lets actually make a rational argument out of the problem of evil for once

[BJQ87]

Well I wrote this essay in my philosophy of religions class about a week ago, then I joined this forum and read that "there is no God and you know it" post and thought, hey there might be some people who would be interested in a biblical response to the so called "problem of evil"

so here it is.

One of the most influential arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. Suggesting that the definitive, traditional, and biblical view of God is not acceptable. Those who argue this would ask the question “How could an omni-benevolent God allow so much pain and evil to exist in our world?” My goal is to answer this question, through philosophical reason, and using a biblical perspective. Because to defend the traditional western-monotheistic traits of God is to defend the scriptures.
Now if we are going to question the traits of God, then for the purposes of this argument the main thing we must accept about God is that he is the creator of the universe. Because the question above is essentially asking, “Lets assume God is the creator of the universe, then why is there so much pain and evil existent in our world?” So if for the purposes of this argument we are assuming that God is the creator of the universe, then we must also submit to the fact that the things we are questioning are understandably of things that we may not be able to understand. Biblically this same argument is similarly stated in the book of Job-
“Then Job answered the Lord and said: I know that You can do everything, And no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. You asked ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me to know…I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:1-3, 5-6

Of course, we do not need to stop the argument here, although we have the mindset that we may indeed be questioning things we do not understand. This does not mean we cannot come to a clearer understanding of how God could supposedly allow pain and evil in this world yet still be all loving. Although faith is required to believe in God, if reason doesn’t allow us to believe that God is who he is said to be then we probably shouldn’t believe such a thing. But there is plenty of reason, otherwise it is probably true that there would not be millions of people who believe so.
God is said to be all loving, but he is also said to be “all just”. “Free will” is the word explaining how each human is capable of making their own decisions. If we are assuming for the purposes of this argument that God is the creator of the universe, then he is the reason that we have free will. Biblically, God created the earth and it was good, then Adam and Eve disobeyed him out of free will, and because they had listened to Satan. In light of this, it is altogether Satan’s, and humankind’s fault the world contains pain and evil.
But there is still a question yet to be lifted. Why then, since God is omniscient, and omnipotent, does he allow Satan to exist? Well, the life we know is full of decisions. If Satan did not exist then we would not have to decide between good and evil, we would almost be like robots, and without trials and persecutions how can we truly overcome? This is simply life as we know it, and God has purposed it this way, that’s just the way it is. Can you really picture a perfect world? Perhaps a world that has just a small amount of evil in it? The problem there is there has to be difficulties in order for the word “overcome” to exist. There has to be sin in order for the word “grace” to exist.
“They asked his disciples: ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?’ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’ Mark 2:16

And the whole essence of evil is that it spreads, it infects. That if you compromise and give into evil then it will quite possibly affect things that you did not intend for it to affect. You can’t keep evil in a test tube and control it, evil is free, and evil is deviant. Therefore there can be no such thing as a world with just a small amount of evil in it, that would deny evil it’s definitive properties.
One Scripture that relates well to this argument is found in the book of Romans-

“So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Romans 9:13-24

So is the apostle Paul saying here that we do not have free will after all? No, he is saying that in the long run it depends on the grace of God, and this grace was prepared beforehand. Even though destiny may exist, that does not zero out the fact that we are living this moment for a reason, and we have a choice in everything we do.
One last particular Scripture that had caught my eye in regards to this argument is found in the book Proverbs-
“The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits. Commit your works to the Lord, And your thoughts will be established. The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Proverbs 16:1-4

In light of what I’ve covered, we cannot claim that it is impossible that God cannot be omni-benevolent while there is abundant pain and evil in this world. Biblically, when we question God we are not necessarily wrong in doing so, (although in some cases we may be) but it is not always wrong because there is nothing wrong with respectfully wanting to gain understanding. But we need to take notice that we are speaking of things we don’t understand. But of course we don’t stop looking for answers just because we can’t ever fully understand it. Like all aspects of philosophy, we investigate what we do not understand, although it may be impossible to prove, a good understanding is always good to obtain. The main idea of understanding the side of this argument that comes from the biblical perspective, is that God’s grace and love can be accepted by everyone, but not everyone chooses to accept God’s grace. And from a biblical perspective, everyone needs forgiveness for their sins that can only be obtained through Jesus Christ. It may be that there are those who are vessels of God’s mercy, prepared in advance for glory, and that there are vessels of God’s wrath, prepared in advance for destruction. Nevertheless, we are alive and well today, and the choice to accept the gift of grace is still ours.

“Hell is when the last voice you hear is your own.” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer


well thats the end of my essay, i could've went on about a lot of things but it's not supposed to be a very long essay and who wants to do more than the requirement when they could be playing halo or something?

but one more point i'd like to bring up is that it is true we live in a world where there is a lot of suffering...but Jesus Christ is living water pouring out on a dry and thirsty land.

[Iacchus]

If, however, there is none good but God (Matthew 19:16-17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=9)), does that mean man is nothing but evil? And so, out of ignorance -- towards God -- stands in contrast to God?

[Melendwyr]

For a rational argument, we would have give the word 'evil' a well-defined meaning. Frankly, I don't think we can do that very well.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Although faith is required to believe in God, if reason doesn’t allow us to believe that God is who he is said to be then we probably shouldn’t believe such a thing. But there is plenty of reason, otherwise it is probably true that there would not be millions of people who believe so.

This is a logical fallacy.

[BJQ87]

"If, however, there is none good but God (Matthew 19:16-17), does that mean man is nothing but evil?"

Man is subject to judgement because justice demands it, no human being can do enough good things to recieve eternal life. But as it goes onto say in verse 26, "But with God all things are possible." And that is where Jesus dying on the cross comes into play.

[BJQ87]

there is such a thing as faith based on reason nick

[Donks]

there is such a thing as faith based on reason nick
What definition of "faith" are you using? And, even if what you say is true, that does not detract from Nick's point. What you said is a logical fallacy, namely an appeal to popularity.

[BJQ87]

i was getting a point across that the idea of God is not unreasonable or irrational, i brought this about because there are many atheists who compare God to santa clause or a flying spaghetti monster. When in fact, there are no intellectual people these days who believe in either of these things, whereas there are millions of very intellectual and educated people who do believe in God. I said it is impossible to believe in God without faith, that is because it is not proven, not because it is not reasonable.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In what way is faith in God more reasonable than faith in Santa Claus? The appeal to popularity does not count.

~~ Paul

[Donks]

i was getting a point across that the idea of God is not unreasonable or irrational, i brought this about because there are many atheists who compare God to santa clause or a flying spaghetti monster. When in fact, there are no intellectual people these days who believe in either of these things, whereas there are millions of very intellectual and educated people who do believe in God. I said it is impossible to believe in God without faith, that is because it is not proven, not because it is not reasonable.
And again you make an argument from popularity. If you want to make a rational argument, you might want to skip the logical falacies.

[Yahweh]

Therefore there can be no such thing as a world with just a small amount of evil in it, that would deny evil it’s definitive properties.
This cant be true, because if going by the Bible, then Heaven can be called a world where there is no evil.

But there is still a question yet to be lifted. Why then, since God is omniscient, and omnipotent, does he allow Satan to exist? Well, the life we know is full of decisions. If Satan did not exist then we would not have to decide between good and evil, we would almost be like robots, and without trials and persecutions how can we truly overcome? This is simply life as we know it, and God has purposed it this way, that’s just the way it is.
I have a few problems with this:

1) In the above quote, you say that there can be no such thing as a world with a small amount of evil, then you suggest that evil has to do with Satan. Certainly, you should conclude that if God destroyed Satan then this world would be without evil? So, there is a slight contradiction between your earlier statement "Therefore there can be no such thing as a world with just a small amount of evil in it" and you're present statement that blames evil on the existence of Satan - either Satan can be destroyed or he cannot. If Satan can be destroyed, then obvious a world without evil can exist without any inherent contradiction, but if Satan cannot be destroyed then God's omnipotence is refuted.

2) When you say that if there was no choice between good and evil, then we'd be like robots, on what basis would you assume that this is a bad thing? Before Satan entered the picture, the world without good and evil was called Paradise in the Garden of Eden, and the the afterlife where there is no evil is called Paradise in Heaven.

3) I dont think you answer the problem of evil when you say "God has purposed it this way, that’s just the way it is", you may as well say that God works in mysterious ways. When you say that God allows evil for a purpose, its never clear that God's purpose is benevolent, for instance God could allow evil because he likes to see people cry - without explaining what God's purpose is, then you have no legitimate reason why God's purpose should be benevolent or sadistic. And, of course, saying "thats just the way it is" doesnt explain anything, because obviously the universe in God's hands could be very different and we could all be better off for him changing it.

Even though destiny may exist, that does not zero out the fact that we are living this moment for a reason, and we have a choice in everything we do.
So, we have choices, but the effects of our choices are ultimately predetermined before we actually make those choices? That doesnt sound like free will to me. And in fact, if this is true, then it could only mean that every evil act is divinely predetermined as well, so it is possible to say that every evil act performed reduces down to the will of God (how can God still be called omnibenevolent? and how can humans then be judged by their actions?).


A few miscellaneous comments:

BJQ, I read your essay, but I dont think you actually deal with the problem of evil directly or forcefully enough. It appears that you assert that the existence of evil is a result of free will (and Satan), but your essay is deficient when it comes to the problem of natural evils such as the existence of diseases, natural disasters, and pure and simple accidents that take human lives every day contributing to so much suffering - you cannot blame those things on free will or Satan, you have to conclude that God is either callously indifferent to natural evil, that he is unable to stop it, or that he is absent from human affairs (any of these conclusions would refute your essay), or perhaps you can bite the bullet and say that God allows these evils for reasons that can never be explained but are apparently in harmony with his omnibenevolence.

There is also the problem of free will - it isnt exactly an uncontroversial idea on philosophy. But, for the purposes of your essay, it isnt exactly clear why God should put us through a life where pain and evil are all but inescapable when God can simply bring us into existence into Heaven right away. Life appears to be a gratuitous intermission of evil and pain between Heaven (or Hell), to avoid concluding that life is gratuitous we have to assume that living life is a much greater good than going to Heaven directly, but then we also have to assume that free will that lends itself to pain and suffering (and the natural evil that occurs along side it) is a much greater good than a world with no suffering at all (this is hard to reconcile with the idea that there is no evil or suffering in Heaven).

For a rational argument, we would have give the word 'evil' a well-defined meaning. Frankly, I don't think we can do that very well.
For the purposes of the opening post, I think evil can be usefully defined as "things that piss God off" or "things which God disapprove of".

[BJQ87]

To Paul - because Santa Clause is proven not to exist, whereas God is not. I am not saying you should believe that God exists because of the appeal of popularity, i am saying that it is irrational to conclude God to be unreasonable.

To Yahweh, i said that there cannot be a world with a SMALL AMOUNT OF evil in it, whereas it is possible for a perfect world to exist, and if God created humans to be perfect it would be robotic and there would not exist a choice between good and evil.
If your going by the bible then before Adam and Eve fell the world was perfect, but after the fall of humankind our punishment is that the world is no longer perfect, God had made the environment perfect before, now the environment contains natural disasters and diseases.

[Dancing David]

To Paul - because Santa Clause is proven not to exist, whereas God is not. I am not saying you should believe that God exists because of the appeal of popularity, i am saying that it is irrational to conclude God to be unreasonable.

To Yahweh, i said that there cannot be a world with a SMALL AMOUNT OF evil in it, whereas it is possible for a perfect world to exist, and if God created humans to be perfect it would be robotic and there would not exist a choice between good and evil.
If your going by the bible then before Adam and Eve fell the world was perfect, but after the fall of humankind our punishment is that the world is no longer perfect, God had made the environment perfect before, now the environment contains natural disasters and diseases.


THis thread begs so many questions that the mind boggles:

I would like it if you would break your original essay into bullet points, that way I could follow your train of thought, I am afraid that you are arguing from within your set of beliefs and therefore it is hard to follow if i do not have thats set of beliefs. So a logical schematic of your essay would be very useful.

If your going by the bible
I assume that you are aware of the true history of the bible(so-called) it is not the document that Moshsesh used nor is it the one that Jeshuah taught, it has been very heavily edited to conform to the modern monotheistic tradition.
A study of the possible origins of the bible points out some very interesting points, JHVH is NOT the creator of the universe but is in fact a demiurgos, the creator of the universe is reffered to as AL, and the wierd thing is that he is assisted by the 'elohim chiaim' which translates as 'the female spirits of life'. So one of the rrors of the modern church is that while AL may one in his nature, they created a whole lot of lesser beings to create and run the world. (kind of like Timebandits).

The basic premise of the atheist aguement can be diagramed as follows.

1. There is an all knowing, all powerfull being that rules and runs the universe.
2. There are things in the universe like cancer (from the universe) and rape (from humans) or a mental illness that causes someone to rape (universe and human).
3. If god is all knowing then they are aware of the suffering in the universe, is the suffering coninues then is can be concluded that god does not care or does not have the power to end the suffering.

To which you have countered:
Evil is nessecary to free will.

I don't think that you have proved that point.

BTW if you look at the myth of Eden, it is not the Xian myth about 'sin' and 'suffering', it is a myth about how spirits can experience good and evil and god place ADM and EVE into 'theskins of animals'. So it is not a myth of sin, but a myth of incarnation. With the serpent representing the Minoan influence in Cannan.

[BJQ87]

Perhaps God has used masculine terms in making His self-disclosure to humanity even though he is not a male. Our words for God are controlled by the word of God.

are you sure that elohim chaim translates as the female spirits of life as actual plural beings? I am unfamiliar with this claim so maybe you could give me a bit of backbone.

i'd put my essay into bullet points but i've got to go to class right about now so maybe some other time.

[ruach1]

BJQ's essay is obviously an example of faith-based reasoning because it presupposes the existence of God, Satan, and the infallibility of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. It is, by definition, not "rational" because [U]rationalism[U], by definition, does not presuppose the aforementioned realities. Therefore it is impossible to have a "rational" argument with faith-based reasoning, that is, unless you want to mix oil and water and watch them swirl about with no end or progress.

[epepke]

So, basically, tens of thousands of people died horribly in Pakistan last week because, if they hadn't, we'd all be robots!

Nice try, bozo.

[Kopji]

Well kudos! I could have looked a long time and not found better scriptures to refute the notion of 'free will' being taught in the Bible. Seems pretty clear that the teaching is that God made Pharoah the way he was because God needed him that way. You've made a good, serious, case for determinism. Why hang on to the fiction that the Bible contains any teachings about 'free will' in it?

