Answering Atheists

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What you are arguing then is simply this... Everything must be white, and no black or grey should exist.
I'll explain that.

Darkness exists. Light can fill it. Before light fills it. Darkness existed. After light fills it, the darkness does not exist.
Do you disagree with that?

No, I don't. It's a very, very poor analogy. Darkness does not exist by itself as a unique physical entity -- it is simply the absence of light. The question of light and dark then, is always "how much light is there?" with the answer going from 0 to whatever. There is no such question with regard to darkness -- it is still a question of how much light, and the answer is simply in the low numbers.

A better analogy would be unicorns. While it is logically possible that unicorns might exist (not the magical ones, just horses with a horn coming out of their noggins), I do not accept that they exist. Therefore, it is nonsense for me to go further and say, "especially not pink ones." If unicorns do not exist, they cannot possess any attributes, including colour.

God is not obligated to light everything instantly.
God has chosen to gradually fill in the darkness.
In other words, the perfect world is a work in progress. God did not expect the perfect world when he created. That's the reason there was a test - the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

I find it quite unlikely that if there were a God, that you would know so much more about it than anybody else. Yes, I find that excessively unlikely.

And by the way, I also don't believe in silly things like "the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil." Nor do I believe that good and evil need to be capitalized in that phrase.

 

[ecco]

I have read it. I totally disagree with your summary of what it means. When God returns maybe you will have a chance to argue with him about it.

So, you don't feel qualified to support your own allegations.

Numbers 31
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.​

That's pretty clear. Kill the boys. Kill the wives. What is your interpretation?

Numbers 31
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.​

Keep the virgins for yourselves. If you know anything about the history of warfare, victorious soldiers often rape the females of the conquered. Here it is even worse, the man in charge is giving the OK. What is your interpretation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't?

You said...
That's the whole point: if God can accomplish everything that he wills, then we can infer that everything we see - including all the evil and suffering in the world - is a reflection of God's will.


That's like me saying during an eating competition, the man can't finish his meal... because he hasn't finished... and he still has time to do so.
My inference is based on a bias... perhaps. Or, I just think I know what I don't know.

The big fat man sitting at the table, can eat the 200 burgers along the stretch of tables in front of him.
One of the onlookers 9-10ths_Penguin, makes an inference from all that he sees - the stretch of tables in front of the big fat man... perhaps the man "looks" a bit sluggish as he finishes 50... whatever the case... 9-10ths_Penguin says that this is a reflection that the big fat man has failed.

Got it?

Not at all. Maybe try making your point with plain language. Your analogy is just getting in the way.

 

[nPeace]

So is it just the human heart that wasn't created by God, or was it human beings as a whole?

!!!???
Allow me me help you with that.
We get to develop our character - the person we are, or let others shape our character for us.
So we can choose to "create" our own character. Or we can allow God to create that character within us.
(Ephesians 4:24) . . .and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.

God created the physical human heart.
He can create the figurative human heart too, if we allow him. It's up to us. We get to choose.

What else in the universe do you think God didn't create?

If one reads Genesis, they will see what God created. Everything else was made... except what God creates for his will, including what I mentioned above.

Suffering is not momentary. Think of the HIV+ people. Think of people who endure hunger for years together. Think of women who were taken away by IS (Taliban in Afghanistan now) and repeatedly raped.

You must know what momentarily means, right? Does it have a set time? No.
All those people suffer momentarily.

You mean there are things that God does not know - because he does not want to know? Is human suffering is one of those things?

Do you think God knew that Adam would eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, when he told him “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Then followed it up by giving him the wife of whom Adam would later complain... “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate.”

Doesn't follow, does it.
Consider please just one example... Genesis 18:19 ; Genesis 22:11, 12;
Take note of this too...
(Deuteronomy 8:2) Remember the long road that Jehovah your God made you walk these 40 years in the wilderness, to humble you and to put you to the test so as to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.

There are scores of scriptures that show God can choose to know, or not.
What we need to understand, is why. The simple answer, is dignity.
We appreciate being dignified. For example, we don't appreciate people who do not respect our privacy.
Jehovah God, dignifies his intelligent creation with freedom of choice. He allows us to freely exercise that. he does not need to peep as some people do, to say, "Aha! I knew it!"
There is no reason to. He is almighty, there is nothing anyone can do that Jehovah cannot undo, or interupt, if he so desires.
The only things Jehovah looks ahead to see, in relation to his intelligent creation, is anything regarding his purpose, and how he works out his will.

