Answering Atheists

[firedragon]

Yah, that's a good point. Alrighty then, it's been a pleasure talking over these things with you!

The pleasure all mine brother. I wish you all the best.

 

[ecco]

Aborted souls do not go to heaven

That hardly seems fair. Thirty percent of all pregnancies spontaneously abort (GodDidIt). Why wouldn't He allow them in heaven?

 

[ecco]

Nowhere does the Bible say God created his children, "knowing what would happen".
In fact, the Bible reveals the opposite. Read Genesis 3. Also consider that God allowed his creatures their freedom of choice, so that he did not get to know "what they would do". See Genesis 22:12 for example.

You seem to be under the impression that free will rules out omniscience.
Perhaps I'm wrong, so, as you suggested, rather than guessing, I'll ask.
Does free will rule out Omniscience? Yes or No?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We? The angels aren't? The angels are omniscient?
We are not getting mixed up with what we are asking, are we?

No, I think you aren't following me. I'm talking about God's actions.

Your words... "You said "Satan," but didn't Satan ultimately come from God?"
My response says that children are responsible for their own thoughts and actions.
I get the impression that you are somehow making the angels God, or not separate entities from him. Are you doing that, or am I misunderstanding what you asked?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I think we have different ideas about what the consequences of a person's decision are. Here's my perspective:

Say that a person is confronted with a decision: they can either take a particular action or choose not to take it:

- if they take the action, the world will be a particular way. That action will have direct effects, those direct effects may cause other indirect effects, they may influence other people to take actions of their own which have their own effects, etc., off potentially to infinity.
- if they take the action, the world will be a different particular way.
- the consequences of the decision is every difference between how the world would be if they take the action and how the world would be if they didn't take it, including the consequences that involve other people/agents/deities/angels/whatever.

We are responsible for these consequences that:

- we can foresee, or ought to have foreseen, and
- would have been avoidable if we had chosen to avoid them.

Human responsibility is limited because we:

- often can't foresee the consequences of our actions very far into the future. For instance, a parent can't predict with good accuracy the sort of person their baby will grow up to be.
- often can't avoid a negative consequence without also avoiding a positive consequence. For instance, we often can't do surgery to correct a problem without running a risk of death or complications.

Neither of these limitations apply to an omnipotent, omniscient God.

All the foreseeable outcomes of a decision are the responsibility of the person making the decision, and the outcomes of a decision are everything that happens that would not have happened if the decision hadn't been made. An omniscient being can foresee every negative consequence and an omnipotent being can prevent every negative consequence.

So God is confronted with a choice:

- he can create an angel that he knows will become Satan, who will unleash all sorts of evil and suffering on humanity.
- he can not create this angel, and then none of those things happen.

All that evil and suffering is God's responsibility as well as Satan's.

If Hitler's parents wanted a robot who would only do what Hitler's parents wanted, and Hitler's parents had the power to make Hitler a robot, sure, Hitler's parent would make him a robot, and program him not to murder.
However, if Hitler's parents did not want a robot, but wanted a normal human being who could make his own decisions for himself, then No. Hitler's parents would not make him a robot, and No. Even if they knew that he would murder millions, Hitler's parents would allow Hitler to make his own choices, and face the consequences... knowing full well that they have the power to undo the damage that Hitler caused.
Hitler's parents would know that making robot is not the solution to the problem of evil.
No. For emphasis. Hitler's parents would not be responsible for Hitler's actions. Hitler would be responsible for the problems he caused.

Do you think that a person needs to be a robot in order not to murder anyone?

- Are you a robot?
- How many people have you murdered?

Wait. What do we know about Hitler's parents?
We don't even know if Hitler's parents were wise. However, if they were wise, that's what they would do.
God is wise - all wise.

God's wisdom would make him more culpable for his actions. A human has the excuse that they didn't know better; this excuse is unavailable to an "all wise" god.

Okay.


Please explain.

The quality of a creation is a reflection on the quality of the creator. Flaws in a creation indicate a lack of either skill or care on the part of the creator.

The creation of a perfect creator is exactly as the creator designed it.

So you are telling me that I the potter cannot make a piece of pottery for a specific use, that does not require it to have the same quality as the finer pieces?
Is that what you are saying.

No, I'm saying that if a piece of pottery had an air bubble in it, and it blows up in the kiln destroying other pieces of pottery, the blame lies with the potter.

