Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Is God Worthy of Worship

Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I realize the nature of this topic is likely to garner the contempt of many. I respectfully ask that you spare me any personal attacks. I sincerely want to discuss this topic. I am not motivated to do so out of a desire to disrespect anyone or their beliefs. Rather, I desire this discussion as a chance to share ideas.

The Nature of God

Before I begin, I want to make clear that in this essay, I am addressing what is known as the God of Christianity. The reason for this distinction is largely because the Christian God is the one with whom I am most often confronted. Of course, I understand Christianity is fragmented when it comes to doctrine and beliefs. However, notwithstanding the difference in doctrine between Christian denominations, it seems reasonable to say that on balance, Christians believe in what is known as the Tri-Omni God. That is to say, they believe in a God that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly expand on what seems to be intended by these attributes

Omnipotent is a reference to power. That is to say, one that is omnipotent is all powerful. For instance, Christians often refer to their God as the "Almighty." Indeed, Mathew 19:26 reads "With God, all things are possible."(1)Demonstrations of this supposed power include; healing the sick, causing a virgin birth, destruction, great floods, raising the dead, and creating the earth itself. C.S. Lewis, perhaps one of the most well know Christian Apologetics, stated the following. "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power."(2) In summary, God is said to have unlimited power.

This brings us to the second attribute of God; Omniscience. This is a reference to the knowledge of God. One that is omniscient, knows all. Christians tend to refer to God as the "Seat of all Knowledge." In fact, this is one of the standard arguments giving for prayer or scripture study. As the oft quoted proverb states; "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy paths."(3)

We now arrive at the final attribute of the tri-omni God; Omni benevolence. This is the belief that God is morally perfect, the ultimate good. The New Testament states "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love."(4)

Is God Worthy of Worship?


"is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" (Epicurus, the Greek philosopher)

I imagine most have been exposed at one time or another to the Problem of evil. The quote from Epicurus is perhaps its original form. Here I will demonstrate that Evil exists, and that because of this reality, God as defined in Christianity does not exist and is therefore not worthy of worship.

Evil exists

I imagine that all who observe the world we live in notice the reality of Evil. For example, there exists a multiplicity of instances of intense suffering. Often this happens to the innocent, or at the very least, the undeserving of the suffering to which they are subjected. Sam Harris put it this way. "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people; one of those every ten days killing children only under five. That"s twenty four thousand a day, one thousand and hour, seventeen or so a minute" Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them, or does not care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil." (5)

Remember, this is not a comprehensive account of evil that exists. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. Imagine all of the other people that suffer evil through no fault of their own. Consider the sentient animals that can and often do suffer. While many may argue the semantics of evil or what evil consists of, it seems clear that the intense suffering of the innocent is evil. Thus, it seems to me clear; Evil indisputably exists.

The Logical problem

The following is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

P5) Evil exists.

P6) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn"t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn"t know when evil exists, or doesn"t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

C) Therefore, God doesn"t exist.(6)"

Conclusion

The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. A God that does not exist is inherently not worthy of worship. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship.

Sources

(1) Bible
(2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
(3) Bible Proverbs 3: 5-6
(4) Bible 1 John 4:8
(5) https://www.youtube.com...
(6) http://plato.stanford.edu...
KingDavid8
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:59:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?

"The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will"

" If we can only choose good, then we have no choice"

So... God does not have free will, since God is all-Good, and cannot choose malevolence.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Canuck
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:18:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?

What about natural disasters or various illnesses that cause death and suffering? Those have nothing to do with free will of humans and could solely be attributed to god. Why would a good god cause so much destruction? If it were caused by humans, we would claim it to be evil.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:52:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?

I address this. The evil that I am talking about has nothing to do with "moral evil" rather it is the result of "natural evil."
KingDavid8
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:54:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:52:31 PM, Seagull wrote:

I address this. The evil that I am talking about has nothing to do with "moral evil" rather it is the result of "natural evil."

But there is no evil in nature. The Epicurian Dilemma has nothing to do with natural disasters.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:26:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:54:02 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:31 PM, Seagull wrote:

I address this. The evil that I am talking about has nothing to do with "moral evil" rather it is the result of "natural evil."

But there is no evil in nature. The Epicurian Dilemma has nothing to do with natural disasters.

I argue that the suffering of the innocent is evil. If you disagree with that, I suppose it could be argued that is the case. I think that to say the suffering of the innocent is not evil is absurd, but semantics does not interest me.

