Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Prove me WRONG.

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?

6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will. So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault, therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 1:02:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?

Hey, would they lie to you ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 3:28:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?

6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will. So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault, therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?

1. Humans are not completely rational. We are also emotional. Also we can prove that God though rational means.

2. Yes it is impossible for these thing to occur naturally. However if there is a meta-physical omnipotent being that can cause said impossibilities, it is irrelevant.

3. When we sin, we are in essence refusing God. While God gave us the tools to re-acquire his grace if we choose not to, then we are sent to place without God. That is Hell and that is why Hell is so tormenting. It is also a just punishment.

4. God can take a bad situation and turn a good out of it. For example if a good and holy man dies in a fire, while we see it as a tragedy he goes to eternal paradise. Also most bad things that happen to people are the result of another man exercising his free will in a way that inflicts pain on others. Natural disasters and other blameless tragedies are a result of original sin.

5. Theologically speaking, evil is the absence of good, which is God. Because we have free will we can choose to either go with God or against him. Ultimately evil exists because of our free will.

6. Not true. There are people who grow up around crime and drugs but choose to avoid drugs and crime. People grow up in abusive families but many do not become abusers themselves.

God has never made an intrinsically evil creature. He gave every sentient creature a choice. It is that choice that makes them good or evil.

7. Most Christian denominations readily welcome all people. How is that alienating?
You made a claim the Christianity is psychologically slavery. Back it up.

8. Many desires stem from you disposition to sin. God did not create lust. Rather we warped his creation into sex object. And how does order = lack of freedom. I would argue that true freedom is self-limiting. For example if I could take from others what I want is that real freedom. Freedom is not just about freedom for the strong. It is about freedom for all. That is what Christianity is about.

9. What reason do you have to believe that they were or did? Back it up. Theologically speaking it was inspired by God but written by people.

10. People's biases and preconception would ensure that disbelief exists anyway. Also since people are faulty creature there are bound to be people who misinterpret the message and start false religions. This argument also fails due to free will. God does not want to make people believe in him. Rather he wants people to come to him out of love.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 4:32:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
5. Evils exists because man, against Gods explicit instructions, chose evil..

The choice of evil existed to give man free will.

The cross of Christ is the mirror image of God the Father suffering with our sin, with our freely chosen will, not His will..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 1:22:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

Agreed. The wesleyan methodists have a great explanation of the mainstream methodology of the approach to Truth as a whole. (This method is used in the churches from the 5 Patriarchs)

Scripture
Tradition
Logic
Experience

All of these must be checked for Truth to be evident.

2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.


There is no such thing as a scientific impossibility.
These miracles were caused by an unknown mechanism. That is they are unknown to science.
Nothing about them suggests they are impossible.
We can part seas, resuscitate and perform what would seem to be miracles.

There is no reason to assume superior beings like Angels or God would not have unknown mechanisms to manipulate the natural world as we do. We just know ours.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?


Because God is not benevolent by your definition of benevolent, you choose to poorly define what Theologians have discussed for eons.

We do not let unrepentant murders out of jail. We leave them there to die or fry them. It is a permanent solution to a permanent problem.

The Book of Revelation discusses where Satan spends a thousand years in Hell then is released. God proves Satan's unrepentant heart to the entire universe. Satan the unrepentant murder goes out and kills people upon release.

Unrepentant murderers have a permanent location. Same as we deal with them in our own society. Permanent problem with a permanent solution.

Now we as Christians realize very very very few people will actually not repent at the judgement and very few will go to Heaven or Hell. 95% of humans in history will spend an undefined time in the intermediate state.

4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

Watch the movie ‘Facing the Giants' or read the book of Job (Depending on your attention span). We praise God for the good or bad that comes our way. We know the bad will work out for good for those who Love God.


5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?


The POE is resolved by William Lane Craigs argument. It has been defeated for decades. Are you familiar with it?
A greater good ensues from the allowance of evil, properly called the absence of good.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Great article here directly on these lines.

6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will. So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault, therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

Evil is defined as the absence of good in Theological terms.
The source of evil can easily be attributed to several factors as the nature of each action has a different source.
It would also depend on what you call evil.
Comprehensively, evil choices are allowed in that humans have the ability, for whatever reason, to Not choose good.
So it is agreed that evil is not inherent but that good can be denied is inherent in Freewill.

I am no more at fault for my child choosing to follow his peers as an influence into drugs as he denied my positive influence.


7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

Anecdotal and invalid accusation.
As I am previously a practical agnostic and now Christian Theologian I have found no evidence of this accusation of Indoctrination at any point in my Christian walk, though I would have agreed with you prior to my conversion as I knew absolutely nothing about the Christian church and how it functions.


8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

I have found that true freedom comes from throwing off the shackles of a secular world system or an oppressive appearance of religiosity.

I have found that Christianity gave me True freedom. I am not bound as a slave to evil but affirm and Love the source of Wholesomeness, Holiness and Goodness.

My service to God is submission to what I love.

Easily explained:
My wife and children have not become my ball and chain… but the truest expression of my freedom as I lay down my life for her and them.


9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?


You can experientially confirm or invalidate each of the claims of the 40 authors accounts of their experiences with the same God.
Additionally, millions of Theologians and New Testament Scholars have studied and vetted these documents. Outside of scribal errors have found no reason to invalidate the claims by a scientific process.

Positive arguments:
1: No reason to deny the documents.
2: These claims have been experientially confirmed and vetted throughout history.
3: You can experientially verify these documents claims as all of the scholars have done.

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?

As an agnostic, I never approached God with an expectation.
I have found that God does directly appeal to my metaphysical mind with direct metaphysical evidence.
I am not a mere sum of my biology.

God does approach many with Direct physical evidence (as in the case of Thomas) when the war with our mind is on a sure foundation.
I have found that he does not approach someone with Direct physical evidence prior to the person being able to actually process that with a sure metaphysical foundation (the mind).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 1:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
According to the rationalizations of believers, God does things that make no sense to humans because humans cannot understand divine purpose. For example, if a baby is killed by an earthquake, that is just punishment for original sin, even though it defies any human sense of justice. If a human tried such a defense in court, it wouldn't stand for a minute. No one accepts human concepts of justice that cannot be explained. So Christians must cope with a God who appears irrational and unjust.

there is a long list of apparently unjust behaviors, including Old Testament stories of divine punishments and tests, and the doctrine of damnation for mere failure to have ever heard of Christianity.