It may be that there are those who are vessels of God’s mercy, prepared in advance for glory, and that there are vessels of God’s wrath, prepared in advance for destruction. Nevertheless, we are alive and well today, and the choice to accept the gift of grace is still ours.

Philosophically, this is a poor closing remark because it ends on a fallacy of distraction called a false dilemma. You offer two choices:

1: vessels of God’s mercy, prepared in advance for glory
or
2: vessels of God’s wrath, prepared in advance for destruction

when
3: 'there is no God'
and
4: 'the Bible is a record of people's ideas and opinions about God'

are just as likely, or in the obvious case of millions people who have actually read the books, more likely.

('scuse me for the highlights, but prepared in advance sounds a lot like some of us were already on the menu.)

[BJQ87]

our choices are not prepared in advance, whereas whether we are a vessel of grace and mercy or of destruction is prepared in advance. according to Paul who we need to note, uses the word "perhaps".

[BJQ87]

epepke, I started out by saying that we are questioning things we dont understand for this reason, and that we cannot conclude in entirety what God's will is because we are not God, but we can however use reason to try and come to a bit of an understanding.

Anyone who builds their house on the rock wont find death all too horrible. Whereas you have something to worry about. Death will come sooner or later, are you going to wait until it comes to tell the truth about your life?

"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will perish."

[Nex]

our choices are not prepared in advance, whereas whether we are a vessel of grace and mercy or of destruction is prepared in advance. according to Paul who we need to note, uses the word "perhaps". (my emphasis)

If our choices aren't prepared in advance, how can an omniscient being like the Judeo-Christian god know the future? Because omniscience entails knowledge of all things-- past, present, and future.

Seems a bit contradictory.

Also, in stating that we are made to be saved or burn, you've very efficiently done away with the problem of free will. Are you Calvinist, by chance? ;)

And BJQ87, welcome to the forum. http://xe0.xanga.com/4bfb41125033214365997/t2306539.gif

[Iacchus]

i was getting a point across that the idea of God is not unreasonable or irrational, i brought this about because there are many atheists who compare God to santa clause or a flying spaghetti monster. When in fact, there are no intellectual people these days who believe in either of these things, whereas there are millions of very intellectual and educated people who do believe in God. I said it is impossible to believe in God without faith, that is because it is not proven, not because it is not reasonable.13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ~ Matthew 16:13-18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=9)
So, how did Peter know, versus the other disciples? Was it just faith alone? And why does Jesus ascribe this to the very foundation upon which He will build His church?

[Odin]

...because Santa Clause is proven not to exist, whereas God is not...
How is Santa Claus proven not to exist?

[Nick Bogaerts]

there is such a thing as faith based on reason nick

Please try to answer what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I am saying, since I am not usually sloppy with my wording. I did not address the truth of your statement, but the argument you put forward for justification; which is fallacious. That millions of people believe something does not make it true; otherwise Christopher Colombus would have fallen off the edge of the world.

If I were to address the issue of faith being based on reason, I would say that reason alone is not sufficient: this I believe has been settled by Immanuel Kant.

[cyborg]

epepke, I started out by saying that we are questioning things we dont understand for this reason, and that we cannot conclude in entirety what God's will is because we are not God, but we can however use reason to try and come to a bit of an understanding.

Earlier you said Santa Claus was ridiculous because intelligent people didn't believe in him. Well intelligent people believe in other gods not named Yahweh.

You should start out by questioning the reasons intelligent people seem to plump for the god that just happens to be dominant in their culture more often than not.

Anyone who builds their house on the rock wont find death all too horrible.

Christianity is not a rock - it is a crutch.

Terribly analogy BTW.

Whereas you have something to worry about. Death will come sooner or later, are you going to wait until it comes to tell the truth about your life?

Just about worried about Yahweh being annoyed at me and sending me to Hell because I didn't suck him and his son off as you are worried about spending eternity in Hades as a shadow of a person because you haven't done anything wothy of being sent to the Elyisium fields.

The difference between you and me is that you've invested in the mental dissonance that allows you to see the first as something that can be rationalised and the second as merely a ludicrous myth.

[cyborg]

That millions of people believe something does not make it true; otherwise Christopher Colombus would have fallen off the edge of the world.

And just because millions of people think that advanced sea-faring nations thought the world was flat doesn't mean it was so :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

This analysis is somewhat redundant, since (by necessity) it repeats what other posters have said in instances where they have been correct. However I thought it might be some use to you.

First argument: that we cannot understand God.

The problem is that this argument proves too much. If it is true you cannot understand God then you cannot know God to be good, know God to be worthy of worship, or in fact know anything about God at all.

Second argument: that evil is the result of human actions.

The problem with this argument is that it is factually incorrect. Humans do not cause leprosy, parasitic worms, earthquakes and so forth.

Third argument: that evil is necessary for good.

The problem with this argument is that it proves too little. Even if evil is necessary, a good God is only consistent with the minimum possible amount of evil and our world has far more evils than seem strictly necessary. If the recent earthquake had not happened, for example, that alone would not make it impossible for us to live good lives. Thus the recent earthquake could have been prevented by God without rendering good impossible.

Fourth argument: that it is a necessary part of evil that it spread and get everywhere.

This argument shares one problem with your second argument. Even if human/moral evil must necessarily be widespread it does not seem that "natural" evil must necessarily be widespread.

Perhaps more importantly, the actual claim that evil must necessarily get everywhere is awfully convenient and is not supported.

Fifth argument: I can't make head or tail of this, sorry. You seem to be saying that evil exists as a deliberate part of God's design, but if this is what you are arguing then it is beside the point. The question is whether you can reconcile a good God with such a design, so merely stating that the design is indeed God's gets you no closer to your desired conclusion.

Conclusion: This just recaps earlier arguments, as it should. So I have no more to say.

Final commentary: The question is whether or not God is evil for deliberately making the land dry and thirsty in the first place.

[BJQ87]

To Iacchus- actually a very good question, this character Simon Peter is known not only in this particular scripture but in many others to be very impulsive and child like. And Jesus said something to the effect of "whoever does not enter the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it" thus it makes sense that Jesus would choose Peter as a rock to build the church upon.

To Odin- thats easy, stay awake long enough and you'll see that the parents are the ones who actually fill the stockings and put the extra presents under the tree.

To nick- i completely agree with you, just because millions of people believe it doesnt make it true, otherwise id have to believe christianity and atheism at the same time, among other things such as islam and buddhism.

When I say the idea of God is reasonable, that is based on the knowledge we have about God. In reality, it is a possibility that God's existence is false, and pehaps in the future God's existence will somehow be proven false, but does that make it any less reasonable at the moment, reason is a basis or cause for some belief, do i not have any basis at the moment? yes i do.

[BJQ87]

to kevin- if you compare evil and good with light and dark it's somewhat easier to understand even though we are speaking of things that (if indeed God does exist) are over our heads.

if the truth is that human beings go thirsty without God's living water, then maybe we shouldn't stray from him. As a part of a song from the newsboys goes- "its all about me me, its all about what i can take, and if that doesnt ring true anymore maybe it was our first mistake."

[Ossai]

BJQ87
Although faith is required to believe in God, if reason doesn’t allow us to believe that God is who he is said to be then we probably shouldn’t believe such a thing. But there is plenty of reason, otherwise it is probably true that there would not be millions of people who believe so.
Appeal to popularity,
Affirming the consequent
Begging the question
Three fallacies in one sentence, not bad.

“Free will” is the word explaining how each human is capable of making their own decisions.
You have stated that you are assuming the standard Christian god. The standard would have the following three attributes; omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient.
Now since omniscient and free will are mutually exclusive. The only entity that could have freewill would be god. Placing the blaming on Satan, Adam, or Eve is like charging the bullet for murder while the person that pulled the trigger walks away.

God is said to be all loving, but he is also said to be “all just”.
Logically, god would also be all evil, all cruel, all malevolent, etc.

There has to be sin in order for the word “grace” to exist.
Another non sequitur.

Well, the life we know is full of decisions. If Satan did not exist then we would not have to decide between good and evil, we would almost be like robots, and without trials and persecutions how can we truly overcome? So in god’s anger… wait, why would god be angry if everything was going according to plan? Again, how could everything not go according to plan? Especially if god is omniscient and omnipotent. How could anything ever not go according to plan?

This is simply life as we know it, and God has purposed it this way, that’s just the way it is. Can you really picture a perfect world? Yes I can imagine a perfect world. Christians apparently imagine it as well, they tend to call it heaven.

In light of what I’ve covered, we cannot claim that it is impossible that God cannot be omni-benevolent while there is abundant pain and evil in this world.
What you’ve covered? You mean your logical fallacies? Sorry, but they do not an argument make.

there is such a thing as faith based on reason nick
No there is not. Faith is belief without (or in opposition to) evidence.

If your faith rests on reason then it can be falsified.

Ossai

[Odin]

To Odin- thats easy, stay awake long enough and you'll see that the parents are the ones who actually fill the stockings and put the extra presents under the tree.

How do you know this is true for every household in the world?

How do you know that it is your parents and not an illusion created by Santa Claus?

How do you know that Santa Claus doesn't deliver the presents to the parents first?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is no "problem of evil". End of story.

[Nick Bogaerts]

And just because millions of people think that advanced sea-faring nations thought the world was flat doesn't mean it was so :)

Analogies are like women: those which are true are not beautiful; and those which are beautiful are not true.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
To Paul - because Santa Clause is proven not to exist, whereas God is not.
Where, when, and how was Santa Clause proven not to exist?

I am not saying you should believe that God exists because of the appeal of popularity, i am saying that it is irrational to conclude God to be unreasonable.
Yet the appeal to popularity is your entire argument. You have yet to give any reason or evidence in support of the existence of god.

To Yahweh, i said that there cannot be a world with a SMALL AMOUNT OF evil in it, whereas it is possible for a perfect world to exist, and if God created humans to be perfect it would be robotic and there would not exist a choice between good and evil.

No one in heaven has freewill.

If your going by the bible then before Adam and Eve fell the world was perfect, but after the fall of humankind our punishment is that the world is no longer perfect, God had made the environment perfect before, now the environment contains natural disasters and diseases.
Adam and Eve did not have freewill. God caused them to disobey. God punished them and the rest of the world for something god did.

our choices are not prepared in advance, whereas whether we are a vessel of grace and mercy or of destruction is prepared in advance. according to Paul who we need to note, uses the word "perhaps".
Sigh, how about you go actually read the bible. It teaches predestination (the opposite of free will) numerous times.

Ossai

[Nex]

Analogies are like women: those which are true are not beautiful; and those which are beautiful are not true.
Beautiful analogy there, Nick. :p

[ruach1]

Sigh, how about you go actually read the bible. It teaches predestination (the opposite of free will) numerous times.

Ossai[/QUOTE]

The Bible is a library of numerous different types of writings by numerous different men collected over thousands of years. The Bible doesn't teach just one theological point of view, one social point of view, one political point of view, one metaphysical schema etc. because it has such a multiplicity of authorship. Yes, you can build a case for predestination from it. You can build an equally good case for a limited type of freewill. In fact, you can build a case for just about anything if you know where to look and know what sections of the Bible to ignore. This is one reason why the Bible retains the power to effect and attract the human race: its multi-faceted nature reflects the multiple nature of reality inherent in the universe as humans perceive it. If you think God is someone to be feared, there's something in the Bible for you. If you think God is someone to be loved, there's something in the Bible for you. If you think the world is inherently good or inherently bad, there is something in the Bible for either side. If you lean toward Hobbes or Locke, Kierkegarrd or Descartes, there is enough biblical justification for these and other points of view. Call this a life-affirming strength, call it a life-denying weakness, call it what you will, there is, in the Bible, a unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity which is quite amazing in its power to effect and attract people of all types in all times.

The miracle (if you can call it that) is that so many people over time sense or think they sense the unity of the biblical message when there is clearly a plurality of messages (some seemingly contradictory) to the biblical content. Whether people are just being lazy and not reading the whole Bible or there is within the Bible/reader interface a dynamic wherein a reader or listener can sense the unity within the plurality of the Biblical message, we really cannot conclude definitively. However, what cannot be denied is the fact that the Bible still has the power to attract and effect--at all levels of society and all peoples--believers or otherwise.

[Ossai]

ruach1
The Bible is a library of numerous different types of writings by numerous different men collected over thousands of years. The Bible doesn't teach just one theological point of view, one social point of view, one political point of view, one metaphysical schema etc. because it has such a multiplicity of authorship.
I already know that. I was trying to somehow coerce BJQ87 into an acknowledgement of it as well.

Ossai

[BJQ87]

hey nexxus-
"If our choices aren't prepared in advance, how can an omniscient being like the Judeo-Christian god know the future? Because omniscience entails knowledge of all things-- past, present, and future.

Seems a bit contradictory.

Also, in stating that we are made to be saved or burn, you've very efficiently done away with the problem of free will. Are you Calvinist, by chance?"

first off, i dont really affiliate myself with any particular group, maybe just a "christian" or even better a "christ follower", but whatever beliefs i argue outside of my relationship with Christ doesnt have nearly the same authority over me or what i put my trust in.

yea it seems a bit contradictory, though i dont think its safe to conclude it as contradictory in reality. If i have a bowl of fruit loops does it really matter whether God knows if im gonna eat it or not? its still my decision really, maybe if your a human trying to look at it from God's point of view then you come to that conclusion, but i doubt any of us can truly do that as God IS as you said all knowing and all seeing etc. we dont take everything into consideration whereas God does (by definition)

[cyborg]

If i have a bowl of fruit loops does it really matter whether God knows if im gonna eat it or not?

Not unless eating a bowl of Fruit Loops was instrumental to your god's supposed plans. Since you have a belief system which incorporates an 'end times' for which certain things MUST happen it must also follow that we cannot stop them from happening - violating free-will.

[Ryokan]

If your going by the bible then before Adam and Eve fell the world was perfect, but after the fall of humankind our punishment is that the world is no longer perfect, God had made the environment perfect before, now the environment contains natural disasters and diseases.

But according to you, since there was no evil in Eden, Adam and Eve didn't have free will.

So why was humankind punished?

Indeed, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, they didn't know good and evil at all. They gained that knowledge from the fruit, after the fact.

So why was humankind punished?

Also, you originally wrote :

One of the most influential arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil.