The form of the pot is a reflection of the skill of the potter.

Remember that we're operating under the assumption that God does not want evil in his creation. If evil ends up in God's creation, then this is a reflection on God's ability as a creator. A creator whose creation doesn't match his vision is a deficient creator, either in terms of skill or care.

I can't fault you for reading that as you did. I take the blame.

Okay - so it was a misunderstanding. No worries.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

e·vil
/ˈēvəl/
Learn to pronounce

adjective

1. profoundly immoral and wicked.
   "his evil deeds"

noun

1. profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
   "the world is stalked by relentless evil"

Atheists, at least me, consider "evil" to be an adjective. Many theists use it in the sense of a noun.

Some people commit evil acts like murder and rape. Moses condoned both.

However, the concept of "evil" hanging over the world like a dark shroud is something only believed in within the realm of the supernatural.

Surely you meant Moses condemned both.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Surely you meant Moses condemned both.

No, condoned is accurate according to the Bible.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, condoned is accurate according to the Bible.

Well give your verse then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well give your verse then.

One example of both:

The Death of the Midianite Women
14 But Moses was furious with the officers of the army, the commanders over thousands and commanders over hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 Look, these people through the counsel of Balaam caused the Israelites to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor—which resulted in the plague among the community of the Lord! 17 Now therefore kill every boy, and kill every woman who has been intimate with a man in bed. 18 But all the young women who have not experienced a man’s bed will be yours.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 31 - New English Translation

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

It is clear to me that when an atheist -- who does not believe in God by definition -- uses the word God in a sentence it must always refer to "the God that has been described to me." But because that is very long, to use it over and over again would be tedious.

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.

I am not in need of a treatise on the syllogism.

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.

I did not intend a syllogism, which is obvious from the construction. It does not begin with a statement like "all...are..." Rather each is a self-contained argument. By describing the deity as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I argued that would prevent the existence of evil. If evil is not a good thing, then any being that desires all good and knows that evil exists (because it knows everything), and has the power to do anything, that deity would arrange for evil not to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry - skipped over this:

Would you mind pointing me to it?

Here you go:

Answering Atheists

Edit: and the reply you gave:

Answering Atheists

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You focus incessantly on "disbelief" so you don't have to defend what you DO believe.

You always frame atheists in the worst possible light, here implying that we're deceptive and dishonest so that we can also be lazy. It's a really ugly aspect of Christianity that too many of you are happy to indulge in.

It's also how the Republicans depict immigrants and people on welfare, and just as ugly there.

But getting back to your scurrilous assertion, we're seldom asked what we believe, so there's not much to defend. I'd guess that most atheists in the West are also secular humanists in the sense that they respect reason but not faith. I doubt anybody is afraid to defend that choice. But I've never seen anybody asked to, either.

Which of this atheist's beliefs did you want me to defend? Skepticism, or the idea that nothing should be taken on faith or be believed more than the available evidence supports? I'll defend that if you like.

Or how about empiricism - the idea that truth is determined by consulting reality in observation and experiment, to which reason is applied to arrive as useful conclusions. Is that the kind of thing you think atheists are trying to shirk defending by focusing "incessantly on disbelief"? (How would that work, anyway? If I didn't want to defend my principles, I should just incessantly redirect the conversation to disbelief? Could that possibly work?)

The reason we even mention disbelief is because so few Christians can define atheist properly. They also frequently forget that we don't believe in gods, or attribute beliefs to atheism that don't derive from atheism - any of these kinds of issues will generally lead to a mention of disbelief.

People who say they don't believe in evil, I don't believe are stating their beliefs accurately. If someone breaks someone's house, kidnaps and rapes a child. Tortures and kills it... to the Hindu, I ask, is that evil? What is it, if not evil? (I believe Hindus differ in beliefs, because i spoke to a Hindu, who believes that's evil)

What I say is that I don't like to use the word evil to describe harmful things because of its religious undertones. In cultures where Christianity dominates, evil is a principle of the universe embodied in Satan. That's a religious concept based in faith.

Like sin, another word I am careful about using if it might be understood to mean what it literally means in Christianity - a violation of God's will. And that's true with a raft of other religious words that are used metaphorically, but have literal religious meanings, like blessing, or miracle, or sacred. I avoid those words in contexts where it isn't clear that they are meant metaphorically.