The epicurian Dilemma is only a few lines in my essay.
KingDavid8
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:36:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:26:19 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:54:02 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:31 PM, Seagull wrote:

I address this. The evil that I am talking about has nothing to do with "moral evil" rather it is the result of "natural evil."

But there is no evil in nature. The Epicurian Dilemma has nothing to do with natural disasters.

I argue that the suffering of the innocent is evil. If you disagree with that, I suppose it could be argued that is the case. I think that to say the suffering of the innocent is not evil is absurd, but semantics does not interest me.

The epicurian Dilemma is only a few lines in my essay.

It depends on how you define "evil". Tornadoes may be destructive, but they're not evil, I'd say.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 6:50:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:36:23 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:19 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:54:02 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:31 PM, Seagull wrote:

I address this. The evil that I am talking about has nothing to do with "moral evil" rather it is the result of "natural evil."

But there is no evil in nature. The Epicurian Dilemma has nothing to do with natural disasters.

I argue that the suffering of the innocent is evil. If you disagree with that, I suppose it could be argued that is the case. I think that to say the suffering of the innocent is not evil is absurd, but semantics does not interest me.

The epicurian Dilemma is only a few lines in my essay.

It depends on how you define "evil". Tornadoes may be destructive, but they're not evil, I'd say.

Tornadoes perhaps not, but the result being the death of children ie innocent suffering is.

If you saw a child in harms way and could help them, would you?

God sees all in harms way, otherwise he isnt omniscient, has the power to help them, otherwise he is not omnipotent, and does not.
JimDavis
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:19:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?

I don't buy this argument.

"If we can only choose good, then we have no choice"

By this logic, God doesn't have free will. If God is all-good, then he can only choose good actions. You might propose that God is technically capable of evil, and that he always chooses good ones because of his nature. If that's true, then God could have made us that way also. If God is all-powerful, he could create humans who always (or almost always) FREELY choose to do good, because of their nature, even though they are still technically capable of evil.

Besides, even if God created us without the ability to do evil, we could still choose between inaction, neutral actions, lesser goods, and greater goods. There would still be merit in going above and beyond the bare minimum of what would be considered decent. For example, if I notice a visiting tourist who lost her map and wallet, in most cases it's not evil to just go about my own business, if she's not in any danger. But it would be even more noble point her in the right direction, or give her a ride where she needs to go, and maybe even give her that energy bar I was saving for later, since she hasn't been able to buy lunch without her wallet. Just because God created me so that I can't bring myself to stab and rape her doesn't mean it's not a good and noble action to help her, since I could have just passed her by.

And even IF evil was necessary for free will, this world easily has way more evil than is essential for free will. Natural disasters, children dying slowly of torturous diseases, etc. - you're saying an all-powerful God has no other way of providing us with free will?
thebestdebate
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 2:47:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 6:36:23 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 6:26:19 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 5/3/2016 5:54:02 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:52:31 PM, Seagull wrote:

I address this. The evil that I am talking about has nothing to do with "moral evil" rather it is the result of "natural evil."

But there is no evil in nature. The Epicurian Dilemma has nothing to do with natural disasters.

I argue that the suffering of the innocent is evil. If you disagree with that, I suppose it could be argued that is the case. I think that to say the suffering of the innocent is not evil is absurd, but semantics does not interest me.

The epicurian Dilemma is only a few lines in my essay.

It depends on how you define "evil". Tornadoes may be destructive, but they're not evil, I'd say.

Seagull, this really ties in with the Book and Story of Job. I suggest reading through the book and this link to perhaps answer some questions: <http://biblehub.com...; The suffering of the innocent is not the effect of an evil or malevolent God, it is the result of the accuser. Satan accuses Job, who is described as the most upright in the land, of only being righteous for the sake of the benefits God bestows upon the upright. In saying this, he also accused all the righteous of being upright for selfish reasons, rather than for the love of God. This accusation remains unless proven to be incorrect, so God allows a test. Satan is given permission to make Job suffer (with many limitations), and he takes advantage of this. However, God isn't being malevolent towards Job, or the righteous and innocent, he is testing them.
"The weight of the world would be far easier to carry if everyone lent a hand." - Me

"Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time." - Thomas Merton
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:50:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Hmmm " by what criteria would we determine that a god is or is not worthy of our "worship"?
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:38:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?