I would say the most influental argument is the lack of evidence :p

[Ossai]

BJQ87
yea it seems a bit contradictory, though i dont think its safe to conclude it as contradictory in reality. As opposed to Planet X

If i have a bowl of fruit loops does it really matter whether God knows if im gonna eat it or not? You’re saying that god doesn’t really have to be omniscient, which would also remove the omnipotent.

its still my decision really,
If god is omniscient then, no it’s not your decision. At best you would have the illusion of choice.

maybe if your a human trying to look at it from God's point of view then you come to that conclusion, but i doubt any of us can truly do that as God IS as you said all knowing and all seeing etc. we dont take everything into consideration whereas God does (by definition)
The conclusion I come to is: The supernatural is a needless addition.
The conclusion you apparently come to is God is omnipotent, but not really. :mysteryma

Ossai

[Nex]

[...]
yea it seems a bit contradictory, though i dont think its safe to conclude it as contradictory in reality. If i have a bowl of fruit loops does it really matter whether God knows if im gonna eat it or not? its still my decision really, maybe if your a human trying to look at it from God's point of view then you come to that conclusion, but i doubt any of us can truly do that as God IS as you said all knowing and all seeing etc. we dont take everything into consideration whereas God does (by definition) (my emphasis added)

Yes, it does matter if god knows whether you're having fruit loops or not.

Do you see where your own beliefs contradict themselves? That's called cognitive dissonance, something which I have brought up to you before.

[BJQ87]

Ossai- "If i have a bowl of fruit loops does it really matter whether God knows if im gonna eat it or not?

You’re saying that god doesn’t really have to be omniscient, which would also remove the omnipotent."

im saying i dont think it really matters to us and the daily choices we make, im not saying that God is not omniscient, im saying theoretically that he is omiscient but that doesnt zero out our ability to make our own decisions. In this scenario (theoretically) God knows that i am indeed going to eat the fruitloops, our conclusion is that therefore i dont have free will. But in fact it was my choice, even though God knew i was going to make it. What you have to understand is that if your arguing from my point of view then your attempting to come up with a theoretical solution, because biblically it does not give any flat out answer.

If we knew all the secrets and aspects of life then God wouldnt be so mysterious and almighty. Perhaps God has purposed it this way, maybe many scientists are so confused as to how you come up with a solution to how the universe was created for a reason. If everyone knew for a fact that God existed then maybe God's purpose would be thwarted. Like i previously stated in a response to dancing david "Our words for God are controlled by the word of God."

[Nex]

If we knew all the secrets and aspects of life then God wouldnt be so mysterious and almighty. Perhaps God has purposed it this way, maybe many scientists are so confused as to how you come up with a solution to how the universe was created for a reason. If everyone knew for a fact that God existed then maybe God's purpose would be thwarted. Like i previously stated in a response to dancing david "Our words for God are controlled by the word of God." Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe. And maybe god is really the Great IPU (bbhh!). Perhaps god was killed by the devil a thousand years ago and we just haven't gotten the memo. Maybe there never was a god at all.

We could run in this particular circle for years. "Maybes" go nowhere.

[BJQ87]

the problem of evil is trying to state that the traditional western-monotheistic description of God cannot be possible, if you are (which it sounds like in the post you just gave) actually consenting to my idea that these are possible explainations and that there may indeed be other possible explainations then your also consenting that it is also possible that the "problem of evil" argument's conclusion is false.

[BJQ87]

because that was the whole purpose of this essay, to come to the conclusion that the conclusion (at least the conclusion as i saw it) made in the problem of evil argument may be false and is not proven. I obviously wasnt trying to convert people by putting this essay up here. It does indeed require faith to beleive in God, philosophical reason (based on the "evidence" at hand at the moment) cannot bring us to a definite conclusion of whether God exists or not. Refer back to the last comment i gave you on your site i think you know what im getting at. Thats the difference with your belief and mine, yours doesnt answer questions that surpass reason, such as "why is there something rather than nothing at all"

[Marquis de Carabas]

BJQ,

Given your belief that some amount of suffering and evil is necessary so that "grace" may exist, do you hold that this world contains the least possible amount of evil and suffering?

[BJQ87]

no, especially right about now with all the terrorism. On one hand you have terrorists training indonesian tsunami survivors to be suicide bombers, and on the other you have people who demonstrate the spirit of Jesus Christ. I dont know, as more than a simplistic incomplete theory, (and i hold that it is so because i started out my argument saying that i may be speaking about things that we dont understand, but that im still trying to reason anyways) that evil and suffering is necessary for grace to exist. But I do know that these things do exist.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, then, God could have created a world with less suffering, but still with sufficient suffering to allow the existence of grace?

[epepke]

epepke, I started out by saying that we are questioning things we dont understand for this reason, and that we cannot conclude in entirety what God's will is because we are not God, but we can however use reason to try and come to a bit of an understanding.

Anyone who builds their house on the rock wont find death all too horrible. Whereas you have something to worry about. Death will come sooner or later, are you going to wait until it comes to tell the truth about your life?

"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will perish."

You're dodging, and I hope that you are intelligent enough to realize it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

to kevin- if you compare evil and good with light and dark it's somewhat easier to understand even though we are speaking of things that (if indeed God does exist) are over our heads.


There are two problems here.

The first is that you are trying to have it both ways when it comes to knowing things about God. You want to have the nature of God be unknowable when it suits you, so you can avoid apparent contradictions by appealing to that unknowability, but you also want to claim some aspects of the nature of God are knowable (and that you know them) when it suits you.

The other is that you seem to be assuming some convenient and unusual things about "evil", which you are having trouble either stating clearly or justifying. You seem to want to endow, for example, earthquakes as being somehow necessary because "they are like light and dark" or because "it's the nature of evil". If there is a coherent argument hiding in here it is not at all clear to me what it is.


if the truth is that human beings go thirsty without God's living water, then maybe we shouldn't stray from him. As a part of a song from the newsboys goes- "its all about me me, its all about what i can take, and if that doesnt ring true anymore maybe it was our first mistake."

This is not so much an argument that shows that God is good, as an argument that shows that whether or not God is good we had better do what we are told. (Assuming you accept all the premises of the argument of course, which I do not but which I assume you do).

This is neither here nor there if we are discussing the question of whether the idea of a good, omniscient, omnipotent deity is consistent with a world which has evil in it. I do not think anyone claims that the idea of an evil, omniscient, omnipotent deity is inconsistent with a world which has evil in it. The opposite, if anything.

[BJQ87]

"The first is that you are trying to have it both ways when it comes to knowing things about God. You want to have the nature of God be unknowable when it suits you, so you can avoid apparent contradictions by appealing to that unknowability, but you also want to claim some aspects of the nature of God are knowable (and that you know them) when it suits you."

Actually the nature of the traditional western-monotheistic God is knowable by what the bible has revealed. If the bible hasnt revealed it, or evidence based on reality hasnt revealed it, then it is theory.

Marquis de Carabas- "So, then, God could have created a world with less suffering, but still with sufficient suffering to allow the existence of grace?"

putting yourself in God's shoes, i dont think any of us are capable of doing that.

Me- "I dont know, as more than a simplistic incomplete theory, (and i hold that it is so because i started out my argument saying that i may be speaking about things that we dont understand, but that im still trying to reason anyways) that evil and suffering is necessary for grace to exist. But I do know that these things do exist."

[Kopji]

our choices are not prepared in advance
You are missing the point. What does it matter what choices we make if no matter what we are we serve God's will? Could Judas ever be anything other than a betrayer? Could Pharaoh be anything other than Moses's foil?

whereas whether we are a vessel of grace and mercy or of destruction is prepared in advance.
Is God's purpose in you to bring unbelievers to Christ, or is his purpose to have you fail? How do you know? Tell us why anything we do or say matters to God.

according to Paul who we need to note, uses the word "perhaps".
Verse please? I do not recall Paul ever hedging his message with words like 'maybe' or 'perhaps'. Agree or disagree with Paul, but the guy had enough conviction to yank up a tiny dying Jewish sect and launch it for over 2000 years.

[stamenflicker]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1218429#p1218429)
In what way is faith in God more reasonable than faith in Santa Claus? The appeal to popularity does not count.

The appeal to popularity does count in any ideology. The economy is an idealogy, completely un-empirical that it just so happens most people believe in. The "buy in" (pun intended) or utility of the ideology brings it to a level that is empirically measurable. This utility also accounts for the way in which 80% or more of the world's population organizes their day. To assert that the belief in the generally accepted economy of supply and demand is no different than the belief in a Santa Claus based economy is ridiculous.

Further, when people enter the age of reason they stop believing in Santa Claus. This same transition to reason does not profoundly effect the numbers of people believing in a god. So if you plan to assert they are the same thing, or even submit a hypothesis regarding this claim, I'd suspect you'd need evidence to back this up.

While the ideology of god is a far cry from demonstrating his existence, the utility of god when compared to equally unempirical ideologies such as the economy renders any such comparison to an IPU or Santa Claus as logically unsound.

Flick

[BJQ87]

kopji- i made a mistake, idk what i was thinking my brain was probably going in too many directions at the time, Paul does not use the word perhaps, he does however say "What if", which is much like saying perhaps -"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prpared for destruction....." Romans 9:22

i havent found anywhere in the bible where it says our specific choices (besides being a vessel of wrath or of mercy by recieving mercy) are not free will. Maybe in reality we dont have free will, but if that is true, then at the very least God has made it seem to our hearts that we have free will. I'm going to type this message to you right now, and it sure seems in this case like i'm making the cognitive choices of what to write on my own free will.

God loves justice, that is one of many reasons i believe anything you do or say matters to God. Another reason is God gave us a soul, unlike the animals, and we are his creation, he tests and weighs the spirits, if God is the supreme judge then he cares what we do. Because that is what a judge does, cares about what we do.

[Kopji]

kopji- i made a mistake, idk what i was thinking my brain was probably going in too many directions at the time, Paul does not use the word perhaps, he does however say "What if", which is much like saying perhaps -"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prpared for destruction....." Romans 9:22
I think the ability to admit a mistake is a fine character trait. Paul seems to be using a rhetorical technique to make his point.

Here's how I'd understand what Paul has said:
God made darkness, and allows it to exist in order that we might know the light. Paul's teaching is that God has created all things, and I do not see an escape from the idea that 'evil' is the way it is because it serves God's will to be that way. God needs evil or we would not be able to perceive his glory...
I'll return to this idea later...

i havent found anywhere in the bible where it says our specific choices (besides being a vessel of wrath or of mercy by recieving mercy) are not free will. Maybe in reality we dont have free will, but if that is true, then at the very least God has made it seem to our hearts that we have free will. I'm going to type this message to you right now, and it sure seems in this case like i'm making the cognitive choices of what to write on my own free will.


Psalm 139
(snips)
4 ...Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 ...You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

16...your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.


God loves justice, that is one of many reasons i believe anything you do or say matters to God.

This is why I don't really understand. Justice implies that some are rewarded and some are not. The judgment criteria is faith, yet God claims that some of the unfaithful are intentionally that way. If the claim is that God saves them by grace, that's ok but seems like a circular argument that says whatever God does is just.

: "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable) - Augustine


Another reason is God gave us a soul, unlike the animals, and we are his creation, he tests and weighs the spirits, if God is the supreme judge then he cares what we do. Because that is what a judge does, cares about what we do.
You're losing me there. Sort of a presumptive overload. For the sake of discussion, let me try this idea with you - God made the animals and they are his creation. They act by their nature and can be nothing but how God made them. But humans are exactly the same - that's what Paul is saying in Romans.

Yet for us, God saves some and destroys some - for being the way he made us. Where is the justice in this?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually the nature of the traditional western-monotheistic God is knowable by what the bible has revealed. If the bible hasnt revealed it, or evidence based on reality hasnt revealed it, then it is theory.

God is good, because the Bible says God is good, and a good God would not lie to us?

Do you see the problem? Logically, you need a reason to believe that God is good before you have a reason to believe that the Bible represents God accurately. If the question at hand is whether God is really omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then you can't just help yourself to the assumption that the Bible is authoritative, because if God is not good or is not omniscient or is not omnipotent then statements made in the Bible might not be true.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
im saying i dont think it really matters to us and the daily choices we make, im not saying that God is not omniscient, im saying theoretically that he is omiscient but that doesnt zero out our ability to make our own decisions.
It may not matter to us puny humans, but it apparently matters a great deal to your god. After all he was the one that put all the dietary restrictions into place.

In this scenario (theoretically) God knows that i am indeed going to eat the fruitloops, our conclusion is that therefore i dont have free will. But in fact it was my choice, even though God knew i was going to make it. What you have to understand is that if your arguing from my point of view then your attempting to come up with a theoretical solution, because biblically it does not give any flat out answer.
Wrong on both counts.
God foreknows you will eat the fruit loops. There is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent yourself from eating the fruit loops. You have the illusion of choice.

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Romans 9:11-22 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

Ephesians 1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
the problem of evil is trying to state that the traditional western-monotheistic description of God cannot be possible, if you are (which it sounds like in the post you just gave) actually consenting to my idea that these are possible explainations and that there may indeed be other possible explainations then your also consenting that it is also possible that the "problem of evil" argument's conclusion is false.
Nope.
The typical western god is:
Omniscient which nicely negates freewill
Omnipotent which makes god the only entity with freewill in the deterministic universe created by god. Therefore god is responsible for all evil as well as good. People’s choices are illusionary and meaningless because god determined whom would go to heaven or hell before they were even born, yet forces us to go through this life with it’s vast amounts of suffering, also ultimately caused by god, so that god could punish some people for eternity because of what he made them do. Omni-benevolent not even close.

Ossai

[Marquis de Carabas]

Marquis de Carabas- "So, then, God could have created a world with less suffering, but still with sufficient suffering to allow the existence of grace?"

putting yourself in God's shoes, i dont think any of us are capable of doing that.
There's no need to put on God's stinky shoes. It's simple logic. Which of the following statements do you disagree with:

1) Suffering is necessary that grace may exist
2) A world with less suffering--though still enough to allow the existence of grace--than the present world would be possible
3) God is omnipotent, therefore able to bring into existence a world as described in (2)
4) God brought the present world into existence

[BJQ87]

and who has the power to make it in reality an illusion or not? certainly a contingent being such as yourself cannot come to that conclusion as more than a mere belief.

to kopji- verse 6 of psalm 139 "such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it."

also relating to this idea, psalm 131- "Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me."

therefore i call it my choice when i eat my fruit loops, unless i decide to concern myself with great matters or things too profound for me.

[BJQ87]

"God is good, because the Bible says God is good, and a good God would not lie to us?

Do you see the problem? Logically, you need a reason to believe that God is good before you have a reason to believe that the Bible represents God accurately. If the question at hand is whether God is really omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then you can't just help yourself to the assumption that the Bible is authoritative, because if God is not good or is not omniscient or is not omnipotent then statements made in the Bible might not be true."


this is also adressing Marquis De Carabas....much like i said to Ossai, a contingent being does not have any authority of reason in comparison to a non-contingent being who created everything we know to be reality.

