How to respond to those who call God a mass murderer?

[Gorgias]

We can demonstrate that physical damage to a brain and altering the chemicals of a brain will alter emotional states.

No… you can demonstrate that these affect the physical expression of emotion. If I slash a screen at a movie theatre, and as a result, the movie cannot be seen, have I affected the movie itself… or just the experience of watching it at that moment?

That is direct evidence of physical reality based on the evidence presented so far.

If by “physical reality” you mean “expression of an emotion”, sure. But, that gets us back to my questions which, if I recall correctly, you haven’t even attempted to answer.

 

[laylow]

No… you can demonstrate that these affect the physical expression of emotion. If I slash a screen at a movie theatre, and as a result, the movie cannot be seen, have I affected the movie itself… or just the experience of watching it at that moment?

Creative twist!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

No… you can demonstrate that these affect the physical expression of emotion. If I slash a screen at a movie theatre, and as a result, the movie cannot be seen, have I affected the movie itself… or just the experience of watching it at that moment?

Creative twist!

And yet… still no response.

 

[Sean77]

There really isn’t a whole lot that you can do or say to influence someone who is coming at the subject of God in such a biased manner. Probably the best thing that you can do is be patient and ask some pointed questions to maybe get them out of the mode of attack. Then perhaps you can engage in a meaningful conversation. With regard to the killing in the Old Testament, warfare has always been a part of human history, still is. So it is a bit strange that someone would suddenly look at depictions of warfare in the Bible as somehow paradoxical. It only shows exactly what we have said all along, we live in a fallen and sinful world. The next thing that I would point out is that the narrative portions of the Bible such as Joshua, Judges, etc., are just that, they are narratives. They are not meant to moralize. So just because they describe a battle, or some other disturbing event, that does not necessarily mean it is upholding that event as a virtue. Many times the opposite is true. Lastly, with regard to the wars of the Israelites under Moses and Joshua (I am assuming that this is what Bill Maher is referencing), I would look at Deuteronomy 9 with regard to why the Israelites were told to dispossess the Canaanites. First, God had given it to them by promise to Abraham. However, in Deuteronomy 9, God warns Israel it is not because of the righteousness of Israel that has thrust out the Canaanites, but because of their wickedness of the Canaanites that God was giving Israel the promised land. These are a people who sacrificed their children to their gods, instituted sex slavery and prostitution as part of their fertility rites, etc. Something that should give our modern society some pause. In addition, God later warns Israel they will suffer the same fate if they are unfaithful to his covenant. A warning which came true.

 

[Russell_SA]

No… you can demonstrate that these affect the physical expression of emotion. If I slash a screen at a movie theatre, and as a result, the movie cannot be seen, have I affected the movie itself… or just the experience of watching it at that moment?

This analogy doesn’t work for me because it would be better to say that the person is slashing the film itself as far as we can understand it. That is what the evidence points to so far. That we are actually destroying the film, not the screen. Your example is just god of the gaps because you assume there is a difference between the screen and the film but there is no evidence presented that allows you to distinguish between the two. There is no justification for making that distinction. Until there is, that is when you can say there is a screen or film to destroy. Right now, we believe it is the film we are actually cutting. You’re just asserting we are cutting the screen and not the film, but can not demonstrate that there is a difference. The tests all point to the results that we are cutting the film as we understand it. That is what the experts say is the case. And this is just another example of god of the gaps. Invent a new target that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist and say that is the actual source. Well then its emotion generating pixies that are the answer everytime. Because anytime we take the next step in understanding reality and we don’t find emotion generting pixies, science failed again because i just have to keep moving the goal post back and say, its the film, not the screen again.

 

[Gorgias]

Your example is just god of the gaps

It’s always embarrassing having to explain to a non-believer what “god of the gaps” really means.

I’ll give you a chance to research it and then come back and re-characterize your objection properly.

because you assume there is a difference between the screen and the film but there is no evidence presented that allows you to distinguish between the two.

My argument is a philosophical / metaphysical one, not an empirical one.

You’re just asserting we are cutting the screen and not the film, but can not demonstrate that there is a difference.

Nor can you – not conclusively, that is. You can show correlation, but not causation.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Zzzzzzt - BAM!!!

 

[Russell_SA]

It’s always embarrassing having to explain to a non-believer what “god of the gaps” really means.

So explain then where it breaks down for you. Asserting the supernatural as the cause but can not demonstrate the supernatural exists in reality at all is god of the gaps to me.

My argument is a philosophical / metaphysical one, not an empirical one.

Nice to know, but you are concluding something being apart of reality that can not be demonstrated to exist in reality. Just like comic book characters. Internally logically consistent but can not be demonstrated to exist. If all you need to believe something exists in reality is defining it into existence, fine for you. Doesn’t work for me.

Nor can you – not conclusively, that is. You can show correlation, but not causation.

Until you can demonstrate there is a difference between the film and the screen, the current justified position is that the film is the screen until demonstrate to be different. Just asserting it does not make it so.
Seems we’re at an impass. Your world view would make spiderman real since its internally logically consistent but not verifiable in reality. Mine would withhold that conclusion till spiderman actually is demonstrated to exist because reality supercedes our logical conclusions since we can be wrong in our logic because we don’t know everything about reality. That is how we can tell the difference between medicine and a huckster. Yours falls for the huckster more often than mine ever will.

 

[Gorgias]

So explain then where it breaks down for you. Asserting the supernatural as the cause but can not demonstrate the supernatural exists in reality at all is god of the gaps to me.

I’m not asserting “supernatural”, but rather, merely the “non-physical”. Souls are natural.

So, yeah… not “god of the gaps.”

Nice to know, but you are concluding something being apart of reality that can not be demonstrated to exist in reality.

“that can not be demonstrated empirically to exist in reality”.

There ya go… fixed that for ya. You’re welcome.

Just asserting it does not make it so.

In much the way that your assertions – which are unproven, let alone which do not prove causality – do not make it so.

That is how we can tell the difference between medicine and a huckster.

Exactly. Hucksters make claims about empirical reality that they can’t prove. Just like… well… you do.