Is God not powerful enough to find a loophole through what you just described?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 7:28:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil.

Seagull, I want to highlight two problems with your argument:
1) Nonexistence is in itself more significant than unworthiness of worship. It renders the subject invalid, and any other question about the subject moot;
2) Although the premises you chose to define God are derived from theological thought, I think they're invalid anyway. If you wanted to define God, I wouldn't start there.

The first point is self-explanatory, so let me focus on the second.

The purpose of a definition is to help us understand what we're talking about. Understanding is knowledge, and the measure of knowledge is accuracy of prediction. So a definition is only valid when it lets us accurately predict whether an subject of consideration is and is not that which we wish to consider.

The problem with using omniscience and omnipotence in a definition is that they're unconstructive: there is no recipe to engineer omniscience or omnipotence; there's no mechanism by which they work; consequently they come with no mechanism for verification, and their falsification is vague.

Consider: suppose you talked to a voice emanating from a burning bush, and it offered you three wishes. Suppose you wished for and received a birthday cake as tall as your head, a winged pony, and a Yarmulke of Invisibility.

Have you just proven omnipotence, or just a surprising array of remarkable powers?

How many more wishes would you need to demonstrate omnipotence beyond reasonable doubt? What wishes would they have to be?

Conversely, suppose wished that your sister's head were on backwards and her nose upside-down, and the voice refused. Have you just falsified omnipotence? How many refusals would you need to falsify it?

Omnipotence is unconstructive, and useless as a definition. Omniscience is the same. They're epistemologically invalid because we can never verify or falsify them. Whenever we use these terms, we're talking out of our hats because we cannot possibly know when we have or have not witnessed them.

So they do not form a valid definition of God, or indeed of anything.

By the same argument, neither do terms like 'uncreated', 'first cause', 'causa casans'. They're all bereft of verifiable meaning. Nobody who uses these terms can offer a method to test them. Anyone using such a term is talking out of their hat. Such terms are rhetoric: hyperbole, devoid of knowledge, obscure and totally evasive.

If people want to define God, they can do so. They just need to be a lot more modest in their claims, a lot more specific, and much less hyperbolic. For example, if they say the God who created the Earth 6,000 years ago, made Eve from Adam's rib, directed Noah to save all the animals on Earth from worldwide deluge, and helped Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then that's a valid definition of God because we can test it.

We also know beyond reasonable doubt that the God so defined does not exist, and never did. Our evidence is objective, independently corroborated, independently testable, verified using our best, most rigorous methods, and as robust as any other evidence we rely on to make any critical decision in life.

So the omni- god of theological poetry is invalid; while the god of Noah categorically never existed.

Is there another formulation of God referenced in Christian canon? If so, what is it?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 7:32:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:59:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will. Either of these options would not only get rid of evil, but also get rid of all good. If we can only choose good, then we have no choice, and good isn't good unless it's chosen. Why would an all-good God want to do something that gets rid of all good?

"The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will"

" If we can only choose good, then we have no choice"


So... God does not have free will, since God is all-Good, and cannot choose malevolence.

When someone is described as honest it doesn't mean they can't lie just that they choose not to.

God being all good is a descriptor that describes the result of his free will.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 7:37:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:


Unfortunately, like the vast majority of people you have been badly guided when it comes to the nature of God.

What is seen by most as the "God of Christianity" is most definitely not the God worshipped by Christ and the Apostles.

The true, psychological, nature of God is best described using his 4 major attributes which he has in perfect balance.

Love, Wisdom, Justice and Mercy.

The, form of God is even more simply described as "spirit" or pure energy. since he has no physical nature, never has had, and never could have.

Think of it this way.

Everything in this universe was created by him, or by his son under his direction.

What was it created from since there was nothing in existence except him.

Therefore the only thing anything could have been created from is his own energy, "spirit".

First he created his only begotten son, as another spirit being.

Then between them they created millions of Angels, again as spirit beings.

Then they created the entire Universe, suns moon and planets, all by converting his energy into matter in various forms.

All of this without noticeably decreasing his own energy.

Could a being like that ever be contained in such a minuscule part of his creation.

Not a chance.

This powerful being, immeasurably more powerful than all of the Angels and stars in the Universe put together, cares for his creation like any father does his sons.