[cyborg]

therefore i call it my choice when i eat my fruit loops, unless i decide to concern myself with great matters or things too profound for me.

So you have the free-will to make the inconsequential decisions in your life.

How wonderful.

a contingent being does not have any authority of reason in comparison to a non-contingent being who created everything we know to be reality.

In other words your god can do whatever he damn well likes and you'll whore yourself to it all the same.

[Marquis de Carabas]

this is also adressing Marquis De Carabas....much like i said to Ossai, a contingent being does not have any authority of reason in comparison to a non-contingent being who created everything we know to be reality.
Funny how you want to "actually make a rational argument" but then eschew reason when it controverts your position.

So which statement was it you disagreed with?

[billydkid]

"One of the most influential arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. "

I don't agree with this statement at all. The concept of evil is fundamental to hebrew/christian/muslim understanding of God. The whole thing is good versus evil, nature versus god, god versus man. Western religion is all about the duality of good and evil.

[Jesus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1218429#p1218429)


The appeal to popularity does count in any ideology. The economy is an idealogy, completely un-empirical that it just so happens most people believe in. The "buy in" (pun intended) or utility of the ideology brings it to a level that is empirically measurable. This utility also accounts for the way in which 80% or more of the world's population organizes their day. To assert that the belief in the generally accepted economy of supply and demand is no different than the belief in a Santa Claus based economy is ridiculous.

Further, when people enter the age of reason they stop believing in Santa Claus. This same transition to reason does not profoundly effect the numbers of people believing in a god. So if you plan to assert they are the same thing, or even submit a hypothesis regarding this claim, I'd suspect you'd need evidence to back this up.

While the ideology of god is a far cry from demonstrating his existence, the utility of god when compared to equally unempirical ideologies such as the economy renders any such comparison to an IPU or Santa Claus as logically unsound.

FlickJust because a belief affects the lives of many people, doesn't mean it's true. Popular belief in god affects many people worldwide, but it provides no evidence that any god exists.

[BJQ87]

its one of the most influential arguments, meaning more people are swayed by this argument than most other arguments supporting atheism. I didnt say its right, i said its one of the most influential.

"So you have the free-will to make the inconsequential decisions in your life.

How wonderful"

that was just an example, that scripture applies to any decision i make in my life.

"In other words your god can do whatever he damn well likes and you'll whore yourself to it all the same."

in other words you as a contingent being dont have any authoritive place to say what is truth and justice and what is not when concerning the "problem of evil". Because it is, quite simply, over your head. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

to kopji- verse 6 of psalm 139 "such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it."

also relating to this idea, psalm 131- "Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me."


so since i have based my essay on biblical perspective, i now come to the realisation that (by rule of biblical perspective) my whole essay after my first couple paragraphs is to be regaurded as foolish for concerning itself with great matters or things too profound for me. So we go back to defending the problem of evil by saying "God works in mysterious ways". It is sufficient reason because we do know that if God created the universe that he does in fact work in mysterious ways, because life itself is a very great mystery to us.

[Skeptical Greg]

"One of the most influential arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. "

I don't agree with this statement at all. The concept of evil is fundamental to hebrew/christian/muslim understanding of God. The whole thing is good versus evil, nature versus god, god versus man. Western religion is all about the duality of good and evil.But if God was who they say he is, evil would not be a problem.

It exists because God allows it to, or is powerless against it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

in other words you as a contingent being dont have any authoritive place to say what is truth and justice and what is not when concerning the "problem of evil". Because it is, quite simply, over your head. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Then you, as well, are a contingent being, not fit to evaluate the problem of evil. As such, you must accept it could be true that the problem of evil disproves the existence of (your conception) of God.

Um, why did you start this thread again?

[BJQ87]

To "Jesus"- your saying that it doesnt give us any evidence, this is true, we're not arguing that, as stamenflicker said The appeal to popularity does count in any ideology just because it counts doesnt mean its based on evidence.

everyone knows that a belief in God is more reasonable than IPU or santa claus. at least everyone who's brain hasnt been corrupted by philosophy!

[Marquis de Carabas]

everyone knows that a belief in God is more reasonable than IPU or santa claus. at least everyone who's brain hasnt been corrupted by philosophy!
Reason it out for us corrupts, then, please.

[BJQ87]

just because it counts doesnt mean its based on evidence.


excuse me, i should reword that to lessen confusion- doesnt mean it is evidence, it may be based on evidence. (but is more than often based on some kind of reason)

[BJQ87]

theres simply more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in Santa Clause or IPU. One reason would be that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, whereas no one in this world has a personal relationship with Santa Claus or IPU. If you want to tell me or find someone else that is going to try and tell me that they have a personal relationship with Santa or IPU then I must choose whether i think that testimony to have any veridical value, and if i do then i decide what measure of veridical value to believe in.

There are many reasons a whole lot more people believe my testimony to be of more veridical value than anyone who testifies to have a personal relationship with Santa. One reason is that Jesus is said to be able to forgive your sins and change your life around, and people see that my life is changed and that I put my trust in Jesus Christ and in light of that they judge what veridical value to give my testimony. The thing that gets most people to give my testimony some veridical value is the fact that millions of people testify to this same thing. See people dont testify that Santa does what he is said to do, and that is to come down your chimney and take off on his sleigh with flying reindeer. Whereas many people do testify that Jesus does what he is said to do. It's important that we differentiate between what is testimony and what is popular appeal based on no reason at all.

[Odin]

theres simply more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in Santa Clause or IPU. One reason would be that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, whereas no one in this world has a personal relationship with Santa Claus or IPU. If you want to tell me or find someone else that is going to try and tell me that they have a personal relationship with Santa or IPU then I must choose whether i think that testimony to have any veridical value, and if i do then i decide what measure of veridical value to believe in.

There are many reasons a whole lot more people believe my testimony to be of more veridical value than anyone who testifies to have a personal relationship with Santa. One reason is that Jesus is said to be able to forgive your sins and change your life around, and people see that my life is changed and that I put my trust in Jesus Christ and in light of that they judge what veridical value to give my testimony. The thing that gets most people to give my testimony some veridical value is the fact that millions of people testify to this same thing. See people dont testify that Santa does what he is said to do, and that is to come down your chimney and take off on his sleigh with flying reindeer. Whereas many people do testify that Jesus does what he is said to do. It's important that we differentiate between what is testimony and what is popular appeal based on no reason at all.
Ok, allowing your repeated appeals to popularity and your blasphemy against the IPU (pbuh)-

What about all those who once believed in Zeus, or Odin or any of the many other gods (and who still do)?
What about scientology which has something like 500,000 followers (not sure how trustworthy they are on that though) In a tiny fraction of the time that Christianity has existed?
What about Islam, which has at least a billion followers?

[Melendwyr]

theres simply more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in Santa Clause or IPU. One reason would be that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, whereas no one in this world has a personal relationship with Santa Claus or IPU. Millions of children each year write heartfelt letters to Santa Claus, and he answers those letters with cascades of presents each Christmas, for which he is thanked with milk and cookies. Sounds like a "personal relationship" to me.

[cyborg]

But guys HIS fantasy relationship has to be different and special otherwise he's just plumped for whatever random crap he happened to have surrounding him in his culture! And clearly HIS 'choice' was sane whilst the choice of anyone else plumping for whatever random crap happened to surround them in their culture just shows how stupid their culture is for having such beliefs.

[stamenflicker]

Just because a belief affects the lives of many people, doesn't mean it's true. Popular belief in god affects many people worldwide, but it provides no evidence that any god exists.

Of course you are right, it provides no evidence. At least no more than investing your hard earned clams proves their is really an economy. What it does do however is force anyone accepting the economy as rational or even empirical to logically distinguish a criteria for accepting non-empirical ideologies. And no, crying IPU isn't a rational answer any more than saying a santa-claus based economy is just as reasonable as one based on suppy and demand.

Flick

[Dancing David]

Perhaps God has used masculine terms in making His self-disclosure to humanity even though he is not a male. Our words for God are controlled by the word of God.

are you sure that elohim chaim translates as the female spirits of life as actual plural beings? I am unfamiliar with this claim so maybe you could give me a bit of backbone.

i'd put my essay into bullet points but i've got to go to class right about now so maybe some other time.


I suggest you look at a bible translation that it annotated to relect the actual Hebrai words. And yes elohim chaiim translates as the female spirits of life.

[Dancing David]

our choices are not prepared in advance, whereas whether we are a vessel of grace and mercy or of destruction is prepared in advance. according to Paul who we need to note, uses the word "perhaps".
That is the error of determinism, so is god omniscent?

Does he create an obsessive compulsive rapist knowing that they have a biological basis to harm other persons and are not subject to free will?

[Dancing David]

God loves justice, that is one of many reasons i believe anything you do or say matters to God. Another reason is God gave us a soul, unlike the animals, and we are his creation, he tests and weighs the spirits, if God is the supreme judge then he cares what we do. Because that is what a judge does, cares about what we do.

So is he omniscent and omnipotent?

Why does he allow the rapist live to rape again?

Why does he create children whose soul purpose is to have no brain and live in thier feces their whole lives?

Or do you accept the fact that for god to exist they either don't care for justice or are limited in pwoer.

Why did he torture his son?

(He didn't have too, that is just weak rationalization, Jesus did not die for some unproved eternal life. he died because he pissed off the Romans.)

If god had a need for free will then why did he harden the heart of the pharoh against the Israelites, just so he could kill the Pharoh at the bottom of the red sea?

[Dancing David]

[QUOTE=BJQ87;1220798this is also adressing Marquis De Carabas....much like i said to Ossai, a contingent being does not have any authority of reason in comparison to a non-contingent being who created everything we know to be reality.[/QUOTE]


This is hogwash, I was created by god with reason, but god is beyong reason.

This is not a rationale argument and you have failed the purpose of the OP, your argument is

MOOOO- for that is what the great cow has taught us, do not question the great cow for the great cow is beyong our understanding, the great cow gave you the ability to reason , but do not use it, the great cow is beyond reason.

MOOOOOOO.

[Dancing David]

To "Jesus"- your saying that it doesnt give us any evidence, this is true, we're not arguing that, as stamenflicker said just because it counts doesnt mean its based on evidence.

everyone knows that a belief in God is more reasonable than IPU or santa claus. at least everyone who's brain hasnt been corrupted by philosophy!


J'accuse, you are a bigot, you think that your looing is the truth because that is what the great cow has taught you! What other people think or feel is flawed, why? Beacause the great cow says so!

We have reason, do not use it.
We have understanding, ignore it!

The great cow says MOOOOOOOOOO.

[Kopji]

and who has the power to make it in reality an illusion or not? certainly a contingent being such as yourself cannot come to that conclusion as more than a mere belief.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but if it is that everything is an illusion it's not going to get you where you want to go in convincing us that there is even a problem of evil, much less that you have an answer for it.

to kopji- verse 6 of psalm 139 "such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it."
also relating to this idea, psalm 131- "Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me."
therefore i call it my choice when i eat my fruit loops, unless i decide to concern myself with great matters or things too profound for me.

Ignorance is not bliss. Your claim is that Christianity is better than other religions and your perception of God's relationship to evil is true - fine. But don't cop out by saying that if your fruit loops are good enough for you, they are good enough for everyone.

Anyway, the authors of the Bible did not follow this sage advice of living in the moment so it seems disingenuous to argue it. Yes the great Biblical prophets could have limited themselves to enjoying the simple goodness and crunchy sweetness of fruit loops without thinking about it, but they did not, and do not encourage it of the rest of us either.

To your earlier comment on justice - we would agree that it an important thing to think about. Keep thinking about it. Can you accept that God is 'just' in applying eternal punishment or reward as a result of an experience on earth that is infinitesimally short compared to eternity? People must not think about what eternity means enough because that seems an act of chaos, not one of a god that loves justice.

Another thought that might help is about 'axioms'. This is probably not the only idea about axioms out there, but one I like is that axioms represent an idea we cannot think the opposite of. (So not every idea holds up as an axiom.)

For example, when you said animals do not have souls - you are accepting that as axiomatic but have no basis to do so. I could just as easily say 'yes they do'. To support our assertions, we need to support them with evidence because they are not axioms.

An axiom-kind-of-idea is like: understanding something as it really is, is always good.

Even if I accepted that religion were a useful lie developed as a simpler way of helping people live rightly, how could I escape that higher knowledge and become a believer? At best I could knowingly live my life as a lie and comfort myself for making the world a happier place because of it.

Not the first time I have been forced to think of myself as a kind of extremist: Wanting to understand things as they are, and not just what they seem to be.

You offer a lot of axiomatic statements and they are Bible based. For people who accept the Bible as a source of knowledge your arguments are not that bad, but for those who do not you are not offering any basis for for discussion on evil.

[Marquis de Carabas]

theres simply more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in Santa Clause or IPU. One reason would be that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,[/b]
Anecdotal. I could as easily say my lack of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is reason enough to disbelieve.
... whereas no one in this world has a personal relationship with Santa Claus or IPU. If you want to tell me or find someone else that is going to try and tell me that they have a personal relationship with Santa or IPU then I must choose whether i think that testimony to have any veridical value, and if i do then i decide what measure of veridical value to believe in.
I can't speak to Santa or the IPU, but I maintain a personal relationship with Puss in Boots, from Charles Perrault's charming tale "The Miller's Boy." I even have witnesses. Ask around.

There are many reasons a whole lot more people believe my testimony to be of more veridical value than anyone who testifies to have a personal relationship with Santa. One reason is that Jesus is said to be able to forgive your sins and change your life around, and people see that my life is changed and that I put my trust in Jesus Christ and in light of that they judge what veridical value to give my testimony.
And you possess convincing evidence that this correlative link is also a causal one, I take it? I mean, besides anecdote.

The thing that gets most people to give my testimony some veridical value is the fact that millions of people testify to this same thing. See people dont testify that Santa does what he is said to do, and that is to come down your chimney and take off on his sleigh with flying reindeer. Whereas many people do testify that Jesus does what he is said to do. It's important that we differentiate between what is testimony and what is popular appeal based on no reason at all.
I urge you again to solicit from our fellow forum members their own testimony about encounters on these very Fora with Puss in Boots.