So what does it mean for God to have made man "in His own image?" Does it mean that God looks like Charlton Heston? Not likely. I think that it would be reasonable to interpret "in His own image" to mean "the laws of morality set by God are consistent with human nature." That's the reasoning behind the Declaration of Independence saying moral truths are "self-evident." It's consistent with the Golden Rule. It means that any interpretation scriptures that contradicts reason and moral behavior is wrong. So why do Christians persist in claiming that irrational religious rules are justified?

As to miracles, there is no problem with having unexplained events. Science does not claim to explain everything. that's why a couple million scientists are now employed trying to explain things. the problem is claiming to explain the unexplained by using divine intervention as a reason. Just leave the unexplained unexplained until it is explained.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 2:00:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love when individuals who were clearly indoctrinated as children pretend to have been atheist or agnostic in order to minimize the importance of atheism and agnosticism as ideas.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 2:09:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 2:00:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I love when individuals who were clearly indoctrinated as children pretend to have been atheist or agnostic in order to minimize the importance of atheism and agnosticism as ideas.

Yes, and coming from you, the pinnacle of higher thought, the sentiment is touching.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 1:56:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
According to the rationalizations of believers, God does things that make no sense to humans because humans cannot understand divine purpose. For example, if a baby is killed by an earthquake, that is just punishment for original sin, even though it defies any human sense of justice. If a human tried such a defense in court, it wouldn't stand for a minute. No one accepts human concepts of justice that cannot be explained. So Christians must cope with a God who appears irrational and unjust.

Strawman.
Any bad occurances in the world is directly attributed to the god of this world, called Satan or Adversary.

God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.


there is a long list of apparently unjust behaviors, including Old Testament stories of divine punishments and tests, and the doctrine of damnation for mere failure to have ever heard of Christianity.

Anecdotal accusation. Also pointing to a one-off minority sect of Christianity that is not even a core belief.
That is like pointing out Atheism is agnosticism by citing one atheist philosopher who claims to be both.


So what does it mean for God to have made man "in His own image?" Does it mean that God looks like Charlton Heston? Not likely. I think that it would be reasonable to interpret "in His own image" to mean "the laws of morality set by God are consistent with human nature." That's the reasoning behind the Declaration of Independence saying moral truths are "self-evident." It's consistent with the Golden Rule. It means that any interpretation scriptures that contradicts reason and moral behavior is wrong. So why do Christians persist in claiming that irrational religious rules are justified?

Wow. You cite your own personal interpretation of scripture to accuse God of injustice. Impressive. Sound like Great I am.

We are made in God's image as we have metaphysical minds as God does and we share our human essence from a single original human source.


As to miracles, there is no problem with having unexplained events. Science does not claim to explain everything. that's why a couple million scientists are now employed trying to explain things. the problem is claiming to explain the unexplained by using divine intervention as a reason. Just leave the unexplained unexplained until it is explained.

Unless there is a positive claim of the explanation. You can cite the source of an occurance while not knowing the mechanism for the occurance.

You can tell me that Gravity exists but you cannot tell me the mechanism for its existence.

You are making a false comparison.

We certainly can point to the claim God did it, while not knowing the "how" God did it. You are also ignoring the claim.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 3:25:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 2:00:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I love when individuals who were clearly indoctrinated as children pretend to have been atheist or agnostic in order to minimize the importance of atheism and agnosticism as ideas.

I wonder if that cuts both ways? do the vast majority of atheists and agnostics here claim to have once been religious in order to play up their so called pilgrimage from irrationality to rationality?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 4:15:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?

6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will. So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault, therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?

The only good one. I don't know, but I din't know number 10 either for a long time.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Strawman.
Any bad occurances in the world is directly attributed to the god of this world, called Satan or Adversary.

Then God is not omnipotent.

God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.

No, it's irrational to allow present injustice or pain if it could be prevented. Therefore God is either irrational or not omnipotent. When pressed, Christians seem to pefer "not omnipotent." That's fair, so long as it's claimed that way.


there is a long list of apparently unjust behaviors, including Old Testament stories of divine punishments and tests, and the doctrine of damnation for mere failure to have ever heard of Christianity.

Anecdotal accusation.

Is it in doubt. "Don't look back ... you looked back, so zap, you're a pillar of salt. the test of Job. Any Biblical event that defies common human moral sense.

Also pointing to a one-off minority sect of Christianity that is not even a core belief.

Yes, the doctrine that redemption can only occur through faith is only a Protestant doctrine, so it only applies to them. But it's certainly not a small sect.

That is like pointing out Atheism is agnosticism by citing one atheist philosopher who claims to be both.

I would meet any argument that atheists are sometimes irrational with agreement. However, atheism is not characterized by dogma so there is no need for consistency. Belief i the christian God does require rationalizing the God's claimed behavior. Either the christian God is rational and moral, or He is not.

... So why do Christians persist in claiming that irrational religious rules are justified?

Wow. You cite your own personal interpretation of scripture to accuse God of injustice. Impressive. Sound like Great I am.

Are you arguing that God's justice a portrayed in the Bible is consistent with human values as given by human nature? So should children be sacrificed to please gods? Or inhamane punishments be meted out as just? The Bible is rank with excess. It can be justified only by claiming that God's justice is not the same as human justice. So either humans are not in "God's image" or human interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

We are made in God's image as we have metaphysical minds as God does and we share our human essence from a single original human source.

That's empty evasion. Is morality the same for God and man, or dos it all depend?


Unless there is a positive claim of the explanation. You can cite the source of an occurance while not knowing the mechanism for the occurance.

So therefore you cannot explain the unexplained as being the work of deity. It is no more than unexplained.

You can tell me that Gravity exists but you cannot tell me the mechanism for its existence.

If so, then gravity is unexplained. No problem. The error would be in saying that because it is unexplained, a deit must be at work. It ends with being unexplained.
You are making a false comparison.

We certainly can point to the claim God did it, while not knowing the "how" God did it. You are also ignoring the claim.

What? All the unexplained things that you choose to attribute to God are explained by God, whereas all the unexplained things you do not choose to attribute to God are to be left as unexplained. Is that it? Why is that an improvement over leaving the unexplained entirely unexplained?

Keep in mind that weather, volcanoes, and most of nature was once unexplained, and was accordingly attributed to gods. That was wrong. so why continue in that pattern?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 5:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Strawman.
Any bad occurances in the world is directly attributed to the god of this world, called Satan or Adversary.

Then God is not omnipotent.

Your definitional issue does not pose a problem for the greater explanatory problem of Christianity.

God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.

No, it's irrational to allow present injustice or pain if it could be prevented. Therefore God is either irrational or not omnipotent. When pressed, Christians seem to pefer "not omnipotent." That's fair, so long as it's claimed that way.