That is the true nature of Jehovah and everything else stems from that.
There is no-one and nothing like him. He is unique, not part of any mythological Trinity, just one, immensely, unimaginably, powerful being displaying the perfect balance of Love, Wisdom, Justice and Mercy.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 10:45:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 7:28:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil.

Seagull, I want to highlight two problems with your argument:
1) Nonexistence is in itself more significant than unworthiness of worship. It renders the subject invalid, and any other question about the subject moot;
2) Although the premises you chose to define God are derived from theological thought, I think they're invalid anyway. If you wanted to define God, I wouldn't start there.

The first point is self-explanatory, so let me focus on the second.

The purpose of a definition is to help us understand what we're talking about. Understanding is knowledge, and the measure of knowledge is accuracy of prediction. So a definition is only valid when it lets us accurately predict whether an subject of consideration is and is not that which we wish to consider.

The problem with using omniscience and omnipotence in a definition is that they're unconstructive: there is no recipe to engineer omniscience or omnipotence; there's no mechanism by which they work; consequently they come with no mechanism for verification, and their falsification is vague.

Consider: suppose you talked to a voice emanating from a burning bush, and it offered you three wishes. Suppose you wished for and received a birthday cake as tall as your head, a winged pony, and a Yarmulke of Invisibility.

Have you just proven omnipotence, or just a surprising array of remarkable powers?

How many more wishes would you need to demonstrate omnipotence beyond reasonable doubt? What wishes would they have to be?

Conversely, suppose wished that your sister's head were on backwards and her nose upside-down, and the voice refused. Have you just falsified omnipotence? How many refusals would you need to falsify it?

Omnipotence is unconstructive, and useless as a definition. Omniscience is the same. They're epistemologically invalid because we can never verify or falsify them. Whenever we use these terms, we're talking out of our hats because we cannot possibly know when we have or have not witnessed them.

So they do not form a valid definition of God, or indeed of anything.

By the same argument, neither do terms like 'uncreated', 'first cause', 'causa casans'. They're all bereft of verifiable meaning. Nobody who uses these terms can offer a method to test them. Anyone using such a term is talking out of their hat. Such terms are rhetoric: hyperbole, devoid of knowledge, obscure and totally evasive.

If people want to define God, they can do so. They just need to be a lot more modest in their claims, a lot more specific, and much less hyperbolic. For example, if they say the God who created the Earth 6,000 years ago, made Eve from Adam's rib, directed Noah to save all the animals on Earth from worldwide deluge, and helped Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then that's a valid definition of God because we can test it.

We also know beyond reasonable doubt that the God so defined does not exist, and never did. Our evidence is objective, independently corroborated, independently testable, verified using our best, most rigorous methods, and as robust as any other evidence we rely on to make any critical decision in life.

So the omni- god of theological poetry is invalid; while the god of Noah categorically never existed.

Is there another formulation of God referenced in Christian canon? If so, what is it?

Great points.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 11:58:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
I realize the nature of this topic is likely to garner the contempt of many. I respectfully ask that you spare me any personal attacks. I sincerely want to discuss this topic. I am not motivated to do so out of a desire to disrespect anyone or their beliefs. Rather, I desire this discussion as a chance to share ideas.

The Nature of God

Before I begin, I want to make clear that in this essay, I am addressing what is known as the God of Christianity. The reason for this distinction is largely because the Christian God is the one with whom I am most often confronted. Of course, I understand Christianity is fragmented when it comes to doctrine and beliefs. However, notwithstanding the difference in doctrine between Christian denominations, it seems reasonable to say that on balance, Christians believe in what is known as the Tri-Omni God. That is to say, they believe in a God that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly expand on what seems to be intended by these attributes

Omnipotent is a reference to power. That is to say, one that is omnipotent is all powerful. For instance, Christians often refer to their God as the "Almighty." Indeed, Mathew 19:26 reads "With God, all things are possible."(1)Demonstrations of this supposed power include; healing the sick, causing a virgin birth, destruction, great floods, raising the dead, and creating the earth itself. C.S. Lewis, perhaps one of the most well know Christian Apologetics, stated the following. "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power."(2) In summary, God is said to have unlimited power.

This brings us to the second attribute of God; Omniscience. This is a reference to the knowledge of God. One that is omniscient, knows all. Christians tend to refer to God as the "Seat of all Knowledge." In fact, this is one of the standard arguments giving for prayer or scripture study. As the oft quoted proverb states; "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy paths."(3)

We now arrive at the final attribute of the tri-omni God; Omni benevolence. This is the belief that God is morally perfect, the ultimate good. The New Testament states "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love."(4)

Is God Worthy of Worship?