You'll have to know and understand why God allows the suffering, in order to see the wisdom in what he does. Would you not?

First, I need to decide whether there is a god that needs my attention. The believer decides that the god is good, and therefore whatever it says or must be good even if whatever that is is very damaging. There must be some way, he assumes, that what appears bad is actually good. The skeptic doesn't think like that. He looks at the evidence first before judging whether it is from a god. He trusts his own moral judgment more that those who tell him to find a way to see gratuitous suffering as good.

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

This was said in a TV call-in talk show to a Christian caller, who then said, "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

This is the kind of perverted thinking that making the moral judgment that whatever one believes this god did MUST be moral leads to. It's called Divine Command Theory. It forces one to rationalize as not just acceptable, but good and holy, anything that one can be convinced a god commanded.

 

[1213]

...

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

And when God eliminates evil, many of them say, God is evil. Can’t make them happy.

 

[nPeace]

How about not having a tree of knowledge of good and evil for them to eat the fruit of? How about not creating Lucifer? If god is all knowing, he knew what creating these things would do.

"What creating these things would do"? That's interesting.

This reads to me like, 'A tree is bad. An angel is bad. Don't make them. You are a bad God if you do.'
Was there something wrong with the tree?
Was there something wrong with the angel?

It reminds me of the parents that say, "We are not getting children because they might turn out bad." (not that I blame them. After all, they are only human. )
As described in the Bible, God is not like the parent that will say, 'Let me see how it will turn out before I do anything'.
God is not like the parent that, would, after getting a look into the future will say, 'Uh Oh. That's trouble there. Nope. Not me.' Or, 'You know what. Some robots would be nice. Oh wait. Robots can malfunction. . I'd better not make anything. '

That's man - Us - in our own small thinking, with our pea sized brain , in comparison to the largest mammal on earth.

Yet, we think we are so wise, and yet...

Whoa. Now that's humbling, isn't it.
Not to many.
We are so tiny, in this huge universe, and yet we think we know best. Makes me Not you?
We can't even make anything a bazillion times near in comparison to

, and we want to claim we know better than a God. Smirk with me SigurdReginson. Is it not amusing to think about,

God, is called such for a reason. God is not a man.
First off, God did not want to see ahead of his creating, what would happen. Genesis 2:15, 16 ;Genesis 3:8-13 Why not? He has nothing to fear. Nothing to panic about. He is God almighty.

Second what God saw ahead, after the man Adam chose to go against his potter, would not cause him to abandon ship. Captain overboard!
In other words, God would not abandon his purpose (Isaiah 45:18), even if he knew from the start, how everything would play out. Why not? He is God almighty. Nothing - absolutely nothing can stop him from carrying out his purpose.

We can think of it like this...
A man is determined to go to point B, to give an important message to someone with a very important life saving assignment.
He knows before hand that a tornado will touch down along his path (or some other potential obstacle)
The determined man also knows that he has at least a dozen options (small number, which doesn't come even close to the options God has) or paths he can take, to reach his destination.
With that knowledge, the man does not abandon this urgent mission.

God knows that regardless of the outcome, he will accomplish his purpose, because it is his will. He created man, out of his love, and gave them the gift of life on earth. He wants them to enjoy life forever on it, and that's exactly what will be... regardless.

Does that make God responsible for mankind suffering. No. Not at all. The responsibility for suffering lies with the ones who's actions brought it on - Satan, and Adam.
In the Bible book of James Chapter 1, James wrote, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed* by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile,* gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death."

Moses stated a fact regarding this...
Deuteronomy 32:4, 5
4 The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he. 5 They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own. They are a crooked and twisted generation!

Third, there was nothing wrong with the tree. It was a tree... one that God put restrictions on.
All that was required, was obedience, not touching the tree.
To say that God should not put the tree there, to me, is the equivalence of saying, the father who gives his child a bike, and tells the child to ride only in the yard is bad for giving the child the bike, because he knows the child will open the gate and go ride on the road.

Or, the parent that lets the child run and play, is bad, because he should know the child would fall and hurt themselves
Or the parent that had a window built in their teenager's bedroom, is bad, because that parent should know, the child would want to sneak out the house, and in the proceess of climbing out the window, fall and break her arm.

Did you, hear it, when growing up as a youngster, "Hard ears you won't hear. Own way, you will feel."
We learned it's true. A lesson.

