from the bible states that love is NOT jealous. So, either the bible is wrong, or you are.
You said my first premise is obviously false. But my first premise is based on biblical passages which state that love cannot be jealous. But if my first premise is false, then again, you are saying that the bible is incorrect! Note, this is not my personal view on the subject, I am merely reiterating what the bible says.
Clearly it is you who does not have a clear grasp of a simple and straightforward argument, which is why you spend so much time attacking me, as opposed to addressing the argument. You are attempt at a counter example was pathetic. I have to use my favorite Buddha quote now...:) I've been using it a lot lately.
"A fool who recognizes his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a
fool who considers himself wise -- that is what one really calls a fool. - Gautama Buddha"
Wow. The depth of your biblical erudition overwhelms me. I yield. There can be no escape from your fundamentalist biblical literalism. If my wife runs off with another man and I'm jealous, that means I didn't love her.
I do find it ironic, though, that people who rail on Christians for being literalist have to prove their points by being more literal than we are. Paul's purpose in 1 Corinthians 13 was poetic, evocative, descriptive. Any fool could see that if she would just read it for what it was. It was never intended to provide an airtight definition of love.
If you employ something that is not intended as an airtight definition in the service of an argument that requires an airtight definition, then you are arguing incompetently and falsely. Your answer to my argument fails on that account.
You are not a professor of philosophy. You give every appearance of being a liar.
As for the ad hominem, you got that wrong too. An ad hominem is a fallacy when it is employed in an argument. I had nothing of the sort in mind. I was employing a description of your apparent character as a reason for not interacting any further with you. I made an exception, as you see.
@ Tom
Let's keep your example straight, and be consistent. Surely you can do that--can't you? Your original example was:
"If my wife runs out on me with another man, and I am jealous, then that proves I do not love her."
This is different from saying,
"If my wife runs off with another man and I'm jealous, that means I didn't love her."
See the difference?
According to the bible, you cannot love someone, and be jealous of them at the same time.
Thank you for pointing out how silly and ridiculous the bible is, and the fact that we ought not take it seriously because it doesn't mean what it says, and we shouldn't take it literally--exactly. Let's use your suggestion, and just take it poetically, or as some Christians say, as hyperbole. For example, when the bible says that Jesus said that "me and my father are one" we should not take that literally according to you, or in the strict philosophical sense of same, but poetically, as in "me and my father think alike." This is the same as me saying "Me and my grandmother are one" as we share the same philosophy--but it does not mean I am my grandmother.
Your claim that:
"If you employ something that is not intended as an airtight definition in the service of an argument that requires an airtight definition, then you are arguing incompetently and falsely. Your answer to my argument fails on that account."
is nonsensical. The Biblical passage is airtight. According to the bible:
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4
According to the above passage, you cannot love someone and be jealous of them at the same time--airtight. Now, perhaps you can love someone and be jealous of them at the same time--that is not my problem--that would be the problem created by the bible writers, and those that claim what the bible writers say is TRUE.
You would like to say that what I said in my first premise was false, but then you would have to say what the bible says is false--an absurd position for you to be in--thus, my Modus Tollens which I constructed, which then led you down the rabbit hole and into my Reductio ad Absurdum.
Now do you see what a good little mouse you have been...:) Or, let me put it a different way. I have no interest in the argument I presented on love, except to show that what the bible says is contradictory, inconsistent and absurd. I gladly give up the argument, and will say the first premise is false, which then would mean WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS FALSE! Otherwise, the Christian claim that Yahweh is "all-loving" is false, as he was jealous, and he can't be all-loving and jealous at the same time. Ahhhhh.......so either way, the bible is wrong!
How could a professor of philosophy not know what an argumentum ad hominem is? I expect that from the new atheist minions, but a professor?
@ EH Munro
With so many interesting arguments to talk about, is that all you can come up with? How sad.
Whether I am a professor or not, has nothing to do with my arguments--stick to the arguments.
In particular, it is abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) which usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack her claim or invalidate her arguments. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the person's character has nothing to do with the logical merits of that person's arguments or assertions.
First of all, since they cannot defeat the arguments, and their arguments are weak, they talk about how I cannot be a professor and so on and so forth. The idea being that my arguments make no sense because I am not a professor! How silly. Now, why else would they do this except for argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps they do not have that in mind, but then why mention it over and over again?--like you-as opposed to sticking to the arguments and coming up with counter arguments. I'll tell you why. Because they do not have any, and my arguments are better.
I reiterate my conclusion, "Yahweh has not created the Jews, but the Jews created Yahweh," or the bible is wrong, and the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the bible by Jews and Christians came from them, and are not based on the dispositions of an actual entity. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS FALSE! Otherwise, the Christian claim that Yahweh is "all-loving" is false, as he was jealous, and he can't be all-loving and jealous at the same time. Ahhhhh.......so either way, the bible is wrong!
Post a Comment