"is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" (Epicurus, the Greek philosopher)

I imagine most have been exposed at one time or another to the Problem of evil. The quote from Epicurus is perhaps its original form. Here I will demonstrate that Evil exists, and that because of this reality, God as defined in Christianity does not exist and is therefore not worthy of worship.

Evil exists

I imagine that all who observe the world we live in notice the reality of Evil. For example, there exists a multiplicity of instances of intense suffering. Often this happens to the innocent, or at the very least, the undeserving of the suffering to which they are subjected. Sam Harris put it this way. "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people; one of those every ten days killing children only under five. That"s twenty four thousand a day, one thousand and hour, seventeen or so a minute" Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them, or does not care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil." (5)

Remember, this is not a comprehensive account of evil that exists. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. Imagine all of the other people that suffer evil through no fault of their own. Consider the sentient animals that can and often do suffer. While many may argue the semantics of evil or what evil consists of, it seems clear that the intense suffering of the innocent is evil. Thus, it seems to me clear; Evil indisputably exists.

The Logical problem

The following is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
This is a claim to how God views things, if the argument is consistent in logic then every premise would be based on how God views things so a human attempting to say God isn't following Gods views has to be proven, which you can't fully do.
P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
This is self evident...... premise accurate
P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
A reference to what God thinks is evil is applicable and....... premise is accurate
P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Yes, but this is what God would consider to be evil. Humans can't claim that they know what evil is because there is no universally agreed upon idea in humanity on "all things evil" so even humanity couldn't determine if "all" evil is being eliminated systematically or none at all. People would only notice the elimination of all subjective ideas of evil.
P5) Evil exists.
Currently it does, but this is a claim to what humans believe is evil. whether it does exist eternally in everyone's reality is just an opinion or guess. And since it could be said that what evil is could be simply an interpretation of things based on a level of wisdom. We can't know Gods level of wisdom so we've now made an equivocation fallacy because we went from saying Gods view of evil but now define it as humanities idea of evil.
P6) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn"t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn"t know when evil exists, or doesn"t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Non sequitur, just because evil is here based on humans definition and or Gods definition doesn't therefore mean God can't eliminate evil, it just means that as of yet God hasn't eliminated it within humanities perceptions.
C) Therefore, God doesn"t exist.(6)"

Conclusion
Conclusion is simply not the logical one asserted by the argument. And since the syllogism is in the form of modus ponens then only agreed upon truths can be used to derive an inference of a truth. The argument doesn't use proper subject matter for modus ponens. It commits the fallacy of personal opinion because of its subject matter.
The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. A God that does not exist is inherently not worthy of worship. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship.
Worthy of worship is subjective to each individual so this claim is simply an opinion.
This is simply not logically supported as the argument makes inconsistent claims in its premises.
Sources

(1) Bible
(2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
(3) Bible Proverbs 3: 5-6
(4) Bible 1 John 4:8
(5) https://www.youtube.com...
(6) http://plato.stanford.edu...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 12:06:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
I realize the nature of this topic is likely to garner the contempt of many. I respectfully ask that you spare me any personal attacks. I sincerely want to discuss this topic. I am not motivated to do so out of a desire to disrespect anyone or their beliefs. Rather, I desire this discussion as a chance to share ideas.

The Nature of God

Before I begin, I want to make clear that in this essay, I am addressing what is known as the God of Christianity. The reason for this distinction is largely because the Christian God is the one with whom I am most often confronted. Of course, I understand Christianity is fragmented when it comes to doctrine and beliefs. However, notwithstanding the difference in doctrine between Christian denominations, it seems reasonable to say that on balance, Christians believe in what is known as the Tri-Omni God. That is to say, they believe in a God that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly expand on what seems to be intended by these attributes

Omnipotent is a reference to power. That is to say, one that is omnipotent is all powerful. For instance, Christians often refer to their God as the "Almighty." Indeed, Mathew 19:26 reads "With God, all things are possible."(1)Demonstrations of this supposed power include; healing the sick, causing a virgin birth, destruction, great floods, raising the dead, and creating the earth itself. C.S. Lewis, perhaps one of the most well know Christian Apologetics, stated the following. "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power."(2) In summary, God is said to have unlimited power.