Fourth, there was nothing wrong with the angels. They were created with free will, or choice, because it was God's will for his creatures to freely express love for him, and by extension, others.
Does a robot care about a dog? Does it care about another robot? Will they have affection, feeling?
No. They are not made in God's image, to reflect God's fine qualities. God did not want robots.

Finally, did God take any responsibility for anything? Yes. Only what he is responsible for - allowing a limited time of suffering.
He stated that through one of his servants, Paul.
(Romans 8:20) For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope
What's interesting to me, is the ending of that verse, which some persons seem contented to overlook, or ignore.
"On the basis of hope" is self explanatory. Hope is the basis, or foundation, on which God subjected, or allowed humanity to go through a limited time of pain and suffering.

I can't repeat this illustration often enough.
A loving father allows his child to go through temporary pain, for a lasting good outcome.
If one is going to fault God for doing the same thing, then in all honesty, fault the fathers that do the same thing.

Paul says, "...the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us." (Romans 8:18)

I think I have covered everything here.
It's long, I know. Could not be helped.

 

[nPeace]

By creating things that would later turn into man's downfall. Also, he would have created rules that could be exploited to cause evil. If pain was less intense than it is, and if mental trauma wasn't as damaging as it is, suffering would be reduced so much...

The things were not responsible for man's downfall. We are the problem. Not God. We only have to look at the world, to see that

I'm not all knowing, though. We are discussing an all powerful god. He should know how everything unfolds even before he makes his first action, no?

No. Why should he? Give me your best reason.

Maybe your idea of god isn't all powerful?

No. That's unbelievers. God is all powerful - omnipotent. What say you?

As I stated above, he could have left those things out for starters.

No. Why? What's wrong with them?

I have some questions, though. Do you believe we will have free will in heaven? If we do, why wouldn't there be suffering like there is here on earth? Could god have just made things that way from the start? Why didn't he just do that?

These are excellent questions. Very very thoughtful questions.
Will those who go to heaven - not we, because nowhere in the Bible does it say we - that is, all who serve God, will go to heaven... but that's a whole new topic. If you want to discuss it, let me know. - have free will?
The Bible does not suggest otherwise. There is no reason why they would not. That's God's will for all his intelligent creature - to serve him from an appropriative heart. Appreciation does not exist without free will.

(Matthew 22:37) He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.. . .
(John 4:24) God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth. . .

(Romans 12:1) Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. . .
(2 Timothy 1:7) For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but one of power and of love and of soundness of mind.

Unlike robots - without a mind, or soul - all servants of God, anointed or otherwise - must have a sound mind, and a heart of love for God.

If those who go to heaven do have free will, why wouldn't there be suffering like there is here on earth?
The reason God has allowed time before he ends this system, is to settle the issues raised by Satan?
Once the issues are settled, there would be no reason to have to resettle them. There would have been settled once, and for all. Final.

To illustrate, a case may go to court. It may be a case that is settled in a number of courts, and may reach the supreme court.
Once the case is settled, any repeat of that case will be settled base on the judgement passed down by the previous case, because it's the final "judgment" that was settled.
There is no need to drag the case on again, or repeat it.
That's the reason for God allowing the limited time of suffering - in order to have a final settling of the matter "in the highest court".

Could god have just made things that way from the start? Why didn't he just do that?
"That way" I am assuming, means all people in heaven without suffering.
Contrary to what the "Christians" tell you, according to the Bible, God never intended for people to go to heaven. God's will was and still is, to have mankind dwell on the earth, in peace, with no suffering. Isaiah 45:18 ; Psalms 37:9-11 ; Revelation 21:3, 4 etc...

The reason people go to heaven, is to be a part of the arrangement God made to bring about his original purpose for his universal family. Matthew 6:9, 10 ; Daniel 2:44, 45 ; Ephesians 1:5-10 ; etc...

I have never met a Christian who didn't think god created hell. If he didn't, who did?

You will never meet a Christian who thinks God created hell. You will meet "Christians" who tell you that.
I hope you don't mind me being direct about this, but Jesus did not water down the truth, and his followers don't.
Have you ever researched the topic "Hell". I don't mean, have you researched, by listening to different viewpoints, but have you researched the usage of the word 'Hell" - its origin; Its meaning; etc.?

It would be worth while researching it.
Here are at least two encyclopedias that can get you started...
The Christian doctrine of hell derives from passages in the New Testament. The word hell does not appear in the Greek New Testament; instead one of three words is used: the Greek words Tartarus or Hades, or the Hebrew word Gehinnom.

