Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian Student v Atheist teacher

Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:07:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ."
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could.... in fact most of us would if we could...God doesn't."
[No answer.]
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
[No answer]
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sipofwater from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. Inphilosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, youngfella."
"Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From... God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladiesand gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
[No answer]
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
[No answer]
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE! "The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
[No answer]
The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized.
"Tell me," he continues, "how is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
[No answer]
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"
Pause.
"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
[No answer]
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
[No answer]
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
[The student doesn't answer]
"Sit down, please." The Christian sits...Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?" "Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very still. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"
The class is all ears. "Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it." The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?" The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if He exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or an
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:07:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. "Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for..
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:21:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is dumb. The professor clearly has a brain; you can measure the effects of his brain because he clearly talks, listens and thinks. Also, the students could technically see, feel, smell, taste and hear (if brains have a sound) the professor's brain, therefore proving its existence, but they'd have to kill him in the process. Just because they can't see it while the professor is alive, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dumb analogy.

You can't measure God, and you can't use any sense to determine if God exists. You can only use faith in His existence to determine it.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:24:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wow Volkrov, that part of the story was a joke
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:26:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Alex,
this came from one of those silly chick pamphlets, didn't it? As servers, we used to collect them at our restaurants. This one sounds like the "Big Daddy" pamphlet, Kent Hovind helped write.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:27:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/14/2009 9:24:32 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Wow Volkrov, that part of the story was a joke

Joke yes, but its also a statement based on the line "God can't exist because we can't use to senses to detect him." Plus I didn't bother reading all of it.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:29:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
""SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters."

I've read this story before but it's still good for a laugh.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 9:31:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Essentially, Hanson, the second student is committing the error of the "hard empiricist." A hard empiricist holds that man is a brute animal, who must IMMEDIATELY sense everything. In other words, that man has eyes, ears, a nose, a mouth, hands, but no brain.

A soft empiricist, by contrast, recognizes than some facts can be deduced from those facts that are sensed, using reason.
Which I'll note the second student didn't attempt.

Btw, I hope this wasn't a public school. Bad enough that they take my money, let alone to spend it berating Christians, which I can do for free.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 10:25:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/14/2009 9:37:55 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Here it is, this one is a little different.
http://www.chick.com...

That was... terrible. That professor was unbelievably stupid, and apparently the person who made it was completely oblivious to what his opponents' arguments actually were, so the professor didn't even put up an argument.

The professor pointed out that all chordates have pharyngeal slits to show that they have common ancestry, and the student responded by saying that in Humans the slits don't develop into gills, which is completely moot. In response to this god-awful rebuttal, the professor said "(gulp) he's destroying me."
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 10:34:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I like how the this was intended to show the "flaws of atheism", but in turn it shows how idiotic theism is :)

Bravo indeed.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 10:40:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yea Harlan,
the chick productions booklets are way over the top. I saw this post and I thought about them, particularly this one. I will happily debate the theory of evolution with the OP, but I saw that Kleptin offered such a debate. I could not find the debate in the debater's profile so he must have declined Kleptin's offer. Anyway, this whole conversation was probably pasted from some creationist site.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 10:54:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kleptin never challenged me to a debate, not that i can remember anyway.

But yeah, i never intended anyone to think i wrote this, the story has been around for quite a while.

Btw i dont want any challenges for now anyways, not in the middle of finals
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 11:00:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/14/2009 9:21:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
This is dumb. The professor clearly has a brain; you can measure the effects of his brain because he clearly talks, listens and thinks. Also, the students could technically see, feel, smell, taste and hear (if brains have a sound) the professor's brain, therefore proving its existence, but they'd have to kill him in the process. Just because they can't see it while the professor is alive, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dumb analogy.

You can't measure God, and you can't use any sense to determine if God exists. You can only use faith in His existence to determine it.

I beg to differ. If the professor had a brain, he would have known how to counter the argument given to him. ;)
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2009 11:04:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In fact, one would have to wonder what he is even doing teaching philosophy in the first place if he is unable to address something so basic.