For example, Jehovah made a promise at Genesis 3:15 that must be fulfilled. The fulfillment of that promise would depend on people - The Messiah had to come through a line of descent.
Therefore, in order to have that worked out, Jehovah had to know whom to choose - whom to use. looking ahead was vital, because, all his purposes come true.
He is God almighty. He makes sure of it.

You think those who persecute people, murderers and rapists are whistle-blowers whom God should not destroy?
I wonder at the kind of twisted thinking the theists have!

You misunderstood, obviously.
I used an analogy. The whistle-blower was in reference to Satan telling lies on God. I thought that was obvious.

 

[nPeace]

Not at all. Maybe try making your point with plain language. Your analogy is just getting in the way.

Sorry. try paying better attention. I use illustration. Jesus did. Some people did not get his either.
What was the problem? It was not Jesus. Nor his illustration.

(Matthew 13:10-16)
10 So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’ 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear.

There is no problem with my analogies. What's your problem?
All I see you doing is fighting hard to argue against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry. try paying better attention. I use illustration. Jesus did. Some people did not get his either.
What was the problem? It was not Jesus. Nor his illustration.

(Matthew 13:10-16)
10 So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’ 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear.

There is no problem with my analogies. What's your problem?
All I see you doing is fighting hard to argue against.

You don't want to explain your point properly. Fair enough. I'm not going to put the effort in if you aren't.

 

[nPeace]

You don't want to explain your point properly. Fair enough. I'm not going to put the effort in if you aren't.

I could say the same about you, but I won't. Suit yourself. I already said what I had to say, and my points are very clear.

 

[nPeace]

So your isis etc is a guess... Ok, thanks

Nope. But I would be surprised if they are adults, who actually don't know who made the Atom bomb, and how ISIS's bombs are obtained.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope. But I would be surprised if they are adults, who actually don't know who made the Atom bomb, and how ISIS's bombs are obtained.

You made a bold statement and now modify it to an "if" and surprise.

Ok

 

[nPeace]

It is my opinion that ONLY religion could allow anybody to make such a wicked argument. Humans all over the world -- even the most savage -- accept that children shall not be held criminally responsible and punished by law (let alone by death). Every nation on earth has a minimum age of criminal responsibility.

But you excuse it because it's in the Bible, and therefore there must be something we don't know -- something that would render a child guilty enough to deserve death. In the case of David's son by Bathsheba, a death that took 7 full days of suffering for that child. That's what it says in II Samuel, Chapters 11 and 12. I do not care that the child was "illegitimate" as you say, or that David's marriage to Bathsheba was "disapproved." The guilty party was David, not the child. Did not David say to Nathan: “I have sinned against the Lord,” and did not Nathan reply, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die” (II Samuel 12:13-14)?

Dude. All of us are guilty, and sentenced to death. It is by the mercy of the judge that some of us are alive today... but you don't know that do you? I can understand that, but I don't see how one can be excused for not getting to know.

Will the judge excuse such persons?
Here's what the Bible says...
(2 Thessalonians 1:8) . . .as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.

...but you don't believe what the Bible says, do you...

 

[nPeace]

OK, then when we say that the God of the Bible is evil, that's fine?

You can say whatever you like. Just be prepared to take a hit when it's not accurate.

Which argument? That the character is evil? or that the character doesn't even exist?

Does not matter. Could be anything. Why would it matter?

Atheists often make the argument that certain deities in certain religious boos are evil. Many also say that there is no evidence that those religious books are anything other than fairy tales. Often, they don't actually state the books *are* fairy tales, just that there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

Atheists often make an argument as to why God does not exist; why God is immoral; etc. Then some deny that they don't.
They also argue that a creator god would not do xyz, or what a creator god would do, etc. Then some deny that they don't. I could go on... but you get my point, I hope.
You're not denying, it looks like.

 

[1213]

Ah... so you were talking about imaginary people complaining...

No. I meant that the elimination day of evil, has not yet happened.
People complaining are not imaginary.

 

[1213]

When has your god ever eliminated evil? Oh, wait. I know. When he horrifically drowned all men, women, children, infants, and fetuses. Ditto for all other animals. Yeah, you're right. That method of eliminating evil doesn't make me happy. ...

Ok, it seems to me that you are complaining that evil should be eliminated by some nicer way. What do you think would be a better way?

 

[Koldo]

Good point.
Actually God couldn't make that rebellious angel, nor the others who followed, by anything he did, or did not do.
The reason some rebel and complain is because they simply want things their way.
That was the case with Satan, Adam, and all who follow the same rebellious course today... Of course, hat's many.