Again, we define God as maximally supreme to clarify for those with definitional challenges.
We allowed the suffering of countless innocents when we dropped the bomb. A greater good was served by the suffering of those innocents. We can clearly see that God's plan would be mirrored and taught to us through our own needs.



there is a long list of apparently unjust behaviors, including Old Testament stories of divine punishments and tests, and the doctrine of damnation for mere failure to have ever heard of Christianity.

Anecdotal accusation.

Is it in doubt. "Don't look back ... you looked back, so zap, you're a pillar of salt. the test of Job. Any Biblical event that defies common human moral sense.

Again that is an unstudied accusation. Obviously Christian Theologians do not feel these events defy common moral sense.
God clearly punishes those who love evil. She only obeyed God for fear of punishment not hatred of the evil.
Job was a test that was valid. Complain about the harshness is your subjective issue. People complain about a mother punishing a lieing child with hot sauce. Most would say she did not go far enough.

Subjective complaints are invalid.


Also pointing to a one-off minority sect of Christianity that is not even a core belief.

Yes, the doctrine that redemption can only occur through faith is only a Protestant doctrine, so it only applies to them. But it's certainly not a small sect.

I do not know of any statement of faith from any denomination that would include the belief, "not to hear the name of Jesus = Hell".

You might point to a pastor or proclivity within a denomination but you certainly could not label protestants with that belief.


That is like pointing out Atheism is agnosticism by citing one atheist philosopher who claims to be both.

I would meet any argument that atheists are sometimes irrational with agreement. However, atheism is not characterized by dogma so there is no need for consistency. Belief i the christian God does require rationalizing the God's claimed behavior. Either the christian God is rational and moral, or He is not.

I have no idea how to convince you about atheistic dogma if you accept your delusion so readily. Your entire post is negative dogma.


... So why do Christians persist in claiming that irrational religious rules are justified?

Wow. You cite your own personal interpretation of scripture to accuse God of injustice. Impressive. Sound like Great I am.

Are you arguing that God's justice a portrayed in the Bible is consistent with human values as given by human nature? So should children be sacrificed to please gods? Or inhamane punishments be meted out as just? The Bible is rank with excess. It can be justified only by claiming that God's justice is not the same as human justice. So either humans are not in "God's image" or human interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

You cannot invalidate a God for ordering things we validate as a society. We recognize that the death of the innocents in Germany and Japan are not our fault even though we were forced to execute their deaths.

Innocents will pay for the crimes of the guilty.

We are made in God's image as we have metaphysical minds as God does and we share our human essence from a single original human source.

That's empty evasion. Is morality the same for God and man, or dos it all depend?

Holding people to the morality found in the nature of God is a transcendent objective process.



Unless there is a positive claim of the explanation. You can cite the source of an occurance while not knowing the mechanism for the occurance.

So therefore you cannot explain the unexplained as being the work of deity. It is no more than unexplained.

An event unclaimed by God can indeed be labeled unexplained. If He claims he did it then a claim exists. An uknown mechanism may remain. There is nothing unfounded or unmeritted in asserting the claim while not understanding the mechanism that God used to "do it".


You can tell me that Gravity exists but you cannot tell me the mechanism for its existence.

If so, then gravity is unexplained. No problem. The error would be in saying that because it is unexplained, a deit must be at work. It ends with being unexplained.

Not at all. The Deity claims to the Theologians to be at work. If there is no claim then yes you can easily label it unexplained. To label all things with unknown in the same category as unclaimed seems obviously wrong to my mind.

You are making a false comparison.

We certainly can point to the claim God did it, while not knowing the "how" God did it. You are also ignoring the claim.

What? All the unexplained things that you choose to attribute to God are explained by God, whereas all the unexplained things you do not choose to attribute to God are to be left as unexplained. Is that it? Why is that an improvement over leaving the unexplained entirely unexplained?

Close.
All things with unknown mechanisms certainly have a potential claim.
If God claims it we do not ignore the claim just because the mechanism is unknown.
As below, on the flip side we also do not ignore the claim, just because we see an automation process in place.


Keep in mind that weather, volcanoes, and most of nature was once unexplained, and was accordingly attributed to gods. That was wrong. so why continue in that pattern?

We control the weather on small scales.
We control fire on small scales
We control molten metals, natural events, chemical processes. These are all on small scales.

The fact we are able to control these processes and work with them leads to the POSITIVE option that a greater being could indeed control these processes on a larger scale.

A near infinite being able to control natural processes on a near infinite scale is supported by the fact we are able to do it on our scale.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:59:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 5:06:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:


God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.

No, it's irrational to allow present injustice or pain if it could be prevented. Therefore God is either irrational or not omnipotent. When pressed, Christians seem to prefer "not omnipotent." That's fair, so long as it's claimed that way.

Again, we define God as maximally supreme to clarify for those with definitional challenges.
We allowed the suffering of countless innocents when we dropped the bomb. A greater good was served by the suffering of those innocents. We can clearly see that God's plan would be mirrored and taught to us through our own needs.

You don't see a huge problem with your analogy here ? Limited humans vs an all powerful God ? If we could with a click of our fingers get the "greater" good without the suffering of innocence would we do it ? Yes, why don't we do that ? cause we don't have that ability.......But your concept of God does.....

So sure, its possible that God allows or does things for a greater good. But you know what else is possible, that God doesn't exist and thus isn't allowing or choosing anything, and the claim that Gods inaction is justified in the pursuit of a greater good is a rationlisation to reconcile the evidence of suffering with the prior belief that God exists.

So how do we tell the difference ? cause a God that chooses to allow things to happen for a greater good unknown to us appears very much like God does not exist and thus does not stop those things from happening.

Can we invoke occams razor to decide between the two here ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 8:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
These posts are hateful in nature because no one is ever going to change 000ike's mind about religion and he in fact did not come on here with an intent to get his mind changed, instead he wants Christians to come on and defend themselves so he and his militant atheist buddies can come on and destroy the Christians and belittle them in the eyes of the site. It happens time and time again.

Speaking of incorrigible atheists where's Physik?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 8:43:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:59:44 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/9/2012 5:06:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:


God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.

No, it's irrational to allow present injustice or pain if it could be prevented. Therefore God is either irrational or not omnipotent. When pressed, Christians seem to prefer "not omnipotent." That's fair, so long as it's claimed that way.

Again, we define God as maximally supreme to clarify for those with definitional challenges.
We allowed the suffering of countless innocents when we dropped the bomb. A greater good was served by the suffering of those innocents. We can clearly see that God's plan would be mirrored and taught to us through our own needs.