Then again, who am I kidding? With the way our school systems are ran, it's no surprise.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 2:03:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thanks.. Heard it before but enjoyed it anyway.

The most important point is that evil is the ABSENCE of God.
Hell is the COMPLETE absence of God.
And all of you so called atheist are choosing to spend eternity there..

John 14:6 (New King James Version)
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 5:11:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/14/2009 9:24:32 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Wow Volkrov, that part of the story was a joke

I was waiting for this post.

Whenever I see this, or any other light-hearted but thought provoking thing, posted to stimulate a debate, the poster always jumps at the first response and yells "oooh, it's a joke, it's a joke! calm down, it's a joke!"

I find that to be one of the most annoying habits of people on forums. When you post something, you know it will provoke, so why pretend that it isn't your intent to do so and criticize the inevitable response?

This doesn't just go for Christian propaganda, but for Atheist propaganda too. I remember seeing some cartoon posted about illustrated logical fallacies of the Bible. Some Christian rushed to defend it and the OP had the same attitude. "Duuude, it was a joke".

*sigh*
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 5:28:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/14/2009 9:07:37 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
stuff

The problem with the second student's response is that, even assuming that evil equals an absence of God (as God is the source of all good) there is no real good reason for God not to fill in that absence. Imagine a light in a closed closet. If the light is dull, some parts of the closet will remain in shadow. If the light is bright, the closet should be nearly fully illuminated. If the light is perfectly, absolutely brilliant, the source of all light, we would expect the entire closet to be illuminated.

In theory, an obstruction of some kind could prevent even the most brilliant light from filtering through. Of course, this is where the analogy fails, as God is no mere light bulb and has it within his discretion to remove any obstacle before him. As argument's go, this one seems insufficient to fully explain God's inaction.

It's actually a decent argument for why one can not claim to disprove God, though. Using empirical observation against that which by definition is not subject to empirical observation makes for a lousy argument. Of course, if one is inclined to believe in things that can not be/have not been observed, one must also believe in ghosts, fairies, snipes, banshees, aliens, sea serpents, and bigfoot, as there is at least as much evidence for these beings, if not more.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 6:34:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Once again, Lex hits the nail on the head... If I may, I'd like to drive it further home...

This notion of the absence of this, the absence of that, etc... is in and of itself a circular, flawed premise. In order to actually understand the move away from duality, one must actually operate in a... dualistic world.

In the case of evil being simply the absence of God, the theist is utterly dumbfounded when confronted with the simple language of Psalm 139:

"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Or in a paraphrase from a popular Catholic hymn:

"Where can I run from your love? If I climb to the heavens You are there; If I fly to the sunrise or sail beyond the sea, still I'd find You there."

These verses suggest one of the notions in Christian doctrine - that God is everywhere - omnipresent. If we accept that God is omnipresent, then we must also accept that there is no place removed from God's influence or spirit. And if this is true, then evil cannot be merely the absence of God or God's spirit, because both are everywhere.

So in response to the problem of evil, the theist MUST provide a theodicy that explains evil in a way other than that of simply "oh - God's not there."
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 8:17:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well only that part was kleptin, i'm pretty sure everyone in the class knew just by common sense that because he was human and alive he had a brain, however; the student used the logic that the professor used against him, and it got the class in an uproar in which the professor could do nothing.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 9:11:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/15/2009 8:17:09 AM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Well only that part was kleptin, i'm pretty sure everyone in the class knew just by common sense that because he was human and alive he had a brain, however; the student used the logic that the professor used against him, and it got the class in an uproar in which the professor could do nothing.

Well it probably wasn't a real story anyway.
But in any case, the professor was retarded for suggesting that someone would have to see/hear/smell/taste/feel something to know it exists. Rather, he should have asked if there were any phenomena that he had observed for which Jesus' existence was the best explanation.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/15/2009 6:34:46 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Once again, Lex hits the nail on the head... If I may, I'd like to drive it further home...

