Answering Atheists

[SigurdReginson]

How can I know that? I cannot know what effect any of this would have in another 3000 years. All I can know is I am not gonna kill people, or instigate any killing, or even condone any killing innocent people. Thats from my perspective.

So can you explain how you know how its gonna be in another 3000 years "IF" free-will doesn't exist?

Wait what? What does free will have to do with anything?

If you are talking about the effects of one man 3000 years from now, it does kind of make the idea of evil seem weak, doesn't it? What is the suffering one man causes in comparison to the suffering caused on all of man kind? It's a constant, tumultuous thing with no end in sight. How does god end something that he allows to just constantly tumble out of control like one big cascading avalanche? Like I said, the whole thing just seems so confusing.

Or, pain is just an evolutionary mutation that helps creatures survive and reproduce. Occam's razor is looking good right about now. Evil is just seeming like some kind of extra concept tacked onto the side, to me.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If you rolled a bowling ball - a good throw - and someone seeing that it's a good throw stuck something out in the ball's path, interrupting a strike, it doesn't mean you lost the game.

Metaphors always fail.

If your god cannot thwart evil, or free will, or what have you, then he is not all-powerful. If his purpose was interrupted, he is not ALL-powerful.

 

[nPeace]

That is not what is meant with God creating everything. But rather that God deciding that lifeforms should eat each other to survive. That natural disasters should wreck the lives of innocents. Giving people the option to do evil and even allow it in the first place.
This seems to be your idea of what "God created everything" means.

I don't know that God decided "that lifeforms should eat each other to survive". Or that "natural disasters should wreck the lives of innocents". I never read that anywhere. Where did you get that?
God allowing... now that sounds correct.
He still did not create everything, as you suggested. That doesn't change based on how you define "created everything".
Or rather, it would, if you put it in proper context.

Not really when you are God I would say, he is not facing a dilemma or having to live by certain rules as he created them himself. A psychopath might have been born with some urges or lack of compassion, that might cause them to do evil things to others. Could God with the blink of an eye make sure that he/she is cured? And if he doesn't and this person shoot up a childcare is God then not partly to blame for not doing anything?

Not really? How is cause something, and allow something, "not really" different?

I don't think they are

Of course you wouldn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God's omnipotence allows him to accomplish what he wills, regardless of the course taken.

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.

 

[nPeace]

Your argument fails on the the first premise -- atheists do not make that claim. Atheists don't believe in a god. If I don't believe in the existence of something, then I obviously do not believe it has any attributes, either.

In fact, most modern religions think of their deities in this way. (I don't believe Hinduism does -- but I'm unsure what Hinduism thinks about Brahman, if they think of him/it differently than the other manifestations of deity that they acknowledge.) But certainly, most Christian denominations and sects, as well as Muslims, accept that their deity is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

The proof is in the pudding.
Do Atheist make the argument that God is immoral, a monster, wicked, etc.?

Search these forums. I rest my case... and I'll enjoy the pudding.

 

[nPeace]

Having pointed out that your argument is not what atheists think,

So Atheist who make these arguments are not reall Atheist.
Glad we got that cleared up. Carry on.

let me now clear up what our argument -- in this particular context -- actually is: and it is simply this:

• IF there is such a deity (omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent), then there cannot possibly be evil in the world, and
• IF there is evil in the world, then such a deity (omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent) cannot exist, so
• THEREFORE, either God exists OR there is evil in the world.

So which is it? Doctor Pangloss (Voltaire's Candide) argued that there is no evil in the world, that everything, no matter how horrible we mere humans might think it, was "for the best" in this "Best of All Possible Worlds." Some of the rest of us can't actually find any particular good in parasites that blind children, and about a trillion other horrors that humans can experience.

I believe there has been a bit of refining done to the original argument.
However, thanks, but there is something wrong with your arguments.

Fallacious arguments often take [this] form.
The following is an example of an argument that is “valid”, but not “sound”:

1. Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback.
2. John eats carrots.
3. Therefore, John is a quarterback.

The example's first premise is false – there are people who eat carrots who are not quarterbacks – but the conclusion would necessarily be true, if the premises were true. In other words, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore, the argument is “valid”, but not “sound”. False generalizations – such as "Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback" – are often used to make unsound arguments. The fact that there are some people who eat carrots but are not quarterbacks proves the flaw of the argument.

Your first and second premises are false.
"IF there is such a deity (omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent), then there cannot possibly be evil in the world," is not true.

The next, "IF there is evil in the world, then such a deity (omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent) cannot exist," is not true.

Therefore, your argument is beyond flawed.

 

[nPeace]

I don't expect you to understand. It is very difficult to understand the dharmic paradigm looking through Abrahamic glasses. I'm pleased that you're willing to admit you don't understand. Far too many people say they understand when they don't. So thank you for that. But this will go nowhere, as I don't know how else to explain it.