This brings us to the second attribute of God; Omniscience. This is a reference to the knowledge of God. One that is omniscient, knows all. Christians tend to refer to God as the "Seat of all Knowledge." In fact, this is one of the standard arguments giving for prayer or scripture study. As the oft quoted proverb states; "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy paths."(3)

We now arrive at the final attribute of the tri-omni God; Omni benevolence. This is the belief that God is morally perfect, the ultimate good. The New Testament states "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love."(4)

Is God Worthy of Worship?


"is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" (Epicurus, the Greek philosopher)

I imagine most have been exposed at one time or another to the Problem of evil. The quote from Epicurus is perhaps its original form. Here I will demonstrate that Evil exists, and that because of this reality, God as defined in Christianity does not exist and is therefore not worthy of worship.

Evil exists

I imagine that all who observe the world we live in notice the reality of Evil. For example, there exists a multiplicity of instances of intense suffering. Often this happens to the innocent, or at the very least, the undeserving of the suffering to which they are subjected. Sam Harris put it this way. "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people; one of those every ten days killing children only under five. That"s twenty four thousand a day, one thousand and hour, seventeen or so a minute" Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them, or does not care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil." (5)

Remember, this is not a comprehensive account of evil that exists. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. Imagine all of the other people that suffer evil through no fault of their own. Consider the sentient animals that can and often do suffer. While many may argue the semantics of evil or what evil consists of, it seems clear that the intense suffering of the innocent is evil. Thus, it seems to me clear; Evil indisputably exists.

The Logical problem

The following is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

P5) Evil exists.

P6) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn"t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn"t know when evil exists, or doesn"t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

C) Therefore, God doesn"t exist.(6)"

Conclusion

The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. A God that does not exist is inherently not worthy of worship. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship.

Sources

(1) Bible
(2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
(3) Bible Proverbs 3: 5-6
(4) Bible 1 John 4:8
(5) https://www.youtube.com...
(6) http://plato.stanford.edu...

The Christian God is not only not worthy of any worship, He should be, on the contrary, the recipient of vehement and energetic opposition.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 12:27:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 12:06:07 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:

The Christian God is not only not worthy of any worship, He should be, on the contrary, the recipient of vehement and energetic opposition.

And he gets it, but only from those who, like you cannot be bothered to find out what scripture actually does show about the marvellous qualities of our God and Creator.

Those who are as bitter about truth as you are only harming yourselves.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 12:41:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 12:27:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/5/2016 12:06:07 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:

The Christian God is not only not worthy of any worship, He should be, on the contrary, the recipient of vehement and energetic opposition.

And he gets it, but only from those who, like you cannot be bothered to find out what scripture actually does show about the marvellous qualities of our God and Creator.

Those who are as bitter about truth as you are only harming yourselves.

I do know what Scripture says, and that includes - but is not limited to - to what Watchtower says it says, the 2016 edition.

Bitter, me? You must be confusing me with those who had been told the end would come in 1914, 1921, 1975, etc..

It never did.
It never will.

Life is great. I love life.

Your internet persona should move to North Korea. It'd fit right in as Kim Jong-Un's sycophant.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 1:03:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
I realize the nature of this topic is likely to garner the contempt of many. I respectfully ask that you spare me any personal attacks. I sincerely want to discuss this topic. I am not motivated to do so out of a desire to disrespect anyone or their beliefs. Rather, I desire this discussion as a chance to share ideas.

The Nature of God

Before I begin, I want to make clear that in this essay, I am addressing what is known as the God of Christianity. The reason for this distinction is largely because the Christian God is the one with whom I am most often confronted. Of course, I understand Christianity is fragmented when it comes to doctrine and beliefs. However, notwithstanding the difference in doctrine between Christian denominations, it seems reasonable to say that on balance, Christians believe in what is known as the Tri-Omni God. That is to say, they believe in a God that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly expand on what seems to be intended by these attributes

Omnipotent is a reference to power. That is to say, one that is omnipotent is all powerful. For instance, Christians often refer to their God as the "Almighty." Indeed, Mathew 19:26 reads "With God, all things are possible."(1)Demonstrations of this supposed power include; healing the sick, causing a virgin birth, destruction, great floods, raising the dead, and creating the earth itself. C.S. Lewis, perhaps one of the most well know Christian Apologetics, stated the following. "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power."(2) In summary, God is said to have unlimited power.