This notion of the absence of this, the absence of that, etc... is in and of itself a circular, flawed premise. In order to actually understand the move away from duality, one must actually operate in a... dualistic world.

1 John 1:5 (New King James Version)

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.


Dualism is only a 'way to see'.. We can see light and dark as two separate and distinct entities while acknowledging that one is only the absence of the other, as cold is only the absence of heat.

In the case of evil being simply the absence of God, the theist is utterly dumbfounded when confronted with the simple language of Psalm 139:

"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Again, JCMT shows he has about as much Biblical discernment (or even just human discernment!) as someone on a cold slab.
He consistently takes the poetry of the Psalms as literal and takes the literal miracles of Christ etc as allegorical. Dishonest.
Please see our debate for many many more examples of this:http://www.Debate.org...

Or in a paraphrase from a popular Catholic hymn:

"Where can I run from your love? If I climb to the heavens You are there; If I fly to the sunrise or sail beyond the sea, still I'd find You there."

These verses suggest one of the notions in Christian doctrine - that God is everywhere - omnipresent. If we accept that God is omnipresent, then we must also accept that there is no place removed from God's influence or spirit. And if this is true, then evil cannot be merely the absence of God or God's spirit, because both are everywhere.

You have merely shown the limitation of the word omnipresent.
Is it surprising that such a word would become limiting when discussing the Living God?

In my hands I hold a book. At any given moment I can turn to any chapter, page or line etc.. At no time am I the book.

So in response to the problem of evil, the theist MUST provide a theodicy that explains evil in a way other than that of simply "oh - God's not there."

As I have clearly shown, this is not the case; You should really wait for a rebuttal before making idiotic claims such as this.

I really think I'm going to enjoy ripping everything you post (everywhere) to shreds without the slightest come back.. Happy days.

1 John 1:5 (The Message)

Walk in the Light
5This, in essence, is the message we heard from Christ and are passing on to you: God is light, pure light; there's not a trace of darkness in him.
The Cross.. the Cross.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2009 9:58:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yet again we hear from our resident troll, who has nothing to actually contribute to this thread, but makes enough mistakes to confuse people trying to read it intelligibly...

Dualism is only a 'way to see'.. We can see light and dark as two separate and distinct entities while acknowledging that one is only the absence of the other, as cold is only the absence of heat.

DAT's conception of dualism involves the conjoining of phenomena and description. Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well when speaking in religious terms. Keeping with the hot/cold analogy, there are three states - hot, cold, and equilibrium. A better understanding of this may be achieved by thinking of pleasure, pain, and the absence of both... However, when put into religious terms, the analogy plays out by presenting evil as a necessary counterpart to God's existence.

This, of course, wreaks all sorts of havoc with any theodicy that attempts to secure God as both omnipotent and omnibenevolent because an omnipotent God (especially one that created everything) could have actualized the world in such a manner that evil was not necessary.

He consistently takes the poetry of the Psalms as literal and takes the literal miracles of Christ etc as allegorical. Dishonest.

Apparently DAT lacks discernment in understanding basic English. As I said before,
"These verses suggest one of the notions in Christian doctrine - that God is everywhere - omnipresent," meaning that the poetry in Psalms has led Christians to develop the notion of an omnipresent God. It was very clear.

You have merely shown the limitation of the word omnipresent.
Is it surprising that such a word would become limiting when discussing the Living God?

And yet again, DAT introduces deliberate confusion to the issue at hand, seeking to place a limitation on "omni." Obviously (at least to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English), the prefix omni means that there are no limitations (literally "all-X"). His response concerning the "Living God" is completely irrelevant, and somewhat confusing, concerning he's saying that discussion of God limits God.

So in response to the problem of evil, the theist MUST provide a theodicy that explains evil in a way other than that of simply "oh - God's not there."

As I have clearly shown, this is not the case; You should really wait for a rebuttal before making idiotic claims such as this.