You don't?

You said...
That's the whole point: if God can accomplish everything that he wills, then we can infer that everything we see - including all the evil and suffering in the world - is a reflection of God's will.


That's like me saying during an eating competition, the man can't finish his meal... because he hasn't finished... and he still has time to do so.
My inference is based on a bias... perhaps. Or, I just think I know what I don't know.

The big fat man sitting at the table, can eat the 200 burgers along the stretch of tables in front of him.
One of the onlookers 9-10ths_Penguin, makes an inference from all that he sees - the stretch of tables in front of the big fat man... perhaps the man "looks" a bit sluggish as he finishes 50... whatever the case... 9-10ths_Penguin says that this is a reflection that the big fat man has failed.

Got it?




Okay thanks.
Does that fit God, or Christ, and his followers? No.
While some may think that these individuals "apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces", these individual were simply doing what they were / are capable of doing.

Think of it this way... a laser is used during an operation to cut cataracts.
One who does not know about lasers may think that some mysterious force is at work.
That's what they think.
The truth is, the surgeon is simply using a tool, some sort of technology, to do what might seem "impossible".

Likewise, when God, Jesus and he apostles perform powerful works, they were simply using the power of God (the tool) to accomplish "impossible" tasks.
Many called it magic, but that's not magic.

Magic is what the practicers of magic did.
(Exodus 7:11) Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and the magic-practicing priests of Egypt also did the same thing with their magic.
(Exodus 7:22) . . .the magic-practicing priests of Egypt did the same thing with their secret arts. . .


To Jehovah God the practice of magic is “detestable.” - Deuteronomy 18:10-12 He does not do magic.
He does not do "Abrakadabra".

This sounds like a massive nitpicking on your part. Can God accomplish anything he wants instantly or not? Whether you call this magic is utterly irrelevant.

 

[nPeace]

Then surely John has forgotten a little something: according to Genesis, God created the world, and created man -- and created man with the NEED (which is felt as a "desire of the flesh") to eat what was available. And God went further, and created woman -- for the man to NEED (experienced as desire) to go into and procreate with.

These things do in fact, therefore, "originate with the Father."

No, but I can understand why you say that.
People make the same mistake you do. Only a few days ago, I had to help someone come to understand how the word world is used.
The person quickly got it though.

Like yourself, sometimes we read something without giving much thought to it, and sometimes we don't have a foundation, or background knowledge, on which to build.

First, there is no part of Genesis that mentions the word world.
The first usage of the word world (Hebrew tebel), is in Job 34:13 - Who put him in charge of the earth, And who appointed him over the whole world?

Of this Hebrew word, we read https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8398.htmWhy is
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
inhabited (1), inhabited world (1), world (34).
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
confusion
From yabal; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. Land, as Babylonia, Palestine -- habitable part, world.

Why it it significant to note that the focus is on the inhabitants, rather than the globe?
The Bible refers to the world in a different sense, than most people do.

Take note of a few references...
(John 1:9, 10) The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

Take note that the world did not know him is not to say the globe, or physical rock earth, did not know him. It was the inhabitants. See Kosmos. Note the definition.Order.

Now that we have a little background...
(John 3:16, 17) “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.

Not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Again, that is not referring to the rock - the globe.

This post would get very lengthy if I showed more references to clarify the usage of the word world, but in brief, it refers to humanity, but more specifically, humanity (the order of inhabitants) that are alienated from God.

Hence why John wrote, "The world is passing away, and it's desires... but he that does the will of God, remains forever."
John also wrote this... We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. 1 John 5:19

It's the reason Jesus himself said...

"The world has no reason to hate you, but it hates me, because I bear witness about it that its works are wicked." (John 7:7)
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you." (John 15:18, 19)​

Even the Pharisees understood this.
(John 12:19) So the Pharisees said among themselves: “You see that you are not getting anywhere. Look! The whole world has gone after him.”

It's quite clear to understand much of the Bible, when one has that background knowledge.
It also shows the importance of understanding. It's a vital "ingredient" in grasping the truth of God's word.

It's long, but you could read more about it in this encyclopedia.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Dude. All of us are guilty, and sentenced to death. It is by the mercy of the judge that some of us are alive today... but you don't know that do you? For this, I excuse you, but I don't excuse you for not getting to know.
Will the judge excuse you?
Here's what the Bible says...
(2 Thessalonians 1:8) . . .as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.

...but you don't believe what the Bible says, do you...