You don't see a huge problem with your analogy here ? Limited humans vs an all powerful God ? If we could with a click of our fingers get the "greater" good without the suffering of innocence would we do it ? Yes, why don't we do that ? cause we don't have that ability.......But your concept of God does.....

So sure, its possible that God allows or does things for a greater good. But you know what else is possible, that God doesn't exist and thus isn't allowing or choosing anything, and the claim that Gods inaction is justified in the pursuit of a greater good is a rationlisation to reconcile the evidence of suffering with the prior belief that God exists.

So how do we tell the difference ? cause a God that chooses to allow things to happen for a greater good unknown to us appears very much like God does not exist and thus does not stop those things from happening.

Can we invoke occams razor to decide between the two here ?

I can see why you believe this view valid. Let me try to direct you towards why your view lacks the warrant of a theistic view.

- Occam's razor type theories stand until we can trade those theories of simplicity for increased explanatory power.

- It is simply not possible for me to believe God does not exist. I have met him, metaphysically and physically.

Experientially it is not even possible for my mother not to exist. The same is the concept with God.
All theories at that point necessarily must include the Premise that God exists.

Let me outline the POE you put forward above.
(P1) Suffering is a problem
(P2) Evil is a problem
(P3) Evil and suffering must be 'solved'
(P4) Omnipotent God could and should 'solve' evil
(C) There is no God.

If this is what you are saying the conclusion is non-sequitor for tons of obvious reasons.

Additionally,
The premises I deny:

P1 Evil is only a temporal 'problem' for us and not God.
P2 Evil is only a temporal 'problem' for us and not God.
For these two God could easily in his ominipotence remove all effects of suffering from us after this life. He could easily do such and the Christian God has that explanatory power.
God also created the perfect race that do not experience suffering. They are called Angels. It has proven not to be a superior model. Again Christianity has the explanatory power here, we have a claim that such a complaint is not warranted.

P3 - I do not believe that evil necessarily 'must' be solved in that is must be stopped or removed. Much benefit suffering and evil has given me. My growth has been exponential and I see limited amount of growth from the unsuffering beings.

P4 - God has already 'solved' evil to the Christian view. Jesus Christ was the metaphysical solution. Heaven, Hell and the intermediate state are the physical solutions yet to come.

Conclusion? Problem of Evil in any fashion is not a problem for the Christian God.

We see that Simple theories can be given up with theories that have greater explanatory power verified by experiential data and assessed by vetted claims throughout the Bible.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:25:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 8:43:10 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:59:44 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/9/2012 5:06:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:


God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.

No, it's irrational to allow present injustice or pain if it could be prevented. Therefore God is either irrational or not omnipotent. When pressed, Christians seem to prefer "not omnipotent." That's fair, so long as it's claimed that way.

Again, we define God as maximally supreme to clarify for those with definitional challenges.
We allowed the suffering of countless innocents when we dropped the bomb. A greater good was served by the suffering of those innocents. We can clearly see that God's plan would be mirrored and taught to us through our own needs.

You don't see a huge problem with your analogy here ? Limited humans vs an all powerful God ? If we could with a click of our fingers get the "greater" good without the suffering of innocence would we do it ? Yes, why don't we do that ? cause we don't have that ability.......But your concept of God does.....

So sure, its possible that God allows or does things for a greater good. But you know what else is possible, that God doesn't exist and thus isn't allowing or choosing anything, and the claim that Gods inaction is justified in the pursuit of a greater good is a rationlisation to reconcile the evidence of suffering with the prior belief that God exists.

So how do we tell the difference ? cause a God that chooses to allow things to happen for a greater good unknown to us appears very much like God does not exist and thus does not stop those things from happening.

Can we invoke occams razor to decide between the two here ?

I can see why you believe this view valid. Let me try to direct you towards why your view lacks the warrant of a theistic view.

- Occam's razor type theories stand until we can trade those theories of simplicity for increased explanatory power.

- It is simply not possible for me to believe God does not exist. I have met him, metaphysically and physically.

Oh you can claim that till the cows come home, yet you can't prove it.


Experientially it is not even possible for my mother not to exist. The same is the concept with God.

You assume that you can only exist if God exists, merely an assertion.

All theories at that point necessarily must include the Premise that God exists.


Let me outline the POE you put forward above.
(P1) Suffering is a problem
(P2) Evil is a problem
(P3) Evil and suffering must be 'solved'
(P4) Omnipotent God could and should 'solve' evil
(C) There is no God.

If this is what you are saying the conclusion is non-sequitor for tons of obvious reasons.

Strawmans my argument. My argument/observation is based on two competing explanations why God doesn't do something in light of evidence of suffering, looking at the two propisitions.........

God exists and chooses not to ac for a greater good (and what other rationlisations you want to add)

God does not exist, and thus does not act

Additionally,
The premises I deny:

P1 Evil is only a temporal 'problem' for us and not God.
P2 Evil is only a temporal 'problem' for us and not God.
For these two God could easily in his ominipotence remove all effects of suffering from us after this life. He could easily do such and the Christian God has that explanatory power.

Sure he could, he could also of created the universe 5 mins ago and implanted false memories, possibilities come cheap, doesn't add to plausibility.

God also created the perfect race that do not experience suffering. They are called Angels. It has proven not to be a superior model. Again Christianity has the explanatory power here, we have a claim that such a complaint is not warranted.

Cool story bro, shame you can't prove it.


P3 - I do not believe that evil necessarily 'must' be solved in that is must be stopped or removed. Much benefit suffering and evil has given me. My growth has been exponential and I see limited amount of growth from the unsuffering beings.


P4 - God has already 'solved' evil to the Christian view. Jesus Christ was the metaphysical solution. Heaven, Hell and the intermediate state are the physical solutions yet to come.

Bet you can't prove that.


Conclusion? Problem of Evil in any fashion is not a problem for the Christian God.

Its not a logical problem, but you got a plausibility problem.

We see that Simple theories can be given up with theories that have greater explanatory power verified by experiential data and assessed by vetted claims throughout the Bible.

Assuming the bible is true to test non christian claims against it ? Golly I wonder what the result will be.

All you have done is made suffering compatible with the existence of God, I already granted that.

Assuming God exists to prove God exists to prove God allowing suffering is more plausible than God not existing not a good argument.

Gods non existence also explains why God doesn't do such and such. And this explanation more simply than compared to God existing, God choosing, God purseing a greater good, a greater good unknown to us etc etc

You didn't really answer my question ? You just denied that God not existing is an option. How about if we don't assume that God exists ? how about we don't beg the question eh ?