And here is the core of the issue, and where DAT makes his biggest mistake. The fact of the matter is that when presenting a theodicy, one must incorporate the terms of God as constants. This means that God can't be temporarily non-omnipotent, or sometimes not omnibenevolent.

In using the "God's not there" excuse for evil, one must abandon two notions:

1) God is everywhere
2) God both knows about and seeks to destroy evil.

And accept a startling third one:

3) A state of evil is the status quo.

This third notion raises an impossible question for someone presenting a theodicy. Why would a good God create a world where a state of evil is the "natural" state? That makes no sense at all, and does not at all jive with the Judeo-Christian representation of God.

So congratulations to DAT - he has both abandoned the actual line of discussion in this topic, and undermined his own God.

**********************************************

That said, it should be obvious to anyone reading that DAT has no idea what he's actually talking about and is far more concerned with putting Bible verses in each topic and offering his personal attacks and unattainable threats.

The correct interpretation of evil is in a dualistic framework. There are a couple reasons for this:

1) As shown above, a non-dualistic representation poses insurmountable problems for a theodicy.
2) Evil would be a necessarily existent concept.
3) God could then be described as "the absence of evil" which destroys conception of "good."
4) The definition of good as the absence of evil is a non-descriptor that defines a concept in terms of itself - it basically says [A = ~(~A)] - when what is really needed in a descriptor is [A = X(b)]... a statement of "X such that a."

Consider #4 applied to a religious framework - do we want to define God as:

God is not not God; OR
God is an entity such that (property a, b, c, etc...

Obviously we must use the second version to have any sort of meaning at all. One of the main differences between these styles is that the first - [A = ~(~A)] - references the "is" of identity. The second - [A = X(b)] - references the "is" of predication. In order to actually describe and understand something, we require the "is" of predication.

Consider:

Do we actually describe and understand Superman if we say "Clark Kent is Superman" ?? Or do we describe and understand Superman when we say he is a person who can fly, can stop bullets, has x-ray vision, etc...

We cannot describe or understand the good/evil complex if we abandon duality.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 4:26:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/16/2009 9:58:54 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Yet again we hear from our resident troll, who has nothing to actually contribute to this thread, but makes enough mistakes to confuse people trying to read it intelligibly...

The more you belittle me, the greater your embarrassment at losing to me in our last debate:http://www.Debate.org...

Matthew 23:12 (New King James Version)
12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.


Your No.1 problem is pride. It prevents you from arguing successfully, it prevents you from relaxing and enjoying DDO as you should and.. infinitely more importantly, it separates you from God.

Dualism is only a 'way to see'.. We can see light and dark as two separate and distinct entities while acknowledging that one is only the absence of the other, as cold is only the absence of heat.

DAT's conception of dualism involves the conjoining of phenomena and description. Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well when speaking in religious terms. Keeping with the hot/cold analogy, there are three states - hot, cold, and equilibrium. A better understanding of this may be achieved by thinking of pleasure, pain, and the absence of both... However, when put into religious terms, the analogy plays out by presenting evil as a necessary counterpart to God's existence.

This, of course, wreaks all sorts of havoc with any theodicy that attempts to secure God as both omnipotent and omnibenevolent because an omnipotent God (especially one that created everything) could have actualized the world in such a manner that evil was not necessary.

He consistently takes the poetry of the Psalms as literal and takes the literal miracles of Christ etc as allegorical. Dishonest.

Apparently DAT lacks discernment in understanding basic English. As I said before,
"These verses suggest one of the notions in Christian doctrine - that God is everywhere - omnipresent," meaning that the poetry in Psalms has led Christians to develop the notion of an omnipresent God. It was very clear.

You have merely shown the limitation of the word omnipresent.
Is it surprising that such a word would become limiting when discussing the Living God?

And yet again, DAT introduces deliberate confusion to the issue at hand, seeking to place a limitation on "omni." Obviously (at least to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English), the prefix omni means that there are no limitations (literally "all-X"). His response concerning the "Living God" is completely irrelevant, and somewhat confusing, concerning he's saying that discussion of God limits God.