[BJQ87]

"I urge you again to solicit from our fellow forum members their own testimony about encounters on these very Fora with Puss in Boots"

you of all people should know that false teachings of these sort can be very dangerous and harmfull. So I urge you, if you are making this up, or if you are referring to a stuffed animal puss in boots or a different form of puss in boots, to tell us. Otherwise you are commiting deception for the sake of an argument and really the only thing your doing when you do that is decieving yourself. Similar to what my wrestling coach used to say about being lazy and not doing the adequate work out, "your only cheating yourself"

and to kopji, "Anyway, the authors of the Bible did not follow this sage advice of living in the moment so it seems disingenuous to argue it"

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Suficient for the day is its own trouble." Matthew 6:34

and again,

verse 6 of psalm 139 "such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it."
also relating to this idea, psalm 131- "Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me."
therefore i call it my choice when i eat my fruit loops, unless i decide to concern myself with great matters or things too profound for me.

"live in the moment" maybe your interpreting this as enjoying life's pleasures and disregaurding guilt or the law? If that is at all how you are interpreting this then i want you to know I'm not saying that, im just saying that we shouldn't concern ourselves in matters too profound for us.

[Kevin_Lowe]

this is also adressing Marquis De Carabas....much like i said to Ossai, a contingent being does not have any authority of reason in comparison to a non-contingent being who created everything we know to be reality.

I thought you said you wanted to make a rational argument out of the problem of evil ("for once")?

If we have no "authority of reason", so that we must doubt any conclusion we arrive at by reason, why even try to make a rational argument in the first place?

For that matter, how do you arrive at the conclusion that we have no authority of reason? Is that a conclusion you arrived at by reason?

[BJQ87]

If we have no "authority of reason", so that we must doubt any conclusion we arrive at by reason, why even try to make a rational argument in the first place?

For that matter, how do you arrive at the conclusion that we have no authority of reason? Is that a conclusion you arrived at by reason?

As i said, to defend the traditional western-monotheistic God is to defend the scriptures.

[Kevin_Lowe]

As i said, to defend the traditional western-monotheistic God is to defend the scriptures.

Actually there are people who believe in God but not in the truth of the scriptures, and someone who actually read and believed in the truth of the scriptures would have to have a very different take on God than the traditional western one.

As a matter of fact, it baffles me how people manage to simultaneously believe in the omni-everything God of the modern tradition and also believe that the Bible is true. The God of the Bible is clearly, in many places, less than omnipotent, less than omniscient and less than good.

Chariots of iron, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood...

[Wudang]

Indeed, there was a program on UK TV recently with a theology student discussing the historical accuracy of the Bible. Seemed like decent history, pointing out how some things weren't true, some were "spins" on true events etc. His view seemed to be that the books of the Bible represented mans imperfect knowledge and his belief in God required him to get past these untruths and legends to understand his religion better. I'm an atheist but I still found the program interesting from several points of view.

[Marquis de Carabas]

"I urge you again to solicit from our fellow forum members their own testimony about encounters on these very Fora with Puss in Boots"

you of all people should know that false teachings of these sort can be very dangerous and harmfull.
I wonder why I "of all people" should know this.

So I urge you, if you are making this up, or if you are referring to a stuffed animal puss in boots or a different form of puss in boots, to tell us.
Is your God stuffed? Or of a different form?

Otherwise you are commiting deception for the sake of an argument and really the only thing your doing when you do that is decieving yourself. Similar to what my wrestling coach used to say about being lazy and not doing the adequate work out, "your only cheating yourself"
I would never commit deception for the sake of rational argument. ;)

[Ossai]

BJQ87
this is also adressing Marquis De Carabas....much like i said to Ossai, a contingent being does not have any authority of reason in comparison to a non-contingent being who created everything we know to be reality.
You’re begging the question. We don’t know reality to be planned or created. In fact all the evidence points to it being random.

in other words you as a contingent being dont have any authoritive place to say what is truth and justice and what is not when concerning the "problem of evil". Because it is, quite simply, over your head.
You are saying that god, being planned, has more authority and knowledge than people because we are unplanned. So who planned and created god?

It is sufficient reason because we do know that if God created the universe that he does in fact work in mysterious ways, because life itself is a very great mystery to us.
Your entire argument boils down to ‘BJQ87 is stupid’. Ok, I’ll agree with that.

One reason would be that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, whereas no one in this world has a personal relationship with Santa Claus or IPU. Define personal relationship.

Whereas many people do testify that Jesus does what he is said to do. It's important that we differentiate between what is testimony and what is popular appeal based on no reason at all.
You mean like your baseless claim that ‘Jesus does what he is said to do’.

Ossai

[billydkid]

theres simply more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in Santa Clause or IPU. One reason would be that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, whereas no one in this world has a personal relationship with Santa Claus or IPU.

Now, what the hell does that really mean? It is the perpetual mantra of the Christian evangelical types, but it has no actual meaning that I can discern. First of all, an entity has to actually exist in order to have a personal relationship with it. You would have to be suggesting that you are in some sort of contact with Christ and not just that you feel some sort of resonance with the mythology of Jesus. Does Jesus talk to you in words that pop into your head? Does Jesus ever tell you to do things? Or is it the old Jimmy Swaggart routine of God "speaking to my heart". Please, do tell, what does speaking to one's heart actually mean? Are you saying that you get feelings that you believe Jesus gave you? If so, how do you verify this rather incredible conclusion?

[Nex]

[ time out ]

Hey everyone, before this gets really ugly, BJQ87 was invited here. I asked him to come here to level his argument at nonbelievers because I didn't have the time or energy to debate him on my weblog, where he originally approached me. Instead of giving him the brush-off, I asked him to come here if he wanted to debate with atheists.

Please be a little nicer to him. I mean, definitely tear his arguments to shreds, but please give the ad homs a wide berth. He's my guest here, and I personally would appreciate if you treated him as such.

If he chooses to stay here indefinitely, then act however you want towards him (within forum rules, of course), but for right now, do a Skepchick a favor, eh? Be nice. :o

[ /time out ]

[Jesus]

Of course you are right, it provides no evidence. At least no more than investing your hard earned clams proves their is really an economy. What it does do however is force anyone accepting the economy as rational or even empirical to logically distinguish a criteria for accepting non-empirical ideologies. And no, crying IPU isn't a rational answer any more than saying a santa-claus based economy is just as reasonable as one based on suppy and demand.

FlickI put my money into a savings account. When I come back, it is still there. If I invest in the stock market, I can make or lose money, depending on the health of the company in which I invested. If I am a criminal, I can learn things through insider trading to help me unload stock that will be worth much less in the immediate future.

Other people experience these same phenomena when they do the same things.

When I pray, nothing measurable happens.

[Marquis de Carabas]

When I pray, nothing measurable happens.
Wrong. With any commercially available stopwatch, I can easily measure the amount of time you wasted. :D

[Jesus]

Wrong. With any commercially available stopwatch, I can easily measure the amount of time you wasted. :DI stand corrected! :)

[Melendwyr]

[ time out ]Please be a little nicer to him. I mean, definitely tear his arguments to shreds, but please give the ad homs a wide berth. He's my guest here, and I personally would appreciate if you treated him as such.
[ /time out ] Insults aren't ad hominem attacks. Ad homs occur only when it is argued that because of personal flaws in the opponent, the opponent's arguments are invalid.

Just calling the opponent names isn't an ad hominem.

[Odin]

Isn't a key difference between the economy and God that if humans were wiped out the economy would disappear, being a human construct, but God would not? Thus an economy is affected by human actions, where as God is not, unless God is also a human construct (artifical God? didn't Douglas Adams say something about this?)

[BJQ87]

Insults aren't ad hominem attacks. Ad homs occur only when it is argued that because of personal flaws in the opponent, the opponent's arguments are invalid.


Invalid, right.

maybe you didnt get that the main point i've brought out of this argument is that God surpasses human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about God, outside of what the bible tells us, as fact when it is actually theory.

[Odin]

The main point is that the Aesir surpass human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about them, outside of what the Eddas tells us, as fact when it is actually theory.

The main point is that Allah surpasses human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about Allah, outside of what the Koran tells us, as fact when it is actually theory.

The main point is that the IPU surpasses human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about her, outside of what the IPU scriptures tell us, as fact when it is actually theory.

e.g- Assume the biblical God (or the Aesir/Allah/IPU/e.t.c) exists and don't bother to question it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If this is your position, BJQ, perhaps you'd like to switch to a rational discourse on why one should accept the Bible in the first place.

[BJQ87]

For the purpose of this argument, if your going to question my God your going to question the scriptures. I'm not saying you have to accept them as truth. I'm saying that if you ask the question "lets say God does exist, then how could he allow so much pain and suffering in this world." You have to accept them as the description of the traditional western-montotheistic God

when going through this process I realised if you recall a post about half way into this argument that if i follow the bible strictly, then i do not concern myself with these matters that are over my head. From there I accordingly decided to drop that argumentation and start off with a clean slate by saying "God works in mysterious ways" thats really the end of my argument, God works in mysterious ways.

You may notice though, that no religion brings liberty to the opressed similarly to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a religion. Although religions may support his teachings.

[Dancing David]

You may notice though, that no religion brings liberty to the opressed similarly to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a religion. Although religions may support his teachings.

J'accuse, you are a bigot!.

Have you studied the dharma and practised the eightfold path? Then how can you make such a broad assertion?

Have you learned arabic and read the Kuran? Have you followed the path of Islam?

Have you studied at an ashram and followed the many paths of the Hinduva?

Have you given yourself to the High Ones of Old and followed the path of sorcery.

How can you say that no religion brings freedom like that of your own faith?

Proof, evidences?

[Marquis de Carabas]

For the purpose of this argument, if your going to question my God your going to question the scriptures. I'm not saying you have to accept them as truth. I'm saying that if you ask the question "lets say God does exist, then how could he allow so much pain and suffering in this world." You have to accept them as the description of the traditional western-montotheistic God

when going through this process I realised if you recall a post about half way into this argument that if i follow the bible strictly, then i do not concern myself with these matters that are over my head. From there I accordingly decided to drop that argumentation and start off with a clean slate by saying "God works in mysterious ways" thats really the end of my argument, God works in mysterious ways.
That is all dandy, but I did not (in my most recent post) question your God. I questioned your scriptures. I joined this thread hoping to enter a "rational argument" about the existence of God in light of the problem of evil. As you have placed your God above reason, you have removed this possibility. The original intent of this thread is lost.

However, you go on to say "it is wrong to conclude anything about God, outside of what the bible tells us [emphasis mine --MdC]." This affords, if you will pursue it, another avenue for rational discourse, namely the basis for believing what the bible tells us.

I offer you the opening salvo. What reason do you have for accepting the bible's words (and, implicitly, denying any other holy text our race has contrived)?

Should you choose to place the bible itself also above rationality, let me know, and I will bow out now.

[Melendwyr]

when going through this process I realised if you recall a post about half way into this argument that if i follow the bible strictly, then i do not concern myself with these matters that are over my head. From there I accordingly decided to drop that argumentation and start off with a clean slate by saying "God works in mysterious ways" thats really the end of my argument, God works in mysterious ways. So all contradictions, inconsistencies, and inabilities to answer are swept under the rug.

What leads you to believe that the Bible is an utterly reliable source on the nature of God, if you insist that God is beyond human reason?

[c4ts]

maybe you didnt get that the main point i've brought out of this argument is that God surpasses human reason

If true, there is no knowledge to be gained from any discussion whatsoever, so you might as well have not made this topic in the first place.

and it is wrong to conclude anything about God, outside of what the bible tells us

And so you have placed the Bible in the same place as the conversation, making what the Bible tells you worthless. You may know what it says, but you have no way of knowing whether or not God has taken back everything it says, turning squares into circles and morals upside-down, and so on. Should God decide, for no rational reason (and you established that he was beyond reason), to reverse all scripture right after it was written and not tell a single human being, it wouldn't be recorded.

I'm sorry, but only comprehensible Gods are predictable. Your God makes his own scripture worthless.

[Melendwyr]

Claiming that the Bible *is* the Word of God makes a claim about God in addition to the fact that He is beyond human reason.

What's the point of trying to apply reason to a being beyond reason? If God's beyond reason, then any connection between Him and anything else must also be beyond reason.

[BJQ87]

Have you studied the dharma and practised the eightfold path? Then how can you make such a broad assertion?

Have you learned arabic and read the Kuran? Have you followed the path of Islam?

Have you studied at an ashram and followed the many paths of the Hinduva?

Have you given yourself to the High Ones of Old and followed the path of sorcery.

How can you say that no religion brings freedom like that of your own faith?

Proof, evidences?

I have read up a bit on buddhism, islam, and gotten a bit of insight from a few "satanists" about what thats all about. You all go ahead and explore the world, and all its religions, I encourage it. But I am foolishly convinced that no traditions or belief systems compare to the redeeming power of Christ. I personally have peace, the joy of the Lord is my strength, and in my weakness I will boast of it, for he is strong when I am weak. In the lone hour of my sorrow he surrounds me and sustains me, and when all hope is lost i'll call Jesus savior. So keep in mind if one day you feel like nothing or no one can make it right, that there's someone out there relying on Jesus who believe's that to be untrue.

[Tricky]

I have read up a bit on buddhism, islam, and gotten a bit of insight from a few "satanists" about what thats all about. You all go ahead and explore the world, and all its religions, I encourage it. But I am foolishly convinced that no traditions or belief systems compare to the redeeming power of Christ. I personally have peace, the joy of the Lord is my strength, and in my weakness I will boast of it, for he is strong when I am weak. In the lone hour of my sorrow he surrounds me and sustains me, and when all hope is lost i'll call Jesus savior. So keep in mind if one day you feel like nothing or no one can make it right, that there's someone out there relying on Jesus who believe's that to be untrue.
I am quite sure you are convinced. Foolishly? That's a bit hard to say. It might be said that it would be foolish to profess Christianity in the middle of a Muslim fundamentalist nation. Professing it here in the USA is quite safe and not "foolish" at all, at least in terms of your personal welfare.

But your reasons for believing are similar to the reasons that people believe in other faiths. They, like you, believe in the superior qualities of their belief system. They, like you, can give reasons why. They, like you, believe that you are doomed to a lesser existance (hell, or bad karma or other situtions) if you fail to recognize the superior nature of their beliefs.

If your religion gives you happiness and comfort, then I am glad for you, but at the same time, you must certainly recognize that other religions do the same things for other people. Are you right? Are they? Or perhaps, are none of you "right", but have only found something that gives you comfort.

I want you to be comfortable, but not at the expense of the comfort of others, and what I see of modern Christianity is that it is striving to make it uncomfortable for other points of view. Perhaps you are not one of these type of evangelical Christians, and if so, I applaud you. But you should be aware of what others are doing in the name of your God. And you should be very frightened. How would you feel if one Christian denomination/sect gained prominance and outlawed the others? I see evangelical Christians trying to do that very thing.