So how do we tell the difference ? cause a God that chooses to allow things to happen for a greater good unknown to us appears very much like God does not exist and thus does not stop those things from happening.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:56:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:25:46 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/9/2012 8:43:10 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:59:44 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/9/2012 5:06:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:


God affirms our sense of Justice.
At most you might have an accusation against God for allowing Satan to be god of this world, but you would have to assert your knowledge that a vastly superior universal good will NOT be played out at the end, that indeed nothing justifies Gods means towards the end of that greater good.

No, it's irrational to allow present injustice or pain if it could be prevented. Therefore God is either irrational or not omnipotent. When pressed, Christians seem to prefer "not omnipotent." That's fair, so long as it's claimed that way.

Again, we define God as maximally supreme to clarify for those with definitional challenges.
We allowed the suffering of countless innocents when we dropped the bomb. A greater good was served by the suffering of those innocents. We can clearly see that God's plan would be mirrored and taught to us through our own needs.

You don't see a huge problem with your analogy here ? Limited humans vs an all powerful God ? If we could with a click of our fingers get the "greater" good without the suffering of innocence would we do it ? Yes, why don't we do that ? cause we don't have that ability.......But your concept of God does.....

So sure, its possible that God allows or does things for a greater good. But you know what else is possible, that God doesn't exist and thus isn't allowing or choosing anything, and the claim that Gods inaction is justified in the pursuit of a greater good is a rationlisation to reconcile the evidence of suffering with the prior belief that God exists.

So how do we tell the difference ? cause a God that chooses to allow things to happen for a greater good unknown to us appears very much like God does not exist and thus does not stop those things from happening.

Can we invoke occams razor to decide between the two here ?

I can see why you believe this view valid. Let me try to direct you towards why your view lacks the warrant of a theistic view.

- Occam's razor type theories stand until we can trade those theories of simplicity for increased explanatory power.

- It is simply not possible for me to believe God does not exist. I have met him, metaphysically and physically.

Oh you can claim that till the cows come home, yet you can't prove it.


Experientially it is not even possible for my mother not to exist. The same is the concept with God.

You assume that you can only exist if God exists, merely an assertion.

All theories at that point necessarily must include the Premise that God exists.


Let me outline the POE you put forward above.
(P1) Suffering is a problem
(P2) Evil is a problem
(P3) Evil and suffering must be 'solved'
(P4) Omnipotent God could and should 'solve' evil
(C) There is no God.

If this is what you are saying the conclusion is non-sequitor for tons of obvious reasons.

Strawmans my argument. My argument/observation is based on two competing explanations why God doesn't do something in light of evidence of suffering, looking at the two propisitions.........

God exists and chooses not to ac for a greater good (and what other rationlisations you want to add)

God does not exist, and thus does not act

Additionally,
The premises I deny:

P1 Evil is only a temporal 'problem' for us and not God.
P2 Evil is only a temporal 'problem' for us and not God.
For these two God could easily in his ominipotence remove all effects of suffering from us after this life. He could easily do such and the Christian God has that explanatory power.

Sure he could, he could also of created the universe 5 mins ago and implanted false memories, possibilities come cheap, doesn't add to plausibility.

God also created the perfect race that do not experience suffering. They are called Angels. It has proven not to be a superior model. Again Christianity has the explanatory power here, we have a claim that such a complaint is not warranted.

Cool story bro, shame you can't prove it.


P3 - I do not believe that evil necessarily 'must' be solved in that is must be stopped or removed. Much benefit suffering and evil has given me. My growth has been exponential and I see limited amount of growth from the unsuffering beings.


P4 - God has already 'solved' evil to the Christian view. Jesus Christ was the metaphysical solution. Heaven, Hell and the intermediate state are the physical solutions yet to come.

Bet you can't prove that.


Conclusion? Problem of Evil in any fashion is not a problem for the Christian God.

Its not a logical problem, but you got a plausibility problem.

We see that Simple theories can be given up with theories that have greater explanatory power verified by experiential data and assessed by vetted claims throughout the Bible.

Assuming the bible is true to test non christian claims against it ? Golly I wonder what the result will be.

All you have done is made suffering compatible with the existence of God, I already granted that.

Assuming God exists to prove God exists to prove God allowing suffering is more plausible than God not existing not a good argument.

Gods non existence also explains why God doesn't do such and such. And this explanation more simply than compared to God existing, God choosing, God purseing a greater good, a greater good unknown to us etc etc

You didn't really answer my question ? You just denied that God not existing is an option. How about if we don't assume that God exists ? how about we don't beg the question eh ?

So how do we tell the difference ? cause a God that chooses to allow things to happen for a greater good unknown to us appears very much like God does not exist and thus does not stop those things from happening.

Let me try a different tactic with you specifically in our discussion.
YOU put forward a clear outline with premises and conclusion to your arugment.

The outline I gave were necessary ramifications of your statements.
If you put your arguments forward clearly and succinctly it will avoid my strawman's and allow me to pin you down more clearly so I can show you where you are wrong.

Additionally all Christian claims have already been proven. Did you miss the bulletin?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:36:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:07:14 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
@Illegalcombatant

Why don't you put your profile to atheist instead of "Not Saying"?

Because to some people you may as well put child molester in your profile.

I wouldn't go that far yet, I was a theist, started questioning for myself and not just accepting the usual apologetics "answers", I couldn't say in good conscience I had been honest in my beliefs. In hindsight there were definitively mental gymnastics I was performing to justify some theistic/christian beliefs in other words lack of intellectual integrity.

All we can do is use reason, and appeal to people to use reason on their own beliefs.(And no using reason on your beliefs isn't the same as accepting any justification to maintain your belief) If they won't or can't do that, cause faith immunizes its self from reason and evidence well..............this is going to end badly.

But thanks for asking.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

I'm pretty busy with studies so I'll only respond to a few and probably won't go into too much detail. Also forgive me if you respond and I don't answer back, or at least take a long time. I don't have much time for forum discussion atm unfortunately.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

A bit vague but I assume you're saying Christianity isn't logical. There are a number of possible answers to your questions.

I.) God is a completely different being to us. We can't except to understand allot of what He does.

II.) The way humans think has changed a huge amount over time. If there are things in the Bible you see as strange maybe back then it was not. Again I'm just speculating on what you mean in your above post.

III.) You don't have to accept everything in the Bible. Fallible men wrote the books of the Bible and fallible men picked which books to include. (Not that I'm saying you should cherry pick your beliefs.)

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

I completely agree that infinite punishment for finite sins is undefendable.

The Bible is never very clear about the afterlife, but here are some verses that support the annihilationist view (my view) that souls of nonbelievers cease to exist after the die.