This brings us to the second attribute of God; Omniscience. This is a reference to the knowledge of God. One that is omniscient, knows all. Christians tend to refer to God as the "Seat of all Knowledge." In fact, this is one of the standard arguments giving for prayer or scripture study. As the oft quoted proverb states; "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy paths."(3)

We now arrive at the final attribute of the tri-omni God; Omni benevolence. This is the belief that God is morally perfect, the ultimate good. The New Testament states "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love."(4)

Is God Worthy of Worship?


"is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" (Epicurus, the Greek philosopher)

I imagine most have been exposed at one time or another to the Problem of evil. The quote from Epicurus is perhaps its original form. Here I will demonstrate that Evil exists, and that because of this reality, God as defined in Christianity does not exist and is therefore not worthy of worship.

Evil exists

I imagine that all who observe the world we live in notice the reality of Evil. For example, there exists a multiplicity of instances of intense suffering. Often this happens to the innocent, or at the very least, the undeserving of the suffering to which they are subjected. Sam Harris put it this way. "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people; one of those every ten days killing children only under five. That"s twenty four thousand a day, one thousand and hour, seventeen or so a minute" Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them, or does not care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil." (5)

Remember, this is not a comprehensive account of evil that exists. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. Imagine all of the other people that suffer evil through no fault of their own. Consider the sentient animals that can and often do suffer. While many may argue the semantics of evil or what evil consists of, it seems clear that the intense suffering of the innocent is evil. Thus, it seems to me clear; Evil indisputably exists.

The Logical problem

The following is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

P5) Evil exists.

P6) If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn"t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn"t know when evil exists, or doesn"t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

C) Therefore, God doesn"t exist.(6)"

Conclusion

The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil. A God that does not exist is inherently not worthy of worship. Even outside the scope of this essay, we see that if a God did exist, he or she is "either impotent, or evil" and would also not be worthy of worship.

Sources

(1) Bible
(2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
(3) Bible Proverbs 3: 5-6
(4) Bible 1 John 4:8
(5) https://www.youtube.com...
(6) http://plato.stanford.edu...

I would approach this in a different fashion, personally. I'd first ask the theist in question to identify their particular deity and what holy writ they followed. I would then ascertain if they were literalists or took a more representative view of their canon (e.g. is it metaphor, allegory?). This would allow me to correctly address any inconsistencies or contradictions in their beliefs specifically. I appreciate your points and think they are valid but much too broad to actually present a valid argument.

That said, the problem of evil remains insoluble for any of the Christian sects because they almost all claim that God is omnibenevolent, which directly contradicts much of their holy canon. The 'Free Will' argument is invalid because much of what is suffered by innocents at the hands of evil has nothing to do with their free will.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 1:19:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 12:41:07 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/5/2016 12:27:47 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/5/2016 12:06:07 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:

The Christian God is not only not worthy of any worship, He should be, on the contrary, the recipient of vehement and energetic opposition.

And he gets it, but only from those who, like you cannot be bothered to find out what scripture actually does show about the marvellous qualities of our God and Creator.

Those who are as bitter about truth as you are only harming yourselves.

I do know what Scripture says, and that includes - but is not limited to - to what Watchtower says it says, the 2016 edition.

Bitter, me? You must be confusing me with those who had been told the end would come in 1914, 1921, 1975, etc..

It never did.
It never will.

Life is great. I love life.

Your internet persona should move to North Korea. It'd fit right in as Kim Jong-Un's sycophant.

No, I'm not confusing you with anyone.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:03:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 7:28:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil.

Seagull, I want to highlight two problems with your argument:
1) Nonexistence is in itself more significant than unworthiness of worship. It renders the subject invalid, and any other question about the subject moot;

This point is well taken. In fact, the title for this forum is where I started; while writing I seemed to shift more to support that "God" does not exist. That stated, I do find the POE a convincing argument against God's existence, I also find it compelling against most conceptions of God being worthy of worship.

2) Although the premises you chose to define God are derived from theological thought, I think they're invalid anyway. If you wanted to define God, I wouldn't start there.

The problem with using omniscience and omnipotence in a definition is that they're unconstructive: there is no recipe to engineer omniscience or omnipotence; there's no mechanism by which they work; consequently they come with no mechanism for verification, and their falsification is vague.