In the Septuagint and New Testament, the authors used the Greek term Hades for the Hebrew Sheol, but often with Jewish rather than Greek concepts in mind. In the Jewish concept of Sheol, such as expressed in Ecclesiastes,[53] Sheol or Hades is a place where there is no activity. However, since Augustine, some[which?] Christians have believed that the souls of those who die either rest peacefully, in the case of Christians, or are afflicted, in the case of the damned, after death until the resurrection.

Hell
A word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew sheʼohlʹ and the Greek haiʹdes. In the King James Version the word “hell” is rendered from sheʼohlʹ 31 times and from haiʹdes 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since sheʼohlʹ is also translated 31 times “grave” and 3 times “pit.” In the Douay Version sheʼohlʹ is rendered “hell” 64 times, “pit” once, and “death” once.

In 1885, with the publication of the complete English Revised Version, the original word sheʼohlʹ was in many places transliterated into the English text of the Hebrew Scriptures, though, in most occurrences, “grave” and “pit” were used, and “hell” is found some 14 times. This was a point on which the American committee disagreed with the British revisers, and so, when producing the American Standard Version (1901) they transliterated sheʼohlʹ in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated haiʹdes in the Christian Greek Scriptures in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geʹen·na (English, “Gehenna”) is rendered “hell” throughout, as is true of many other modern translations.

What other beings have the capability to manifest whole plains of existence outside of god, and where did you read that they could do this in the bible? God is the only one who can create worlds, as far as I know.

The belief that there are "plains of existence" other than heaven and earth, is based on what one believes about the dead. So one would first have to determine if what they believe about the dead, is actually supported by scripture.
I'd be happy to discuss that with you on another thread. If you like, create a thread, and mention me, so that i know.

That said, no, I don't remember reading anywhere that god actually created the place in the bible specifically, so there is that. He does throw people into there, though! Luke 12:5


But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Are you sure? Why not do your research on those Greek words, including the one used in that verse, and perhaps come back and let me know if you see hell there.
Then I'll like to hear your explaination of Revelation 20:13-15 using those same words.
Is it not interesting that God gets rid of this so called hell.

So, if he didn't make it, why is he the one with the authority to throw people into hell? Regardless, though, even if he didn't somehow make it, and was just utilizing something that was already laying around, it's kind of splitting hairs over the matter. That's like saying "just because the killer shot you and threw you into a shallow grave doesn't mean he dug the shallow grave!"

If god didn't create hell, who did, and why is god the one with the authority to cast people in, and not the original creator?

Do you want me to create the thread to answer this question, or will you create it?
If you want me to create it, you will have to give me permission to quote your words here, in that thread, in keeping with RF's rules. Let me know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And when God eliminates evil, many of them say, God is evil. Can’t make them happy.

When did God eliminate evil, exactly?

 

[nPeace]

Are sufferings momentary?

Suffering always is momentary. Either one recovers, or dies. Either way it does not last forever.

So, the all-knowing God did not know what would happen?

He could know, but all knowing does not mean has to know.

That is the real issue. After one who went wrong, why did not God destroy him even after having all the power and created sufferings for humans?
Doubly wrong.

No. you asked a good question. God destroying rebel A would surely leave no doubt that he has the power to do so, but that would not prove that he has the right to do so.
This is one of the challenges made by the rebel. Destroying the rebel would only make it look like he was right.
Sort of like when they want to shut up whistle blowers.

God does not shut up whistle blowers. He makes them fall on their face, as they are proven liars... as in Satan's case.

 

[nPeace]

Metaphors always fail.

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

We agree.

If his purpose was interrupted, he is not ALL-powerful.

We disagree.

If an champion boxer allows his opponent to "win" the first two rounds of three, he is not a champion, eh?

 

[nPeace]

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.

 

[nPeace]

And where do they go, assuming they are immortal?

Ciao

- viole

If you assume they are immortal, them you'll also have to assume that answer.
I have not assume they are.
Souls are not immortal, accoding to the Bible. Ezekiel 18:4.

 

[Kooky]

And when God eliminates evil, many of them say, God is evil. Can’t make them happy.

I mean, there is no such thing as metaphysical evil, so it's not like he/she/it/them would have anything to "eliminate" in the first place.