[Kopji]

...and to kopji, "Anyway, the authors of the Bible did not follow this sage advice of living in the moment so it seems disingenuous to argue it"

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Suficient for the day is its own trouble." Matthew 6:34


So, your point is that Jesus was a hypocrite? :)

Actually, my comment was weakly made and you are right on the comeback. I was being too harsh and I apologize. It is too bad you are now taking the ''god works in mysterious ways" escape because I thought you were making some progress. Is good to think about things and not give up just because they become difficult.

There is some thought among some Christian scholars that there there seems to be some eastern influence in some of Jesus's teachings. They sometimes rely on passages in the Book of Thomas and other gnostic writings. I disagree with them so far, but try to keep an open mind about it.

The few passages about lilies of the field toiling etc sound like what I'm talking about, but are not.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon...
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

The common idea seems that God is all that matters so we should deny the world and focus on God, because otherwise it is to be 'worldly' (sinful). This leads to all kinds of weird ideas, like hurricanes and earthquakes actually being blessings instead of calamities.

If you can find an idea in the Bible related to being in harmony with the world and living with a sense of oneness with it, you will have my full apology and also my "I was wrong (TM)". Probably not worth much but hey...

Eastern philosophy might say that belief in God is the same as hoarding wealth - we simply trade one object for another. So I tend to view attempts to equate Jesus's teachings with say - Buddhism, as wishful thinking on the Buddhist's part. :D Not that I'd discourage them though, I enjoy writers like Thich Nhat Hanh. That sounds like another thread...


and again,

verse 6 of psalm 139 "such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it."
also relating to this idea, psalm 131- "Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me."
therefore i call it my choice when i eat my fruit loops, unless i decide to concern myself with great matters or things too profound for me.



But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

1 Peter 3:15 (New King James Version)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.


Your 'too high a thought for me' doesn't hold much water.


"live in the moment" maybe your interpreting this as enjoying life's pleasures and disregaurding guilt or the law? If that is at all how you are interpreting this then i want you to know I'm not saying that, im just saying that we shouldn't concern ourselves in matters too profound for us.

This is actually expressed very simply in eastern philosophy, but the Bible seems to miss the point.

He who knows he has enough is rich

To replace the simple idea of living rightly, we have almost endlessly complex exhortations to follow whatever religious authority is claiming to reign over our lives.

[Rufo]

First, let's clarify that elohim thing that was mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Though it hasn't got much to do with the subject (the problem of evil), I think it deserves to be described from a different point of view.

First of all, though the creator of the universe is referred to as 'el' (or 'AL', I guess it depends on the transciption), that doesn't necessarily mean the creator is not Jhvh. 'El' is an overall hebrew word for 'God', and can refer to any God, including Jhvh. Besides, if I remember it correctly, 'el' is only used in the Bible's first story of creation, while I believe Jhvh is used in the second (which is presumed to be older). Of course, I'm not completely sure of all this, so if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Second, while the word 'elohim' is indeed plural, the words referring to it (adjectives, etc.) indicates singular. This can be interpreted in several ways, including Dancing David's (that El created several lesser beings to aid him in the creation), however, it has also been interpreted as sort of a 'majestic' we (a bit similar to the well known 'royal we'), referring to that God is deliberating with Himself. An interpretation I presume would appeal more to BJQ87.
However, I do believe Time Bandits is the best movie ever made. :D

I'm sorry about getting into Biblic history. Back to the subject.
The main problem with the 'problem of evil' is actually the very definition and invention of the words 'good' and 'evil'. Who invented and defined these expressions? Who has the copyright? :) Humans? If so, applying them to a being such as God would indeed be pointless, since we can't see the reason behind that being's actions. Actually, the statement "God works in mysterious ways" is not stupid at all - if there is a being that created the universe, there is no reason we would be able to understand it. If that is the way it is, it means no one has the right to call God evil, nor to claim that the existence of evil proves that God doesn't exist. However, it also means no one has the right to call God good.
Besides, the definitions of these expressions are constantly changing, meaning it's fairly pointless applying them to someone who's presumably existed since the beginning of time.

So what if these expressions were not invented by humans, but by God?

Well, that too would make the whole thing almost pointless. If God defines good and evil, and states that He Himself is good, of course everything God does will always be all good, and what goes against Him will always be evil. Then God's actions is the template for all good, making the expression completely useless for measuring His actions.

But, trying to be realistic, do anyone really think a being of God's dimension would have the same kind of understanding of the world as we have?

[Odin]

If God can work in mysterious ways, and is incomprehensable, why can't the IPU? (apart from the various logical fallacies that separate them.)

[Rufo]

If God can work in mysterious ways, and is incomprehensable, why can't the IPU? (apart from the various logical fallacies that separate them.)
Never said it couldn't.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
maybe you didnt get that the main point i've brought out of this argument is that God surpasses human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about God, outside of what the bible tells us, as fact when it is actually theory.
But we’ve no reason to trust the bible. Which is what you are basing your claim of god surpassing human reason.

For the purpose of this argument, if your going to question my God your going to question the scriptures. I'm not saying you have to accept them as truth. I'm saying that if you ask the question "lets say God does exist, then how could he allow so much pain and suffering in this world." You have to accept them as the description of the traditional western-montotheistic God If we accept the biblical description of god it’s easy to determine that god is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. There problem solved.

You may notice though, that no religion brings liberty to the opressed similarly to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a religion. Although religions may support his teachings.
You don’t get out much do you?
Every major religion supports charities. You’re just more familiar with the Christian ones because you’re surrounded by them.

Ossai

[Beerina]

When I pray, nothing measurable happens.


Yes, but a measurement of 0 is still an interesting outcome.

[Beerina]

Invalid, right.

maybe you didnt get that the main point i've brought out of this argument is that God surpasses human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about God, outside of what the bible tells us, as fact when it is actually theory.

From the evil I observe around me, I cannot conceive how a truly kind and all-powerful God could have created this, much less let it get out of control.

Children must be raped and have their throats slit because a kind, loving god has some "good, ultimate purpose"?

I think not, and I reject the notion out of hand that there is some higher good for it all that humans cannot, even in principle, understand.

In any other subject, when faced with such brute facts, one concludes one's premise was wrong. Yet in religion, people give up and just have "faith" that they are right, in spite of the plain, murderous, painful evidence in front of them day after day, century after century.

[uruk]

maybe you didnt get that the main point i've brought out of this argument is that God surpasses human reason and it is wrong to conclude anything about God, outside of what the bible tells us, as fact when it is actually theory.
If God surpasses human reason, why would a book written by humans be capable of telling us anything about a subject that surpasses human reason?

[Rufo]

Jesus Christ is not a religion. Although religions may support his teachings.
Well... though part of these teachings can be used as a philosophy with no connection to religion, you have to admit that according to the Bible, Jesus actually talked a lot about things that can not possibly be interpreted as separate to religion. Of course, this depends on how you define 'religion', but you'll have to have a very different definition from the most common one if you do not consider Jesus teachings to be connected to it.
I think not, and I reject the notion out of hand that there is some higher good for it all that humans cannot, even in principle, understand.
Now, though I don't really support the idea either, I must ask... why? It isn't impossible, now is it? Is it because you decline to think that you may never be able to understand everything? That's just arrogant.
Of course, the statement that there may be a higher meaning of everything, and that it is possibly good, isn't even a bit constructive. It doesn't really make any difference. But that doesn't mean it can't be true.
However, this leads back to the question of what is 'good'. If this 'good' purpose is beyond our reach of apprehension, it doesn't really make any difference for us, does it?

[BJQ87]

If God surpasses human reason, why would a book written by humans be capable of telling us anything about a subject that surpasses human reason?

Well first of all God speaks to people in the bible, and interacts with characters in the stories commanding them what to do, such as Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Paul, etc. But not only that, Moses recieved the ten commandments from God. The prophets recieved visions and judgements from God. Jesus Christ was the son of God also known as "the word made flesh". Thats how it is capable of telling us about God. What i mean when i say surpasses human reason isn't that you cant understand at all, but it does mean God surpasses your understanding and you can't fully know how great God is.

[billydkid]

Well first of all God speaks to people in the bible, and interacts with characters in the stories commanding them what to do, such as Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Paul, etc. But not only that, Moses recieved the ten commandments from God. The prophets recieved visions and judgements from God. Jesus Christ was the son of God also known as "the word made flesh". Thats how it is capable of telling us about God. What i mean when i say surpasses human reason isn't that you cant understand at all, but it does mean God surpasses your understanding and you can't fully know how great God is.

don't you see how this is self references? The bible is the word of God because God speaks to the characters in the bible - which we know because the bible says so. And somebody told you the bible is the word of God. Whic they know because the bible says it is. The bible says the prophets recieved vision, so we have to believe the bible because the prophets who wrote it recieved visions.

[uruk]

Well first of all God speaks to people in the bible, and interacts with characters in the stories commanding them what to do, such as Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Paul, etc.....
We only have the authors word on it. How do we know the authors were telling the truth or writting about events that actually happened? How do we know the people mentioned in the bible or the events that took place actually existed? As far as I know there is no source outside of the bible which coroborates the existance of most the people mentioned in the bible or of the events which took place. It seems to me that belief in the bible is a case of putting all your eggs in one basket.

What i mean when i say surpasses human reason isn't that you cant understand at all, but it does mean God surpasses your understanding and you can't fully know how great God is. Well is'nt that what "surpasses human reason" means? That god is incapable of being understood? That would mean a book written about something that is incapable of being understood would not be capable of shedding any understanding on the subject. Being made aware of something and understanding it are two different things.

[BJQ87]

surpasses human reason at a certain point, and that is outside of the word of God proclaimed in the bible.

[BJQ87]

don't you see how this is self references? The bible is the word of God because God speaks to the characters in the bible - which we know because the bible says so. And somebody told you the bible is the word of God. Whic they know because the bible says it is. The bible says the prophets recieved vision, so we have to believe the bible because the prophets who wrote it recieved visions.

sure thing, and my parents raised me up to believe this and i have no reason not to believe it now. "train up a child in the way he should go and he shall not depart from it." or something like that if i recall correctly....and it is the way i should go, i've got cause&effect and before&after support from relying on the bible, plus the relationship with Christ. theres not enough reason for me to not believe.

[billydkid]

don't you see how this is self references? The bible is the word of God because God speaks to the characters in the bible - which we know because the bible says so. And somebody told you the bible is the word of God. Whic they know because the bible says it is. The bible says the prophets recieved vision, so we have to believe the bible because the prophets who wrote it recieved visions.

sure thing, and my parents raised me up to believe this and i have no reason not to believe it now. "train up a child in the way he should go and he shall not depart from it." or something like that if i recall correctly....and it is the way i should go, i've got cause&effect and before&after support from relying on the bible, plus the relationship with Christ. theres not enough reason for me to not believe.

A little help please????

[BJQ87]

that first paragraph was a quote by you btw, if thats why your confused...if you are confused.....now im confused...oh well.

[Melendwyr]

This is a pointless waste of time. How much longer are we going to preach to the damned?

[Marquis de Carabas]

sure thing, and my parents raised me up to believe this and i have no reason not to believe it now. "train up a child in the way he should go and he shall not depart from it." or something like that if i recall correctly....and it is the way i should go, i've got cause&effect and before&after support from relying on the bible, plus the relationship with Christ. theres not enough reason for me to not believe.
If this is all you've got for reason to take the bible at its word, I am truly disappointed. You came seeking rational discourse and fell back almost immediately on blind faith. In deference to Nex, I shall leave it at that.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
Well first of all God speaks to people in the bible, and interacts with characters in the stories commanding them what to do, such as Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Paul, etc. Why did he stop? It would certainly go a long way in convincing people that he was real.

But not only that, Moses recieved the ten commandments from God. You do realize that the ten commandments are listed three times in the bible and they don’t agree. Is god fickle? If god can’t or won’t communicate the basic rules to his followers in a comprehensible manner, then how can we assume anything in the bible is correct or even from god?

The prophets recieved visions and judgements from God. The prophets were more often wrong than right.

Jesus Christ was the son of God also known as "the word made flesh". Thats how it is capable of telling us about God. How do you come to this conclusion? Jesus did not fulfill the messianic requirements or prophecies. If Jesus was god (or the son of) then god changed his mind yet again.

What i mean when i say surpasses human reason isn't that you cant understand at all, but it does mean God surpasses your understanding and you can't fully know how great God is. Well just going from the bible, god isn’t great at all. He is in fact an evil sadistic bastard.

Ossai

[uruk]

Why did he stop? It would certainly go a long way in convincing people that he was real.
When I was in sunday school as a child, the teacher asked the question; "Is it easier to talk to god now or in the past"? The class answered unanimously "in the past" to which the teacher said "no, it's easier to talk to god today because Jesus died on the cross for our sins" ( It still has no been fully explained to me how Jesus getting crucified absolves us of sin). The bible is repleate with prophets and people who were contacted directly by god either through visions, burning bushes, or direct speech. Whay is that not the case today? Now days when people say god spoke to them, it is usualy by dreams or a thought that pops in thier head. Why the big dramatic production with special effects back then and not now?
Oh that's right, we got the "dead guy nailed to the cross" antenna system.

[Melendwyr]

If this is all you've got for reason to take the bible at its word, I am truly disappointed. You came seeking rational discourse and fell back almost immediately on blind faith. Nope, he came seeking godless heathens to minister to. There's no way any reasonable person could believe he came seeking rational discourse.

[Tricky]

don't you see how this is self references? The bible is the word of God because God speaks to the characters in the bible - which we know because the bible says so. And somebody told you the bible is the word of God. Whic they know because the bible says it is. The bible says the prophets recieved vision, so we have to believe the bible because the prophets who wrote it recieved visions.

sure thing, and my parents raised me up to believe this and i have no reason not to believe it now. "train up a child in the way he should go and he shall not depart from it." or something like that if i recall correctly....and it is the way i should go, i've got cause&effect and before&after support from relying on the bible, plus the relationship with Christ. theres not enough reason for me to not believe.
The problem is, nobody "trained up" under a different set of guidelines has any reason not to believe in their particular faith either. So if you want to find out which (if either) is correct, how do you do it? Obviously not by simply repeating your beliefs. You have to have some objective way of comparing them, do you not? Or you could objectively compare both with reality.

But even this will not convince you because your faith prevents you from being objective in your assessment of the comparison. The only people who can objectively compare faiths are those who have none of their own, i.e. skeptics. Would you be willing to accept the results of an impartial panel of skeptics as to what was the "best" religion?