So in response to the problem of evil, the theist MUST provide a theodicy that explains evil in a way other than that of simply "oh - God's not there."

As I have clearly shown, this is not the case; You should really wait for a rebuttal before making idiotic claims such as this.

And here is the core of the issue, and where DAT makes his biggest mistake. The fact of the matter is that when presenting a theodicy, one must incorporate the terms of God as constants. This means that God can't be temporarily non-omnipotent, or sometimes not omnibenevolent.

In using the "God's not there" excuse for evil, one must abandon two notions:

1) God is everywhere
2) God both knows about and seeks to destroy evil.

And accept a startling third one:

3) A state of evil is the status quo.

This third notion raises an impossible question for someone presenting a theodicy. Why would a good God create a world where a state of evil is the "natural" state? That makes no sense at all, and does not at all jive with the Judeo-Christian representation of God.

So congratulations to DAT - he has both abandoned the actual line of discussion in this topic, and undermined his own God.

**********************************************

That said, it should be obvious to anyone reading that DAT has no idea what he's actually talking about and is far more concerned with putting Bible verses in each topic and offering his personal attacks and unattainable threats.

The correct interpretation of evil is in a dualistic framework. There are a couple reasons for this:

1) As shown above, a non-dualistic representation poses insurmountable problems for a theodicy.
2) Evil would be a necessarily existent concept.
3) God could then be described as "the absence of evil" which destroys conception of "good."
4) The definition of good as the absence of evil is a non-descriptor that defines a concept in terms of itself - it basically says [A = ~(~A)] - when what is really needed in a descriptor is [A = X(b)]... a statement of "X such that a."

Consider #4 applied to a religious framework - do we want to define God as:

God is not not God; OR
God is an entity such that (property a, b, c, etc...

Obviously we must use the second version to have any sort of meaning at all. One of the main differences between these styles is that the first - [A = ~(~A)] - references the "is" of identity. The second - [A = X(b)] - references the "is" of predication. In order to actually describe and understand something, we require the "is" of predication.

Consider:

Do we actually describe and understand Superman if we say "Clark Kent is Superman" ?? Or do we describe and understand Superman when we say he is a person who can fly, can stop bullets, has x-ray vision, etc...

We cannot describe or understand the good/evil complex if we abandon duality.

Rather than try and answer each of these points separately (I'm so over playing that game with this pretender) I only wish to draw attention to the fact that this is nothing other than a tactic of complication.

Those of us who love truth, always try to simplify, to crystallize the facts.
Hence my book analogy which of course Tarzan did not address.
(When you do, I shall address the above points)

I'll try again:

Do we 'turn on the darkness'?

Do we 'turn off the darkness'?

NO..

We 'turn on the light'..

We 'turn off the light'.

Simple really.

John 3:19-21 (New King James Version)
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 1:59:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 1:26:03 PM, Epicism wrote:
@OP

Haha thanks for posting. That was great.

OP? who that?

Matthew 12:30 (The Message)

30"This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you're not on my side, you're the enemy; if you're not helping, you're making things worse.

The Cross.. the Cross.
Epicism
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 9:43:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 1:59:45 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/18/2009 1:26:03 PM, Epicism wrote:
@OP

Haha thanks for posting. That was great.

OP? who that?

Matthew 12:30 (The Message)

30"This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you're not on my side, you're the enemy; if you're not helping, you're making things worse.



@OP= At Original Poster aka the first post :)
"We are the kings, of evil disco." - Wayne Wells
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 2:14:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/19/2009 9:43:56 AM, Epicism wrote:
At 6/18/2009 1:59:45 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/18/2009 1:26:03 PM, Epicism wrote:
@OP

Haha thanks for posting. That was great.

OP? who that?

Matthew 12:30 (The Message)

30"This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you're not on my side, you're the enemy; if you're not helping, you're making things worse.



@OP= At Original Poster aka the first post :)

Ohh.. Thanks.

Proverbs 9:10 (New King James Version)
10 " The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
The Cross.. the Cross.