Do you assume anyone who does not get what you say is "wearing Abrahamic glasses"?
I'm sorry, but my eyes are clear and not clouded by any beliefs.
Perhaps some of us are not very good at making sense of what we believe. A special blindness perhaps

 

[nPeace]

Your examples of things God can't do ammounts to logically contradictory things.

Oh! How so?

Can God instantly accomplish things are not logically contradictory though? Is he able to 'abrakadabra' those?
If yes, then he is omnipotent.

God does not "Abrakadabra" anything.
I hope you understand what "Abrakadabra" involves.
Abrakadabra - a word said by magicians when performing a magic trick.
Does God do that? No.

Can God stop cause something to happen instantly?
(Matthew 21:19) . . .he said to it: “Let no fruit come from you ever again.” And the fig tree withered instantly. . .
(Luke 1:64) . . .Instantly his mouth was opened and his tongue was set free and he began to speak. . .
(Luke 4:39) . . .he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. Instantly. . .
(Luke 13:11-13) . . .for 18 years; and she was bent double and was unable to straighten up at all. When he saw her, Jesus addressed her and said: “Woman, you are released from your weakness.” And he laid his hands on her, and instantly she straightened up. . .
(Acts 3:7, 8) . . .he took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up. Instantly his feet and his ankles were made firm; 8 and leaping to his feet, he began walking . . .
(Acts 12:23) . . .Instantly the angel of Jehovah struck him, because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten up with worms and died. . .

God's power to manipulate the element, or chemicals in a slit second, does not prove his omnipotence.
Or maybe it does for some people.
How it's done, is not the important thing in omnipotence.

 

[nPeace]

30 years of a christian in name only, huh? Cool story.

Not a story. Jesus may tell a story yes, but there is usually a truth behind what the story is about.

Some people have been as you were for an even longer time. Can you image being a "Christian" for more than 30 years, and not knowing there is a book in the Bible, named Habakkuk? Or not knowing that God has a personal name, mentioned about 7000 times in the Bible? Worst, not knowing that one should use that name, and make it known.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Not a story. Jesus may tell a story yes, but there is usually a truth behind what the story is about.

Some people have been as you were for an even longer time. Can you image being a "Christian" for more than 30 years, and not knowing there is a book in the Bible, named Habakkuk? Or not knowing that God has a personal name, mentioned about 7000 times in the Bible? Worst, not knowing that one should use that name, and make it known.

Look, if you want to pretend like you understand my life's journey and can easily dismiss my life's experiences having not walked a mile in my shoes based on one sentence I wrote on an internet forum, you can. It matters not to me. I just don't find assuming things about people you don't know the first thing about to be a very accurate way to assess a situation. What you do with that is up to you.

 

[nPeace]

That makes it sound like God did create Satan.

How?
So, a man who fathered a baby boy, fathered a thief, if the son becomes a thief, and a mother who gave birth to a baby girl, gave birth to a drug addict, if the girl becomes one.
Is that what you believe?

... unless God didn't foresee that his son would become Satan?

What if he did not. How would foreseeing make him the creator of Satan?

We choose between our desires, but we don't choose what those desires are.

Why not?
You are saying I cannot choose to want beef instead of fish?

For Satan to choose to oppose God, the desire to oppose God must have been placed in him by God.

Why do you believe that?

 

[viole]

To your question... No. Aborted souls do not go to heaven, according to the Bible. I haven't read it anywhere in there.

Does my "defense" still "not obtain"?

And where do they go, assuming they are immortal?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Wait what? What does free will have to do with anything?

Well, the general theist believes there is free will. Maybe you are a hard determinist.

If you are talking about the effects of one man 3000 years from now, it does kind of make the idea of evil seem weak, doesn't it?

Thats exactly the opposite to the question I asked from you.

 

[Clara Tea]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. 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.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.

Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.

Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

It is merely assumed that the bible is correct and that God is omnipotent and omniscient. After all, it is quite a feat to have made the whole universe and made life.

Isn't it possible that God is not morally perfect (had sex with Mary to make Jesus, but Mary was married to Joseph at the time). God flooded the world and killed a lot of innocents.

After Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they were kicked out and Satan was given dominion of earth. When God allowed Satan to have power, it is like cooperating with Satan. Therefore, Satan's sins are God's sins (for allowing it, and promoting it).

Maybe God believes that some day Satan will turn good?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't know that God decided "that lifeforms should eat each other to survive". Or that "natural disasters should wreck the lives of innocents". I never read that anywhere. Where did you get that?
God allowing... now that sounds correct.
He still did not create everything, as you suggested. That doesn't change based on how you define "created everything".
Or rather, it would, if you put it in proper context.