[jmercer]

surpasses human reason at a certain point, and that is outside of the word of God proclaimed in the bible.

Disagree.

The Bible as it exists today is a stitched-together compendium of writings from a variety of authors. It is utterly incomplete; books and writings that didn't coincide with the Catholic Church's "message du jour" in any number of centuries were removed completely. This is not only historically documented - but part of that documentation and acknowledge comes from the Catholic Church itself.

The bible is self-contradictory, and it's various books have not only been translated from their original languages - but in many cases, the original languages for various sections differed. It has been also repeatedly demonstrated that words were changed - in important ways - during the transations. And in all cases, text has been translated multiple times.

In example, the Old Testament commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mistranslation from the original "Thou Shalt Not Murder". The Hebrews differentiated quite clearly between "killing" and "murder". Killing was justifiable homicide in the eyes of God; self defense, stoning to death for offenses, war and all sorts of killing was permitted. Murder - the unsanctioned killing of someone for no morally justifiable reason - was proscribed. Scholars are fairly sure that the change in the commandments was brought about by a clash between Jesus's teachings and the old version of the commandment. It didn't fit, so it was changed to something that did fit.

If the Bible is the knowable word of God, then God needs a good ghostwriter.

[ceo_esq]

The Bible as it exists today is a stitched-together compendium of writings from a variety of authors. It is utterly incomplete; books and writings that didn't coincide with the Catholic Church's "message du jour" in any number of centuries were removed completely."Any number of centuries"? Were there any books and writings present in the Bible used by, say, the Church of late antiquity which were subsequently removed from the canon?

[cyborg]

Were there any books and writings present in the Bible used by, say, the Church of late antiquity which were subsequently removed from the canon?

You've got it the wrong way round - the Bible didn't exist as a complete tome until the Church got around to deciding which books were IN. These books were just floating about otherwise - separate but related.

The Apocripha are however a good example of something that differs between the two major versions of the Bible - the Catholic and Protestant ones.

[ceo_esq]

You've got it the wrong way round - the Bible didn't exist as a complete tome until the Church got around to deciding which books were IN. These books were just floating about otherwise - separate but related.

The Apocripha are however a good example of something that differs between the two major versions of the Bible - the Catholic and Protestant ones.Does this prevent one from answering whether any of the scriptural books that were generally acknowledged as such by the late antique Catholic Church were subsequently stripped of such recognition by the Catholic Church in later periods? That's what I was asking, prompted by your claim that "books and writings that didn't coincide with the Catholic Church's 'message du jour' in any number of centuries were removed completely."

[cyborg]

That's what I was asking, prompted by your claim that "books and writings that didn't coincide with the Catholic Church's 'message du jour' in any number of centuries were removed completely."

That's my claim? I don't think so.

[ceo_esq]

That's my claim? I don't think so.You're right; I meant to say "jmercer's claim", not your claim. I still don't have an answer to my question, however.

[Nex]

Nope, he came seeking godless heathens to minister to. There's no way any reasonable person could believe he came seeking rational discourse. Hmm, I disagree. Of course, I'm sure he had proselytizing on his mind as well, but in my previous encounter with him, it was pretty obvious he was looking for rational, logical discourse. I just think he's a bit overwhelmed by the number and strength of the arguments against him here. Y'all are pretty intense here, y'know. ;)

[stamenflicker]

I put my money into a savings account. When I come back, it is still there. If I invest in the stock market, I can make or lose money, depending on the health of the company in which I invested. If I am a criminal, I can learn things through insider trading to help me unload stock that will be worth much less in the immediate future.

So then the economy exists based on what people do or don't do? That's a fine definition to me.

Other people experience these same phenomena when they do the same things.

And then some don't do these things at all, therefore perceive no benefit in them. Others do these things and reject the outcome as anything particularly beneficial to them.

When I pray, nothing measurable happens.

So then is the capability of outcome measurement for people doing economic things the criteria for the economy's existence?

Flick

[BJQ87]

The problem is, nobody "trained up" under a different set of guidelines has any reason not to believe in their particular faith either. So if you want to find out which (if either) is correct, how do you do it? Obviously not by simply repeating your beliefs. You have to have some objective way of comparing them, do you not? Or you could objectively compare both with reality.

But even this will not convince you because your faith prevents you from being objective in your assessment of the comparison. The only people who can objectively compare faiths are those who have none of their own, i.e. skeptics. Would you be willing to accept the results of an impartial panel of skeptics as to what was the "best" religion?


Problem indeed, but I think better to call it a challenge. I dont bother comparing my beliefs to other religions because Christ is my best friend, not some belief.


Hmm, I disagree. Of course, I'm sure he had proselytizing on his mind as well, but in my previous encounter with him, it was pretty obvious he was looking for rational, logical discourse. I just think he's a bit overwhelmed by the number and strength of the arguments against him here. Y'all are pretty intense here, y'know.


I dont know for sure but i think you guys all got me totally wrong on what i was trying to do, i shouldve made it more clear. You may not have noticed that I set up my essay in a way that (at least tried) to make it clear that I was not actually trying to make solid claims about God, I was simply coming up with suggestions of my own about a God that surpasses our understanding. The main point i want anyone to get out of this is that the "problem of evil" should not be taken as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for atheism, as many many atheists have taken it. I see that as irrational.

[Tricky]

Problem indeed, but I think better to call it a challenge. I dont bother comparing my beliefs to other religions because Christ is my best friend, not some belief.

Does that mean you are not interested in determining how your religion stacks up against others? Where's your curiosity?

I dont know for sure but i think you guys all got me totally wrong on what i was trying to do, i shouldve made it more clear. You may not have noticed that I set up my essay in a way that (at least tried) to make it clear that I was not actually trying to make solid claims about God, I was simply coming up with suggestions of my own about a God that surpasses our understanding. The main point i want anyone to get out of this is that the "problem of evil" should not be taken as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for atheism, as many many atheists have taken it. I see that as irrational.
No, the so called "problem of evil" is not a foundation for atheism nor even a refutation of the possibility of some sort of a god. It is only a refutation of a god that is described as both benevolent and omnipotent. Many (but not all) Christians describe their God in that way, oblivious to the internal contradiction. So that only refutes one version of God. There are many many others, even within Christianity. An atheist is one who has not seen any description of God (Christian or otherwise) that he finds believable.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I dont know for sure but i think you guys all got me totally wrong on what i was trying to do, i shouldve made it more clear. You may not have noticed that I set up my essay in a way that (at least tried) to make it clear that I was not actually trying to make solid claims about God, I was simply coming up with suggestions of my own about a God that surpasses our understanding. The main point i want anyone to get out of this is that the "problem of evil" should not be taken as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for atheism, as many many atheists have taken it. I see that as irrational.
The problem of evil is a rational argument, and carries with it the tacit premise that "God" is subject to rationality and logic. Stating your God is above rationality, or beyond it, or whichever preposition you prefer, is not a knock on the problem of evil. It's just saying "that argument doesn't apply to my God." There are many other conceptions of God it does not apply to, for various reasons. This is nothing special.

Any rational argument brought against your conception of God, then, is useless. But, damn those petards and their indiscriminate hoisting, this also means that any rational argument put forth in defense of your God is equally useless.

In conclusion, this thread is useless--even, perhaps especially--this post.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
Problem indeed, but I think better to call it a challenge. I dont bother comparing my beliefs to other religions because Christ is my best friend, not some belief.
So you hang out, go to movies together, complain to each other about your problems, etc. Or is Christ an imaginary friend.
He is an easy test for it. When you go to the movies together, between the two of you do you have to purchase one or two tickets?

Slight correction by me:
“The main point I want anyone to get out of this is that the "bible" should not be taken as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for belief, as many, many Christians have taken it. I see that as irrational.”

Ossai

[BJQ87]

The problem of evil is a rational argument, and carries with it the tacit premise that "God" is subject to rationality and logic. Stating your God is above rationality, or beyond it, or whichever preposition you prefer, is not a knock on the problem of evil. It's just saying "that argument doesn't apply to my God." There are many other conceptions of God it does not apply to, for various reasons. This is nothing special.

Any rational argument brought against your conception of God, then, is useless. But, damn those petards and their indiscriminate hoisting, this also means that any rational argument put forth in defense of your God is equally useless.

In conclusion, this thread is useless--even, perhaps especially--this post.


i never said it wasn't a rational argument i said i think its irrational to take it as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for atheism.

So not a completely useless thread, also being as i adressed some ideas of how God might work in the scheme of things. I think the only argument that really got any progress though was with kopji, made me think, because i know when i make a decision, whatever it is, that it is mine. Say there is an God, then it seems he must have given us a certain ownership over our lives.

[Skeptical Greg]

.................
Say there is an God, then it seems he must have given us a certain ownership over our lives. Freedom to worship implies freedom not to worship..
Otherwise we don't have ownership..

Does it seem fair that we should be punished for making a choice that includes not worshiping the God that created us with free will ?

What kind of God, worth it's salt, would be satisfied with worship under duress?

[BJQ87]

The wise man built his house upon the rock, foolish man built his house upon the sand, not so much as a punishment as it is cause and effect. You walk into a fire your gonna get burnt.

[Skeptical Greg]

The wise man built his house upon the rock, foolish man built his house upon the sand, not so much as a punishment as it is cause and effect. You walk into a fire your gonna get burnt.I agree. It would be foolish to not worship a God who is going to torture you if you don't..

But If that's love to you, then I feel sorry for you..

[Marquis de Carabas]

i never said it wasn't a rational argument
I never said you said it wasn't a rational argument. ;)

i said i think its irrational to take it as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for atheism.
As has been pointed out to you (twice), it is only an argument against a particular conception of "God," not a universal case for atheism. In light of that, what makes its conclusion irrational?

[Robin]

The wise man built his house upon the rock, foolish man built his house upon the sand, not so much as a punishment as it is cause and effect. You walk into a fire your gonna get burnt.
So if I get injured in a bushfire it is my fault and the arsonist is totally innocent?

[Odin]

The wise man built his house upon the rock, foolish man built his house upon the sand, not so much as a punishment as it is cause and effect. You walk into a fire your gonna get burnt.
except God doesn't have to punish (or effect) anyone since he sets the rules.

Surely God is above such petty human things as "worship me or I condem you to the Hellfire!" (unless the appeal to popularity is valid, and he would wither away and die if people stopped believing in him.)

[BJQ87]

surely God is above such petty human things as to go by what your unknowledgable understanding of the scheme of things is odin.

"Worship me or I condemn you to hellfire" no, more like "your condemned to hellfire" and then Jesus steps in and says "i never knew you" or says "this ones mine"

[Odin]

surely God is above such petty human things as to go by what your unknowledgable understanding of the scheme of things is odin.

"Worship me or I condemn you to hellfire" no, more like "your condemned to hellfire" and then Jesus steps in and says "i never knew you" or says "this ones mine"
You call the God of wisdom unknowledgeable?:D

And once again you escape by claiming no-one can understand and then proceed to try and explain how things are.

"your condemned to hellfire" and then Jesus steps in and says "i never knew you" or says "this ones mine"

like in the chick tracts?

and who set up this system? Ultimately it works out at the same thing.

[BJQ87]

And once again you escape by claiming no-one can understand and then proceed to try and explain how things are.


i'd change that to "sometimes you escape by claiming no-one can understand and then proceed to try and come up with possible solutions."

"And once again" doesnt work because i didnt try to come up with possible solutions outside of the bible's explaination.

and to diogenes- But If that's love to you, then I feel sorry for you..


justice is punishment for your sins, and love is when someone dies for your sins

[Batman Jr.]

don't you see how this is self references? The bible is the word of God because God speaks to the characters in the bible - which we know because the bible says so. And somebody told you the bible is the word of God. Whic they know because the bible says it is. The bible says the prophets recieved vision, so we have to believe the bible because the prophets who wrote it recieved visions.

sure thing, and my parents raised me up to believe this and i have no reason not to believe it now. "train up a child in the way he should go and he shall not depart from it." or something like that if i recall correctly....and it is the way i should go, i've got cause&effect and before&after support from relying on the bible, plus the relationship with Christ. theres not enough reason for me to not believe.
Hitler claimed everything that he said was right; tabloid newspapers will also have you believe that they are reporting factually accurate accounts of the stories they print. You have to realize that this isn't a good reason to believe in the Bible when this same reasoning can be used to prove right the baseless, grossly-errant tirades of irrational demagogues and ethically and logically impoverished journalism.

[Robin]

"Worship me or I condemn you to hellfire" no, more like "your condemned to hellfire" and then Jesus steps in and says "i never knew you" or says "this ones mine"
So who made the hellfire? Who condemned us to the hellfire?

[lioneljaffry]

The philosopher Colin McGinn outlines a very clear case against God with respect to the problem of evil, an phrases it in a very nice way in the TV series, "The Atheism Tapes".

He says: God is meant to be a being who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, so how come there is suffering and pain in the world? Why does God allow it? God, obviousally if he is all-good, thinks that it's bad that this should occur, would rather it didn't occur, like any decent person would rather it didn't occur, and yet he lets it occur. Now that would be OK if he didn't have the power to change it, but he's meant to be all-powerful. I mean we're told by religious people he intervenes all the time in various ways, so why doesn't he intervene to prevent the death of a child, or the torture of a prisoner? He doesn't do it. So you don't want to conclude from that, "Well God is actually quite bad... quite a bad person.". That's a conceivable conclusion you might draw. But what you conclude from it is the combination of these two characteristics is inconsistent. He's all-good and he's all-powerful - you need all-knowing too of course because he has to know what's going on - but it's essentially the conflict between being all-good and all-powerful and the existence of evil.

He goes on with a response to the common retort that evil is a result of free will, one I personally find quite convincing. The Wikipedia article on the series "The Atheism Tapes" has a link to a site with the full transcriptions.

-LJ

[Kopji]

Not to mention the problem of how free will can exist in the presence of an all knowing super-being.

Here's some food for thought on the earlier problem of whether we can have knowledge of God's will or not: The Revelation Game (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-revelation.html)

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

As I see it, at a fundamental level we have an argument apparently from God saying, " I've given you free will to either worship me, or not. However, if you choose not to, then you're condemned to HELLFIRE for ever. Now I could intervene, and take away suffering, etc, but that might interfere with peoples' free will, so you see my hands are tied - having done the free will bit, I really can't change my mind."

However, surely free will was part of humanity's "options package" from the start, and God was constantly interfering in the Old Testament, so there's no logical precedent for assuming that He can't get involved now.

Yeah - OK, I also can't believe that free will is anything of the sort when there's a draconian punishment hanging over a "no" reply.