This is an interesting point, I will have to give this more thought. Thanks for commenting.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:52:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 2:03:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 5/4/2016 7:28:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil.

Seagull, I want to highlight two problems with your argument:
1) Nonexistence is in itself more significant than unworthiness of worship. It renders the subject invalid, and any other question about the subject moot;

This point is well taken. In fact, the title for this forum is where I started; while writing I seemed to shift more to support that "God" does not exist. That stated, I do find the POE a convincing argument against God's existence, I also find it compelling against most conceptions of God being worthy of worship.

2) Although the premises you chose to define God are derived from theological thought, I think they're invalid anyway. If you wanted to define God, I wouldn't start there.

The problem with using omniscience and omnipotence in a definition is that they're unconstructive: there is no recipe to engineer omniscience or omnipotence; there's no mechanism by which they work; consequently they come with no mechanism for verification, and their falsification is vague.

This is an interesting point, I will have to give this more thought. Thanks for commenting.
Seagull Good to meet you.
I reply: You are mixed up!!!!
God gave us free will because he loves us!!!

THINK: God made us in his image!!! FACT: God is LOVE!
All men are capable of love and doing acts of love!!!
To love you must let go of self. You MUST GIVE of self to another person to be a loving act!!!

THINK AGAIN: God cannot force anyone to love, if he FORCED a person to love Example: a pill to make a person fall in love and give of self, then "Their actions would not be true love"!!!!

THINK ONCE AGAIN: Only people can love dogs, pigs, snakes, frogs, chickens CANNOT love!!
God made the Angels placed them into heaven some did not want to love so they were removed from heaven, only LOVE can be in heaven! US... Man was created and placed outside of the throne room; Adam sinned so he was removed, he did not love. It is only those people that love that will enter heaven!
The CHOICE is mans!!

Seagull US, you and me.. All peoples, decide to love or to hate... NOT GOD!! The evil is from man not from God! God could stop it by removing our "Free Will"!

To say; "YES- Take away the "Free Will", you lower yourself to that of an animal dogs, pigs, snakes, frogs, chickens etc!!
The fact we can "LOVE" proves there is a God!!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 5:55:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 2:03:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 5/4/2016 7:28:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:00:54 PM, Seagull wrote:
The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil.

Seagull, I want to highlight two problems with your argument:
1) Nonexistence is in itself more significant than unworthiness of worship. It renders the subject invalid, and any other question about the subject moot;

This point is well taken. In fact, the title for this forum is where I started; while writing I seemed to shift more to support that "God" does not exist. That stated, I do find the POE a convincing argument against God's existence, I also find it compelling against most conceptions of God being worthy of worship.

I agree in principle too, Seagull. Even if there were some wondrous being who met the key features of Abrahamic myth, I wouldn't want anything to do with it simply because its notions of morality are atrocious.

2) Although the premises you chose to define God are derived from theological thought, I think they're invalid anyway. If you wanted to define God, I wouldn't start there.

The problem with using omniscience and omnipotence in a definition is that they're unconstructive: there is no recipe to engineer omniscience or omnipotence; there's no mechanism by which they work; consequently they come with no mechanism for verification, and their falsification is vague.

This is an interesting point, I will have to give this more thought. Thanks for commenting.
No problems. Thank you for this and other interesting, well-organised arguments. :)
Steve223
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 6:36:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This argument isn't factual, and only works if religious people have the same values of you. Sure, it defeats the arguments put forward by moderate, kind people, but the Western Baptist Church has the perfect argument that destroys yours: The world is perfect. Morality is subjective, and for them the problem of evil is solved, as everything that happens is perfect.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 8:42:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 6:36:45 PM, Steve223 wrote:
This argument isn't factual, and only works if religious people have the same values of you. Sure, it defeats the arguments put forward by moderate, kind people, but the Western Baptist Church has the perfect argument that destroys yours: The world is perfect. Morality is subjective, and for them the problem of evil is solved, as everything that happens is perfect.

I dont think that "destroys" my argument in any way.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:44:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will.
This god of yours is omnipotent but is restricted by the same options that restrict you?
WOW!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:10:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 12:44:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:36:25 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
The only way for God to get rid of evil entirely is to either kill everyone or take away (or severely limit) our free will.
This god of yours is omnipotent but is restricted by the same options that restrict you?
WOW!

No, he is only limited by his own self-control. Something you could do with learning.