God has to be the author of predation as the author of the world's physics. As an omnipotent and omniscient being, God would not only know all possible worlds to create, but have the power to actualize any of them.

It is possible to have a world without predation: in fact, it's possible to have a world without any kind of physical suffering: all it would take would be for God to create the world with different physics.

It follows that if God is capable of creating a world without physical suffering, but created a world where physical suffering is possible anyway, that God is culpable for that suffering.

 

[ChristineM]

None of the above.
The Bible tells us the truth about God.
Is that an opinion? We'll find out eventually, I believe.

Interesting, i don't remember any mention of ISIS or the nuclear bomb in the bible.

 

[Koldo]

Oh! How so?

For instance, it is logically impossible to kill what can not be killed.

God does not "Abrakadabra" anything.
I hope you understand what "Abrakadabra" involves.
Abrakadabra - a word said by magicians when performing a magic trick.
Does God do that? No.

Can God stop cause something to happen instantly?
(Matthew 21:19) . . .he said to it: “Let no fruit come from you ever again.” And the fig tree withered instantly. . .
(Luke 1:64) . . .Instantly his mouth was opened and his tongue was set free and he began to speak. . .
(Luke 4:39) . . .he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. Instantly. . .
(Luke 13:11-13) . . .for 18 years; and she was bent double and was unable to straighten up at all. When he saw her, Jesus addressed her and said: “Woman, you are released from your weakness.” And he laid his hands on her, and instantly she straightened up. . .
(Acts 3:7, 8) . . .he took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up. Instantly his feet and his ankles were made firm; 8 and leaping to his feet, he began walking . . .
(Acts 12:23) . . .Instantly the angel of Jehovah struck him, because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten up with worms and died. . .

God's power to manipulate the element, or chemicals in a slit second, does not prove his omnipotence.
Or maybe it does for some people.
How it's done, is not the important thing in omnipotence.

I am not sure I understand you.
You say God can't do abrakadabra but then you exemplify cases where God has done abrakadabra.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How?
So, a man who fathered a baby boy, fathered a thief, if the son becomes a thief, and a mother who gave birth to a baby girl, gave birth to a drug addict, if the girl becomes one.
Is that what you believe?

Why do you keep using these sorts of analogies after the problems with them have been pointed out?

A human parent is not the designer of their child. A human parent does not have the omniscience to see exactly what their child will grow to be or the omnipotence to guide them onto a different path. The God of the PoE does.

Do you agree that we are each responsible for the foreseeable, avoidable consequences of our actions?

What if he did not. How would foreseeing make him the creator of Satan?

Because he knowingly set in motion the chain of events that ended up with Satan and all of Satan's actions. If God foresaw them, then God chose all of them.

Why not?
You are saying I cannot choose to want beef instead of fish?

Yes. We don't choose our desires.

It's like that Penn Jillette quote:

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero."

The difference between Penn Jillette - or me, or most people - and a rapist or a murderer isn't a matter of free will or "freedom." The difference is a matter of desires that we had no control over.

The reason I'm not a murderer isn't because I've successfully used my free will to avoid acting on my desire to murder; the reason I'm not a murderer is because I just don't have the desire to murder anyone.

Do you agree that *I* have free will? If so, then you must recognize that people can have free will without having the desire to rape or murder.

... so why did God implant this desire in some people, then?

Why do you believe that?

Because the God we're talking about is the ultimate source of everything in the universe.

Do you disagree with this assumption? If so, tell me what things you think ultimately come from a source other than God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you assume anyone who does not get what you say is "wearing Abrahamic glasses"?
I'm sorry, but my eyes are clear and not clouded by any beliefs.
Perhaps some of us are not very good at making sense of what we believe. A special blindness perhaps

No. I only make those decisions after a few attempts to explain that don't work. Lots of folks do understand the POV from each side. One has to try to explain. A simple example in this case, is whether or not they drop the word 'evil' in the next query.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The proof is in the pudding.
Do Atheist make the argument that God is immoral, a monster, wicked, etc.?

Search these forums. I rest my case... and I'll enjoy the pudding.

Once again, how could we? I make no case for anything non-existent having any characteristics at all, except not being.

However, we do make the argument (and make the case, by the way) that the actions attributed to God by many believers are totally immoral. It can NEVER be right, for example, to punish someone for their errors by killing their child. The God the Jews and Christians believe in did that twice -- Pharaoh's son and David and Bathsheba's. It can NEVER be right to punish the innocent, and the God that Jews and Christians has done that multiple times: the flood, the slaughter of the Canaanites and others.

These things, combined with the fiction also invented of this God of Abraham is, according to those believers, also omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent prove that it is myth and fable, not fact.