I've yet to see a convincing argument about why He let the Holocaust happen, and to His chosen people too. It's all very well explaining that "of course, all of the victims would have been taken to paradise in Heaven", but He could have clearly transported them without all of the disgusting cruelty that was involved, had He wished to.

Who's free will was at issue here, BTW - the camp guards? The victims? Clearly the free will of the guards was directly opposed to the free will of the victims - is that why God stepped back?

And - I'd like to ask - "What about the survivors, and relatives of the victims?"

They didn't get to win the divine lottery, did they? - what about the continual suffering that they have had ever since the 1940's? How does their free will figure in all of this?

I understand that many people believe that they've had messages from God in visions and dreams. Those that I've met - a small selection - hold these beliefs intensely.

Why didn't He "visit" the 9/11 bombers to tell them that this wasn't what He wanted them to do? Of course, maybe He did, but His arguments just weren't strong enough!

YBW

[ceo_esq]

The philosopher Colin McGinn outlines a very clear case against God with respect to the problem of evil, an phrases it in a very nice way in the TV series, "The Atheism Tapes".

...

He goes on with a response to the common retort that evil is a result of free will, one I personally find quite convincing.Er... really? He appears to devote only about three sentences to the free will defense before moving on to address theodicies of the John Hick variety. Yet the best atheologians I know (like J. L. Mackie, one of my favorites) confess to really struggling with the better-formulated free will defenses to the logical problem of evil.

I'm not familiar with McGinn's published writing, but in "The Atheism Tapes" I thought he more or less punted on the free will defense question.

[Dancing David]

Problem indeed, but I think better to call it a challenge. I dont bother comparing my beliefs to other religions because Christ is my best friend, not some belief.
And that is what you believe! ;)
I dont know for sure but i think you guys all got me totally wrong on what i was trying to do, i shouldve made it more clear. You may not have noticed that I set up my essay in a way that (at least tried) to make it clear that I was not actually trying to make solid claims about God, I was simply coming up with suggestions of my own about a God that surpasses our understanding. The main point i want anyone to get out of this is that the "problem of evil" should not be taken as a conclusion, or as a firm foundation for atheism, as many many atheists have taken it. I see that as irrational.

There are many more reasons that I might be an atheist than that!

I think that what I would suggest is that you might realize that what you have suggested is something like this.

1. God's existance is beyond our understanding.

2. If bad things happen than they are beyond our understanding.

3. Do not question god.


(My solution is to believe that the world is a chaotic place and that determisism doesn't exist, therefore god can help people but doesn't control the world.) ;)

[Odin]

i'd change that to "sometimes you escape by claiming no-one can understand and then proceed to try and come up with possible solutions."

"And once again" doesnt work because i didnt try to come up with possible solutions outside of the bible's explaination.

Fine, but trying to come up with possible solutions for something no-one understands or can understand is a little pointless.
Appealing to the bible is also pointless when arguing non christians since it would not be considered as a valid authority.

Your solution is flawed anyway, it's the difference between pointing a gun at someone and demanding their money, and pointing a gun at someone and demanding payment to protect themselves from it.

The only situation I can think of where this would be valid would be if God had no control of hell (the gun, above.) But this means he's not omnipotent.

Why does hell have to be eternal torture anyway? Especially since everyone there would have missed out on the splendor of heaven, it could be the same as this world and still effectively be torture. Sort of like Hel in norse mythology, eternally boring? (yes I know, who am I to question, God works in mysterious ways e.t.c, or don't think about it beyond what the bible says.)

[Tricky]

"Worship me or I condemn you to hellfire" no, more like "your condemned to hellfire" and then Jesus steps in and says "i never knew you" or says "this ones mine"
...which is like Jesus saying, and oh by the way, just worshipping God isn't enough. Worship me too, or it's hellfire.

[Beerina]

He goes on with a response to the common retort that evil is a result of free will, one I personally find quite convincing.

Well, the activities we consider as evil exist in the animal kingdom -- killing others to take their stuff, their very body, and use it for your own good. "Scavengers", who sneak in and take loot and sneak away, commonly known as theft among humans.

It works, in the evolutionary sense, but it isn't until the animals get smart, and realize that recognizing the right of others to exist and own property that it suddenly becomes "evil".

And humanity, by recognizing these things, and creating institutions to protect them, move to an even more efficient, productive level of existence. They have gotten out of the "local minima" in the evolutionary gradient descent space represented by "dog eat dog", and gotten to a much better one merely by largely outlawing that behavior. Note the general correlation between the securing of life and property rights and the general prosperity of a society.

[Skeptical Greg]

i
and to diogenes-

justice is punishment for your sins, and love is when someone dies for your sins Your idea of justice, is eternal torture for not believing, no matter how good a person you might be ?

You must be great with kids....


I guess you don't have a problem spending eternity with a bunch of serial killers and rapists, just as long as they believe in your God ?

[BJQ87]

Your idea of justice, is eternal torture for not believing, no matter how good a person you might be ?

You must be great with kids....


I guess you don't have a problem spending eternity with a bunch of serial killers and rapists, just as long as they believe in your God ?


In the entire scheme of things theres no such thing as a good person, only in the worlds eyes. God loves you anyways, so thats good news. I never said the idea of hell isn't a hard thing for me to deal with personally, on the contrary, thats why I devote my life to leading people to Christ.

Yea, hate to brag but i guess i am good with kids i coach elementry school wrestling and have a lot of fun hanging out with my 10 year old sister all the time.

sometimes i find that if you say something a certain way then you can make what someone says sound a lot better or a lot worse....i think thats what you did when you said "I guess you don't have a problem spending eternity with a bunch of serial killers and rapists, just as long as they believe in your God ?"

First of all even Satan believes in God, doesnt mean he has a loving personal relationship with him....Recieving Christ as your savior requires you to truly repent and allow Jesus Christ to come in your heart and change you. And faith without works is dead.

[Tricky]

In the entire scheme of things theres no such thing as a good person, only in the worlds eyes.
I've always said that good and bad are relative, but now you seem to be saying that Christianity does not make clear what is "good" other than belief in God. So if a person commits some horrible crime, then that is not necessarily "bad" because there isn't any such thing, except in God's eyes? Since we can't see through God's eyes, this opens the floodgates for any sort of behavior so long as you can justify it as "that's what God wanted".

Sorry, that doesn't sound like any kind of moral code to me. If God is "good" then He has to fit the same definition of "good" that we use for everything, otherwise there is no sense in calling Him "good".

I never said the idea of hell isn't a hard thing for me to deal with personally, on the contrary, thats why I devote my life to leading people to Christ.
But you can't reach them all. If you thought for one moment that one of your loved ones was burning in hell, how could you possibly be happy in heaven?

Yea, hate to brag but i guess i am good with kids i coach elementry school wrestling and have a lot of fun hanging out with my 10 year old sister all the time.
I've worked with kids a lot too. I don't try to "lead them to atheism" though.


sometimes i find that if you say something a certain way then you can make what someone says sound a lot better or a lot worse....i think thats what you did when you said "I guess you don't have a problem spending eternity with a bunch of serial killers and rapists, just as long as they believe in your God ?"
No sense sugar-coating it. That is the way heaven will be if it is as you describe it. And hell will have a whole lot of very moral people who simply were not Christians. I could never worship a God that has such a warped value system. Forcing people to their knees under threat of eternal punishment is not anything like what I would call "love". That's what I call "tyranny".

First of all even Satan believes in God, doesnt mean he has a loving personal relationship with him...
Yes, I've heard several variations of the story. Some say Satan is a fallen angel. But of course, if you believe God created everything, then he created Satan too, so any fault for the way Satan behaves lies with his creator.

Recieving Christ as your savior requires you to truly repent and allow Jesus Christ to come in your heart and change you. And faith without works is dead.
I believe the Bible clearly states that all you have to do to get into heaven is accept Jesus as your savior. What are these "works" you speak of? Do you think heaven has different levels? How about hell?

[Skeptical Greg]

First of all even Satan believes in God, doesnt mean he has a loving personal relationship with him....Recieving Christ as your savior requires you to truly repent and allow Jesus Christ to come in your heart and change you. And faith without works is dead." Then entire scheme of things " was not my point.

My point is that your God is apparently an *********, and a serial killer can ' truly ' repent and end up in heaven with you at the banquet table with Jesus at one end and God at the other, while " Diogenes Burning In Hell " is the number one show on Heaven TV .. What did Dio do wrong? Well, he did not bow down.. That's all..




I'm sure you treat kids better than your God does.. That was also my point. Why do you accept behaviour from a God that you would not tolerate from yourself or anyone else?

[BJQ87]

What did Dio do wrong? Well, he did not bow down.. That's all..


"The preperations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits. Commit your works to the Lord, and your thoughts will be established. The Lord has made all for himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil." Proverbs 16:1-6

while " Diogenes Burning In Hell " is the number one show on Heaven TV

i think we can officially discount that blunt statement


"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has annointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Luke 4:18-21

[Loki]

BJQ87,

What did Dio do wrong? Well, he did not bow down.. That's all..
You happy with this? Can a muslim doctor, a life spent healing, go to your heaven?

Recieving Christ as your savior requires you to truly repent and allow Jesus Christ to come in your heart and change you.
So once you've 'received Christ' you can do no wrong? Or if you do wrong at some later stage you've ''lost Christ" and need to get him back?

And faith without works is dead.
Why?

And what about works without faith?

I'm sure you treat kids better than your God does.. That was also my point. Why do you accept behaviour from a God that you would not tolerate from yourself or anyone else?
Answer the question ... why does god get to ignore basic human rights? If the answer is "because bigger needs require it" then why can't we use the same justification?

[Tricky]

"The preperations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits. Commit your works to the Lord, and your thoughts will be established. The Lord has made all for himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil." Proverbs 16:1-6

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has annointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Luke 4:18-21
I've read the scripture you posted and I am afraid that it does not even remotely address the issues that have been raised. I would rather hear what you think than to have you repeat verses from a book that I have read front to back.

Supposedly this purpose of this thread was to provide a logical argument about the problem of evil. Retreating to scripture is not a logical argument. What do you have to say about the paradoxes of Christianity that have been shown here, BJQ87?

[Odin]

BJQ87-
Some questions concerning hellfire-

If someone spends there entire life in a personal relationship with Jesus, but a day before they die, the evil athiest conspiracy uses it's wicked powers to convert them, what happens to them?

If someone has a personal relationship with a God (e.g a pagan diety) who, it turns out was a misinterpretation of Jesus anyway (and thus actually had a personal relationship with Jesus) what happens when they die?

[Iacchus]

And what if God were more the pragmatist? How else could He deal fairly with folks then?

[Skeptical Greg]

"The preperations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits. Commit your works to the Lord, and your thoughts will be established. The Lord has made all for himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil." Proverbs 16:1-6



i think we can officially discount that blunt statement


"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has annointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Luke 4:18-21


Mumble mumble.. I see you can play the parrot.. Does your God allow you to think for yourself ?

Still waiting for your rational argument about evil..

[BJQ87]

If someone spends there entire life in a personal relationship with Jesus, but a day before they die, the evil athiest conspiracy uses it's wicked powers to convert them, what happens to them?


you can convert someone from their salvation??? right. maybe you can convert their belief or their religion, but Jesus Christ isnt a mere belief or religion.


I've read the scripture you posted and I am afraid that it does not even remotely address the issues that have been raised.

then perhaps you should read them again because i thought they well addressed diogenes issues.

What did Dio do wrong? Well, he did not bow down.. That's all..


to adress this i'd put emphasis on these verses that i picked out of the scripture posted.

All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil."

not bowing down and recieving the grace of Jesus Christ is not why diogenes would go to hell, but instead, not bowing down and recieving the grace of Jesus Christ is why diogenes would not be saved from hellfire.

in mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity.

[BJQ87]

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has annointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Luke 4:18-21

Jesus Christ is the proclaimation of the truth of God's love and goodness and the "acceptable year of the Lord", bringing liberty to the opressed, to give beauty for ashes, strength for fear, gladness for mourning, and peace for despair.

[Odin]

you can convert someone from their salvation??? right. maybe you can convert their belief or their religion, but Jesus Christ isnt a mere belief or religion.
You can if you are the evil atheist conspiracy, backed by the powers of Satan!

(I suppose pointing out that I was once a christian is useless, since I was obviously not a true Christiantm)

[Robin]

not bowing down and recieving the grace of Jesus Christ is not why diogenes would go to hell, but instead, not bowing down and recieving the grace of Jesus Christ is why diogenes would not be saved from hellfire.
So again I ask - who created the hellfire? Who condemned us to it?

[Skeptical Greg]

not bowing down and recieving the grace of Jesus Christ is not why diogenes would go to hell, but instead, not bowing down and recieving the grace of Jesus Christ is why diogenes would not be saved from hellfire.
But receiving the grace of jesus christ would save a serial murderer or rapist from hell? Not any good works he might do ?

You haven't addressed the justice of eternal punishment for a finite sin .. I thought God said " An eye for an eye .. " ?

[Melendwyr]

Why would anyone need to accept this "grace"? Why isn't it simply given to everyone?

It seems odd for serial rape and murder not to be at least an obstacle to receiving eternal life from a benevolent deity, but not asking for it somehow makes it impossible.

[Iacchus]

If all things were the same, we would have nothing to differentiate.

[uruk]

If all things were the same, we would have nothing to differentiate. And that's a bad thing because............?

[Iacchus]

And that's a bad thing because............?If all things were the same, we would only have one thing, which is nothing ... which, is really no-thing at all. ;)

[uruk]

If all things were the same, we would only have one thing, which is nothing ... which, is really no-thing at all. ;) I repeat, that's bad because why?

[Iacchus]

I repeat, that's bad because why?Because evil is so-designed that it tries to destroy every-thing? Which, it can't, because there was never a time when there was really ever nothing?

[Tricky]

Because evil is so-designed that it tries to destroy every-thing?
Who the heck would design something with the capability of destroying everything? That designer out to be be summarily executed.

[Rufo]

I still think the main problem with all the good-evil talk is that there isn't a simple definition of 'good' and 'evil'. In fact, there is actually not even a shadow of one, true, definition of any kind, simple or complicated. These concepts are constantly changing and, as if that was not enough, there are several definitions around the world at the same time, in fact so many that they are impossible to count.
You may think that it's pointless to talk about definitions, since you can do that forever, but let's put it like this:
If God think killing is bad, is He good(tm) or evil(tm)? Appearently, several people find it logical to kill in the name of God, so these people will not believe in a God who thinks killing is always bad.