Mathew 10:28 very clearly supports the fact that God destroys souls and that He does so in Hell.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die"
Ezekiel 18:20

"let him know that [a]he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. "
James 5:20

"but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, "
2 Timothy 1:10

But [a]we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the [b]preserving of the soul.
Hebrews 10:39

"and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;"
2 Peter 2:6

"But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in [a]the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, "
2 Peter 2:12

"But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
2 Peter 3:7

Here's a copy and paste from another conversation I had. Part of it I am referring to the Bibles use of a blazing furnace to describe hell.

The main reason I'm an annhilationist is because I can't reconcile God and hell together. However this doesn't mean at all that I have to ignore the scriptures to adhere to this belief. The blazing furnace this verse mentions I believe to be symbolic. I believe that, for nonbelievers, the soul is destroyed after death. The blazing furnace is symbolic. It is what destroys the soul. That this is simply symbolic is completely reasonable and believable. The Bible is FULL of literary devices as well as riddles. A literature teacher could focus a large portion of class on all the different literature terms and devices the Bible uses, such as anaphora, analogies and symbols. Jesus especially taught this way, and Jesus was really the only person we get the idea of hell from. Not once is hell mentioned in the old testament. I wander why that is. We only get it from the gospels. All other new testament authors who talk about what happens after death for nonbelievers get it from the gospels, and thus Jesus. Thus we have it like this. Not once in the 39 books (that number might be slightly wrong. I counted on my fingers and from memory) from the old testament is hell mentioned. Only the after life for BELIEVERS. The only sources from where we get this idea from are the four narratives of Jesus. Jesus' way of teaching was unique to most, and full of literary devices. It is completely reasonable to conclude He was possibly talking in symbols. He loved to talk that way.


5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?

I.) He may have a morally sufficient reason to do so. (Not what I believe)

II.) Who says God is omnipotent? I'm against the idea that God is omnipotent, or omniscient. I find it unlikely that God is either. I'm undecided about Him being all good.

7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

Kindly expand please.

8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

Expand please.

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?

Good point. Something I am going to set out to do, when I have more time, is to, through research, reading an reasoning, build a firm standing on what books of the Bible are valid, and what books not included should have been included.

http://www.debate.org...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 5:06:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/9/2012 4:29:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Strawman.
Any bad occurances in the world is directly attributed to the god of this world, called Satan or Adversary.

Then God is not omnipotent.

Your definitional issue does not pose a problem for the greater explanatory problem of Christianity.

You're right, Iit doesn't diminish the explanatory power of Christianity. Almost any type of God has full explanatory power. The problem is squaring it with reason and morality.

Again, we define God as maximally supreme to clarify for those with definitional challenges.

What? I think that is agreeing that God is not omnipotent.

We allowed the suffering of countless innocents when we dropped the bomb. A greater good was served by the suffering of those innocents. We can clearly see that God's plan would be mirrored and taught to us through our own needs.

The point is whether God's justice is rational in human terms. At best, it works if God is relatively weak so He can do no better. Dropping the bomb was perhaps the best we could do under the circumstances. So the idea must be that God does not have the power to make the world even 1% better.

Again that is an unstudied accusation. Obviously Christian Theologians do not feel these events defy common moral sense.

No, they justify the morality as something that only God can understand. A test is whether the same moral logic would be persuasive in Court. "Why did you kill the victim?" "I told him not to look back, and he looked back." Or, "It was necessary to punish him as a person who loved evil."

I doubt that few theologians would accept the principles of divine justice as presented anecdotally in the Bible as models for human justice.

Job was a test that was valid. Complain about the harshness is your subjective issue. People complain about a mother punishing a lieing child with hot sauce. Most would say she did not go far enough.

There are borderline cases too be sure, but that doesn't justify excess. "Why did you stone your child to death?" "He lied." It defies any sense of justice.

Subjective complaints are invalid.

Ah, that grants my point. "Subjective" implies that what is excessive cannot be judged by reasonable standards and human nature. Your appeal is to a divine logic that cannot be explained, but must be accepted on faith. So even if it appears unjust to stone children to death for lying, we ought to be willing to accept that it accomplishes a higher purpose that cannot be understood. That requires that God not share human morality, otherwise it could be understood.

I do not know of any statement of faith from any denomination that would include the belief, "not to hear the name of Jesus = Hell".

I do. It goes: Redemption cannot be achieved by good works, it can only be achieved by accepting Jesus. Those who have never heard of Jesus therefore cannot be redeemed. Q.E.D.

You might point to a pastor or proclivity within a denomination but you certainly could not label protestants with that belief.



I have no idea how to convince you about atheistic dogma if you accept your delusion so readily. Your entire post is negative dogma.


... So why do Christians persist in claiming that irrational religious rules are justified?

Wow. You cite your own personal interpretation of scripture to accuse God of injustice. Impressive. Sound like Great I am.

Are you arguing that God's justice a portrayed in the Bible is consistent with human values as given by human nature? So should children be sacrificed to please gods? Or inhamane punishments be meted out as just? The Bible is rank with excess. It can be justified only by claiming that God's justice is not the same as human justice. So either humans are not in "God's image" or human interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

You cannot invalidate a God for ordering things we validate as a society. We recognize that the death of the innocents in Germany and Japan are not our fault even though we were forced to execute their deaths.

Innocents will pay for the crimes of the guilty.

We are made in God's image as we have metaphysical minds as God does and we share our human essence from a single original human source.

That's empty evasion. Is morality the same for God and man, or dos it all depend?

Holding people to the morality found in the nature of God is a transcendent objective process.

An event unclaimed by God can indeed be labeled unexplained. If He claims he did it then a claim exists. An uknown mechanism may remain. There is nothing unfounded or unmeritted in asserting the claim while not understanding the mechanism that God used to "do it".


You can tell me that Gravity exists but you cannot tell me the mechanism for its existence.

If so, then gravity is unexplained. No problem. The error would be in saying that because it is unexplained, a deit must be at work. It ends with being unexplained.

Not at all. The Deity claims to the Theologians to be at work. If there is no claim then yes you can easily label it unexplained. To label all things with unknown in the same category as unclaimed seems obviously wrong to my mind.

You are making a false comparison.

We certainly can point to the claim God did it, while not knowing the "how" God did it. You are also ignoring the claim.

What? All the unexplained things that you choose to attribute to God are explained by God, whereas all the unexplained things you do not choose to attribute to God are to be left as unexplained. Is that it? Why is that an improvement over leaving the unexplained entirely unexplained?

Close.
All things with unknown mechanisms certainly have a potential claim.
If God claims it we do not ignore the claim just because the mechanism is unknown.
As below, on the flip side we also do not ignore the claim, just because we see an automation process in place.