No, I do not believe what the Bible says. The Bible is literature, poetry, myth, invented history by people in search of an identity --- and a lot more besides. But it is not "fact," or "truth."

Here, for example, is an obvious untruth in the Bible. In Genesis 40:15 Joseph says that he comes "from the land of the Hebrews." Any competent reading of the Bible will tell you that no such land existed until after the conquest under Joshua -- over 400 years later, according to that same Bible.

You say we are "guilty and sentenced to death." I say we are "a natural life-form, and all life-forms are born, live and die." There's no "judgement" there -- nor is any required.

You say that you "don't excuse [me] for getting to know." You realize, I'm sure, that that statement is proselytizing, and it includes, whether you admit it or not, an implicit threat.

 

[nPeace]

That’ s mean.

My response, or the fact that souls are not immortal?

Consider a child born with bone cancer. She died only after a few weeks under great pain. What’s the use of that, if they do not even survive at spiritual level, so to speak?

The reason we suffer and die is no fault of ours. It's not God's fault either.
Sad to say, some wrongly blame God for all the suffering because they really don't understand the real cause.
I cannot blame them, because I too was once ignorant of many things, until I came to an accurate knowledge of the truth, through an understanding of what the Bible really teaches.
One of the truth it teaches is this... Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out... John 5:28, 29
Also, Pauls said, "I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15)

A righteous person - that is, one who comes to know what is right, and does it, is guaranteed a resurrection - to live again.
An unrighteous person - one who does not come to know what is right, and may thus practice unrighteousness, in ignorance, is said to be included in those in God's memory, who will come to life again.

God does not keep need a world of the dead, when he has an infinite memory bank to hold everything - past, present, and future.
How do you think he hears millions of prayers said at the same time, and processes them bazillions of times faster than any supper computer.
That little girl is in Jehovah's memory, and he will recreate her... without bone cancer, and she will never get it again ... nor any cancer, for that matter.

i am not sure how that takes your God off the hook, by allowing such pain without any obvious reason.

ciao

- viole

I presented the reason. Were you following the thread? Here it is again... in a nutshell.
However, I'm sure there will be people who want to put God on "the hook"... for no good reason... except I understand there are some who do because they simply don't understand, and they react emotionally.
I probably would do the same if I were them.

 

[nPeace]

No, I do not believe what the Bible says. The Bible is literature, poetry, myth, invented history by people in search of an identity --- and a lot more besides. But it is not "fact," or "truth."

Here, for example, is an obvious untruth in the Bible. In Genesis 40:15 Joseph says that he comes "from the land of the Hebrews." Any competent reading of the Bible will tell you that no such land existed until after the conquest under Joshua -- over 400 years later, according to that same Bible.

You say we are "guilty and sentenced to death." I say we are "a natural life-form, and all life-forms are born, live and die." There's no "judgement" there -- nor is any required.

You say that you "don't excuse [me] for getting to know." You realize, I'm sure, that that statement is proselytizing, and it includes, whether you admit it or not, an implicit threat.

proselytizing
the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

So when people on these forums and elsewhere make such statements concerning not believing or accepting "the science", they are proselytizing, and threatening.

 

[nPeace]

If you're going to claim that he can choose not to know certain things, then that's effectively the same as not being omniscient. Plus, if he's actively choosing not to know certain things, he's using his power to allow things to happen by his omission. He'd still be responsible for everything because he could have known and controlled it.

It's important to use words in their correct context.
Where the believer is concerned, truth about God is not determined by a secular world view, but is determined by truth found is his word.
I would not go to a non-believer, to ask 'What is the truth about God'
I would wisely consult a source that presents information from or about God, and see if I can gain truth there.
I would ask the dentist about teeth, but I would not expect the Bible to tell me about teeth, necessarily.

Take this definition for example...
Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
That apparently has changed from something like - having a blind belief in something for which there is no evidence.


However, the believer does not accept such a secular worldview. It's not defined that way in the Bible.
So it is, in the case of the word usage omniscience.
We accept the Bible's view on God being all-knowing.
The context clearly shows that God is in control of his ability to know.

Take for example... 1 Chronicles 28:9 ; Job 34:21 ; Psalms 33:13-15 ; etc.
God searches. God looks. God seeks to know. All of these are exercises. God exercises these abilities.
If God already knew, they would be no reason to seek to know, or get to know. He would already know.
So omniscience as used regarding Jehovah God, involves selectively knowing.

If we disagree about that, that's okay. We don't have to agree, and arguing about it won't change anything.

 

[nPeace]

You think the perfect solution is "Follow me or burn?" Really?!

No.