The problem is that only believers know for sure what God claims, and it seems no two believers know the same thing. the question is how to know what God really wants. either reason can be used or not.

The fact we are able to control these processes and work with them leads to the POSITIVE option that a greater being could indeed control these processes on a larger scale.

Yes, that's possible. However, the question is whether a God explanation of the weather is a better explanation than unequal heating of the atmosphere.

A near infinite being able to control natural processes on a near infinite scale is supported by the fact we are able to do it on our scale.

A near-infinite (hmm, not omnipotent) being could by assumption do what He wants. Clarke's "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." applies.

The question is a simple one: Is God bound by human standards of reason and morality or not? If so, then divine will can be learned through natural law. If not, then man is not made in God's image.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 2:36:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 3:25:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/9/2012 2:00:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I love when individuals who were clearly indoctrinated as children pretend to have been atheist or agnostic in order to minimize the importance of atheism and agnosticism as ideas.

I wonder if that cuts both ways? do the vast majority of atheists and agnostics here claim to have once been religious in order to play up their so called pilgrimage from irrationality to rationality?

Doubtful, since the overwhelming majority of people are born into some kind of religious household; rarely are people born and "indoctrinated" with atheism, so I'd say the vast, vast majority of atheists came to that conclusion by themselves. No, I don't think it really cuts both ways... Most atheist and agnostics probably were religious at some point.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 6:52:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?

6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will. So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault, therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?

Of all the points made, only questions 3, 5 and 10 would be difficult to answer, albeit those 3 are serious objections and hugely difficult. I'd add biblical atrocities, and then I think you've got probably the 4 toughest questions for Christians.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:04:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

I consider this wholly inaccurate. "Creatures of logic" is almost as if to say, our interpretations of reality and the principles that accompany them are purely based on logic. Not only are those things also comprised of emotions, dogmatism, desire, and spirituality, which are distinct both from each another as well as logic, (which is why we have pathos, eros, and ethos in addition to logos), but if we were to be able to assign values to each of these characteristics of human cognition, then I'd be willing to bet that logic is a minority.

That said, there is an interesting paradox in your explanation. Consider:

If religion were 100% cognitively logical--or, that is to say, perfect in terms of the human interpretation of reality and truth, which we already know is flawed--then, wouldn't this be more substantive proof that it were contrived by human beings? It makes more sense that a concept or series of concepts from a divine source would be beyond human understanding, rendering it more likely to derive from elsewhere.

2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.

Well, scientific improbabilities exist all over the place. Insofar, we are the only life we've found in the universe. If we transverse this entire solar system and find no other life, then within the context of this solar system, our existence is a scientific improbability. Humans engaging in acts that appear to be legitimate miracles are not unheard of. Consider the man from India that can literally conduct high voltage electricity -- enough to power a small household appliance.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

Two things about this.

First, this is suggesting that a benevolent God would not set parameters. That's tantamount to stating that our country cannot have laws if it is to have liberty. Sending people to prison for robbing, raping, and murdering is fallacious, because humans are casting judgement on one another and no action can possibly equal something as agonizing as a closed-off community filled with nothing but malevolent people (like hell, lol).

Second, Hell is not "eternal" according to the Bible. After all is said and done after the Apocalypse, Hell will be no more, all those that chose to go there (rather than being sent there) will perish, and Heaven and Earth will become one.

4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

Most people don't necessarily praise God "because something happy happens" specifically due to the happy circumstance; rather, they praise the fact that it was witten in God's plan for that happy circumstance to occur.

People praise God for children, because in their conception, it was God that made that miracle occur in the first place.

You know, conception remains a scientific mystery, btw.

5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?


One way to interpret it is to say that it's because God is a benevolent and forgiving God.

Another conception is that the existence of shadow proves the existence of light, rather than negates it.

6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will.

Whenever people discuss morality, I find it that more and more, people completely forego accountability.

What you do is based on the decisions you made. There may be some rational explanation for what you did or how you arrived to that decision, but that doesn't detract from the fact that you did make that decision, nor does it prove that the decision itself was rational. You are responsible for yourself, not any sort of outside forces.

So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault,

Lol, BS.

therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

This sort of variability, as well as the existence of free will, sort of makes it so that this conception of God corresponds with science. In other words, rather than weave reality as it occurs like a tapestry, God instead set everything into motion and let it do what it does -- change, evolve, adapt, and develop.

In terms of a predisposition to sin, I used a simile that I believe still applies:

Sinning is like typos. Although it's essentially inevitable that we as typists will commit typos, that does not necessarily mean that we are inclined, desire to, or had any intention to do so. Nonetheless, they will occur, and they will weaken the perception of your written words.

7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

Christian leaders have done that, this is true; however, this is true of leaders of every ideology. However, in terms of the doctrine and core philosophies, this is antithetical.

8. We have inherent desires to be free.

Consider every society since time immemorial, and the fact that we've always needed society and a government that enforces limitations for stability, and tell me that people are inclined to be independent and "free" of the interests, desires, or principles of others.

If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

Every construct man has every contrived destroys freedom for a molded "order." Christianity, on the other hand, shows that if we were to simply agree, we would suddenly inherit capacity comparable to God.

9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?


Everything is written by humans. Science is written by humans.

What isn't BS? Have you ever personally witnessed, experienced, or otherwise personally proved through empirical evidence the theory of relativity or of evolution or of the laws of motion or of the laws of thermodynamics?

You believe these things because everyone else does, and you assume that what people report are the products of its manipulation is factual. Due to the general ignorance that the layman entertains, you have no real way of knowing whether anything you "know" is real; you simply accept it. I'd say that makes casual ubiquitous belief even less substantive than "religion."

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?

Because, perhaps it would be impossible for us to understand.

If the world could be reduced scientifically, why don't we just figure that out directly to prove it so that we can understand everything else?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 12:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Roy Latham,

- Nothing about ‘God did it' is outside of reason and logic. Can you elaborate? I think you could only be limited to a complaint you might posses about a lack of justification.

- Maximally supreme is omnipotent. We use it to show you that your definition of omnipotence has ‘all' at its "Truest" sense of all. As God has all power, he has the power to allow things like suffering and evil. These are problem for finite beings but not a infinite being. He has ‘all' power including the power to undo harm or to use it for the maximum benefit of ‘all'.

- God being rational in human terms:
Your complaint is that you are unable to see the rational of God? Study more. Theologians in history over have many encounters where God has laid out what he is doing.
God is dealing with us in limited terms because we are limited.
Why not demand God make us without suffering? He did that, they are called angels. How about give us knowledge at birth? He did that they are called angels.
How do you explain something to someone who is unable to feel or see suffering and evil what suffering and evil is?
You show them. You create a system that allows for it.
Now God deals with us within the limits of ‘what' we are.
God has ‘all' the power that no person who should not be diminished will not be.

- To quote you:
"There are borderline cases too be sure, but that doesn't justify excess. "Why did you stone your child to death?" "He lied." It defies any sense of justice"

Subjective distaste for punishment vs. Divine appeal

Let me see if I follow your argument and you change it where you see fit until I am crystal.

(P1) Lying demands punishment
(P2) Stoning is punishment
Conclusion – A liar should be stoned

This is not the same as:

(P1) Lying demands punishment
(P2) Punishment should fit the act that needs to be punished
Conclusion – A liar should be punished in a way befitting the act.

Every society has defined what seems reasonable to them. To make such a complaint that reasonable form of punishment is in anyway ‘common' among man would be ludicrous.
The fact that we would both agree is merely because we are both steeped within the same Christian culture.
Nothing about humans gives them some displayed inherent claim to properly rationalize appropriate punishments for given actions.

We can all agree though that some sense of objective morality does exist inside of us that can be sku'ed by culture. It is something that can be changed.

The Christian claim is that God can fix our internal moral compass. Once it is fixed we all go "Ah"!. We did not know it was broken until it was working properly.

A God claim of fixing what is broken that you did not even know was broken is completely reasonable and rational to my mind.

- In context:
I do not know of any statement of faith from any denomination that would include the belief, "not to hear the name of Jesus = Hell".

I do. It goes: Redemption cannot be achieved by good works, it can only be achieved by accepting Jesus. Those who have never heard of Jesus therefore cannot be redeemed. Q.E.D.

You will have to cite a denominational statement of faith includes such a demonstrated ‘proof'.
I am sure you can find some uneducated non-mainstream pastor making the claim but that would be moronic for an institution to claim and adhere to. Even the Calvinists recognize God could save people who never heard of Jesus.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:36:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) What religion r u taking about ?
2) Miracles r scientific impossibilities !
3) God does not.
4) Like this ?. (sugar daddy, Santa )
5) Love this ? also. Latter, need more time.
6) Character? = what we dwell on.
7) Nice try, sounds like Union's
8) We r free ! Consequences to follow. Responsibility 4 actions taken.
9) Read it!
10) HE has, look at nature. U just want it easy! With all your heart!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 8:24:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:41:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
Who can argue for Christianity best. I want to hear what you have to say in refutation to the following points. I really want to know your side of the story better.

1. It is self-evident that we are creatures of logic. Either religion must follow logic, or, if it doesn't, we aren't meant to understand religion in the first place.

Relativity and Quantumn theory do not make sense together. You do not accuse them of 'not being logical.' Religion must be logical, but in order for it to be self consistent we must understand God, we are not close to doing that yet. However, religion is trying to do what science is, to explain the nature of the world, neither have nailed it yet.


2. Noah's Arc, Moses and the partition of the sea, resurrection, and miracles are scientific impossibilities.


This is a silly point. If God exists, he can exercise powers outside science. However, if you showed what we can do now to someone who lived thousands of years ago, every single thing showed would be, to them, a scientific impossibility.

3. Why would a benevolent God send people to Hell? Ever? No earthly and finite action can equal something so transcendentally infinite and agonizing?

Of course it can't. Hell is jail for the soul and lasts as such. What you see in the Bible, or at least some parts with reference to hell, was a persons interpretation of the world of God. The same way science interprets a collection of dots that trend upwards as a straight line. The naunce of reality is often different from our interpolation of it.


4. Why do you praise God for his miracles when a baby is born or something happy happens, but when we pray to God to save us in more grim situations, and he doesn't, he is not to blame?

If you were a billionaire you would not celebrate finding a forgotten banknote in your back pocket. While we like to think we want good stuff to happen to us, in reality our natures are defined by the challenges that come to us. Sometimes people suffer, true, and in some ways life is not fair, however very temporary inconvenience for some is the only way to server the greater good for humanity as a whole, and I'm pretty sure for those who do suffer as a result are likely to have it made up to them by God.


5. If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist?

This relates to the above. You've probably seen the film pleasantville, or the stepford wives. Without evil, we will have nothing to define good by. If there was only good, there would really be nothing for humans to strive and struggle for.


6. There is no inherent spiritual factor that will make people commit evil. The actions of people are merely a reflection of their character, and character is built by environment not personal will. So, if one grows up to be a bad person, its not entirely his fault, therefore, he does not deserve divine punishment. OR, if such a factor exists and God wants to weed out the ones that have it, would it then not be his fault for creating an intrinsically evil creature?

Of course it's not entirely their fault, but not in every case. The vast, vast majority of people still have a choice. Life, good, evil and free will does not necessarily revolve around an individual for all things, but at almost every point, for almost every person, someone has a choice.


7. Christianity alienates people and purports a kind of uniformity that develops psychological slavery.

People always gravitate to other people with the same beliefs. The above is true in almost every collection or group of people. People want to belief what they do, and surround themselves by people who think the same way. I'm sure you and your friends, will like similar things, and want to do things together, and be reluctant to break from the group to go their own way. You wouldn't call that psychological slavery.

Importantly, if you look even in this forum, every single person here who says they are a Christian, believes in a slightly different version of God and their faith than any other. If that is 'psychological slavery' then it's a pretty rubbish one.

8. We have inherent desires to be free. If God is our creator, then he must have put them there. Christianity destroys freedom for a molded 'order.' This is a contradiction.

I would completely disagree here, related to the point before. You can say the same about a political party that promotes 'independence' for their region.


9. The Bible is written by humans. How do we know they're not just BSing?


We don't. In a similar way that we can never 'proove' that gravity exists, it's just that every measurement we have made confirm it. We cannot be fully sure, but the bible is backed up by thoughts of individuals, personal experience, historical veracity of some portions show lend credibility. But the biggest thing, is if it was complete and utter bs, the size and nature of religion in humanity makes no sense. Most people believe something, they no longer believe in Zeus....

10. If God is all powerful and wants us to know of his existence, why does he not DIRECTLY provide proof of his existence that we would understand?

If God wanted us to have unambiguous proof of his existence, he would give it. This means that he doesn't. Now, a more interesting question is what purpose would be served by him not wanting to reveal his existence. I would say, though, that humans are so amazingly inquisitive, this could be a great clue. When you help a child with homework, you do not give them the answer, you give them pokes, and tools for them to work out the answer for themselves