Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[BilliardsBall]

Are you trying to suggest that I may only respond with the words you used in your OP? I hope not. Your OP was about morality, the only thing that can make morality objective (true regardless who, if any one, believes it is) is God. God is the only thing that matters concerning the ontology of morality.



1. If objective morality exists, then God exists.
2. You claimed that you believed objective morality exists.
3. Therefor you must believe that God exists.

4. From that I deduced that you were a theist.

I can't make an argument any simpler than that.

I have over 13,000 debates. I know all about how to talk to atheists BB, and I agree with the rest of your post.

I haven't put 1, 2 and 3 anywhere in this thread and certainly not in the OP.

Because of your great debate experience, I would hope you would bear two things in mind:

1. Get the other side to define terms. The skeptics on this thread won't admit that cannot have objective morality without God, so we hang out and discuss point 1 as much as we can.

2. When you are debating you dislike people hijacking your threads.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What i mean is that: to me, in my opinion, rape is always wrong.

I doesn't imply that rape is always wrong to every people ever live on the earth.

Just like if i say apple always taste bad to me, it doesn't mean apple always taste bad to every people ever live on the earth.

So what you meant was "rape is always wrong for you personally, but could be right for someone else."

Under what circumstance would you acquit someone guilty of rape, therefore? When would rape be right for someone else?

 

[BilliardsBall]

To be "righteous" requires one to be truthful in all they do.

You are not showing yoruself to be this type of person, especially when you think so-called "Atheists" are "self-righteous".

Wrong.

You are evil, deceitful and quite unknowledgeable about Christianity.

I'll be sure to let others know you can't help them learn.

Thanks.

As a new age spiritual leader, I find your tolerance for others' religious beliefs and lifestyle a bit subjective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't ask me to explain why, but most of the theistic philosophers I trust distinguish between objective moral truths and moral absolutes. So you may want to investigate them, I simply stopped using the word absolute just in case the person I was debating knew the difference (so far none have).

I'd be pleased to here how you parse the two terms, so I can learn.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I make the assumption you mean that atheists are typically NOT moral realists. I am not sure it is the case. I know many atheists who believe in objective morality. Maybe you are confusing them with naturalists, who are a strict subset of all atheists.

And what do you mean with "avoiding conscience"?

Suppose you lose your faith tomorrow. Do you think you will not have problems anymore with your conscience if you start killing and raping? Or do you currently restrain from all those things because of expected judgement from your celestial cop?

Well, if that is the case. Keep believing, by all means....

Ciao

- viole

If I lose my faith tomorrow, but remained "me", I would say I have both good and bad elements, and the good elements abhor rape and murder.

I don't think the issue is "celestial cop" but rather "celestial travel guide". It seems eminently logical that if I go to Heaven, I will have enough bad elements within to someday if not sooner muss up utopia for another. I need to be purged of the self-will I have to do the wrong things, often even after my conscience informs me to not do so.

If you said you always obey your conscience I would call you a fibber. If you say you can go to Heaven with me, carrying on the way you do to mock and insult me and what I believe at every turn, I would say our celestial tour operator will slot us both into the right tour bus!

 

[Underhill]

I've considered such, but in the case of the Bible, I can't see why the writers reduced their personal power and income and sought martyrdom.

They didn't. They sought (and garnered) power. The martyrdom (where it happened) was an unfortunate complication.

 

[1robin]

You are simply being obtuse. I've provided facts, you simply ignore them. The fact that cancer exist being an obvious one. I am not talking about mans misbehavior, you could easily argue that is on us. But it isn't just about his creation. It's about his actions. Again, I have provided plenty of examples of the god of the old testament acting criminal by any modern definition.

I had decided lack sincerity and rationality and so I gave up on the debate. However I am so bored at the moment I decided to respond, hope I do not regret it.

You are re-writing the bible in your own bias slanted words. If you want to debate the bible then use the bible. Post a verse and then we can discuss what the verse means.

No matter what I do I just can't get you to formally make "the argument from evil".

Are you saying the existence of cancer somehow precludes the ability of a good God existing?

The heck with it. I can't get you to state it formally but your primary "complaint" is called "the problem of evil" and few still consider it relevant, but I will let a board sitting philosopher explain it.

The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and depth of suffering in the world, whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or to natural disasters, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe that God exists. No doubt many of you have felt the same way. Perhaps we should all become atheists.

But that’s a pretty big step to take. How can we be sure that God does not exist? Perhaps there’s a reason why God permits all the evil in the world. Perhaps it somehow all fits into the grand scheme of things, which we can only dimly discern, if at all. How do we know?

As a Christian theist, I’m persuaded that the problem of evil, terrible as it is, does not in the end constitute a disproof of the existence of God. On the contrary, in fact, I think that Christian theism is man’s last best hope of solving the problem of evil.

In order to explain why I feel this way, it will be helpful to draw some distinctions to keep our thinking clear. First, we must distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of how God and evil can co-exist. The emotional problem of evil concerns how to dissolve people’s emotional dislike of a God who would permit suffering.

Now let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions of this problem: first, the logical problem of evil, and second, the probabilistic problem of evil.

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.

But we’re not out of the woods yet. For now we confront the probabilistic problem of evil. According to this version of the problem, the co-existence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it’s highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world is so great that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it’s improbable that God exists.

Now this is a much more powerful argument, and therefore I want to focus our attention on it. In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three main points:

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God’s wider framework. To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four:

a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. One reason that the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that if God exists, then His goal for human life is happiness in this world. God’s role is to provide comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view this is false. We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or those around him. Of course, whether God's purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure?

b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is not surprised at the human evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen; He does not interfere to stop it, but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.

c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as their Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering. Yet he wrote, “We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (II Cor. 4:16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which all the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory that God will bestow on his children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that it is literally beyond comparison with the suffering. Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. That’s why Paul could call them “a slight and momentary affliction”—they were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes on those who trust Him.

d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, “God is good to me,” simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw on the existence of God.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-evil#ixzz4fCJOspiq

From this point going forward every complaint you make that was addressed by the article I provided will be met with simply a referral to this post number.

Continued below:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, how often would I need to behave selfishly (self above others) before I ruined a utopian existence for others?

That question doesn't even make sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't know if that follows logically. I take responsibility for my moral decisions and also base them on the scriptures. I look to the scriptures to help define what morality is.

So you determine your own morality?

Atheists have consciences and can judge, yes. I'm questioning why atheists never seem to see the conflict between conscience and societal notions of good and evil and what those things should be in a mechanistic, evolved world.

Because there aren't any conflicts. It's extremely easy to reconcile the two.

 

[1robin]

@Underhill

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I simply pointed out that Gandhi also had some good ideas. He did. You cannot blame him for everything that follows in India.

You equated two things that are extremely unequal. That is the typical kind of trouble you get into when you argue by analogy or proxy. If Christ merely had good ideas then he is co-equal with every human that ever lived. It is his divine attributes and actions that separate him from muck of mere humanity which Gandhi was firmly planted. There is nothing similar to Christ in human history, so stop trying to equate him to other things. Judge him on his actual merits.

But I would point out that a well fed slave still might prefer the life of a hungry freed man.

I don't get the relevance.

Who is claiming otherwise? The problem is that the hope you speak of is almost always coupled with apathy. And who cares about their fates? Their fate is irrelivent in a discussion about the truth.

Dying on a cross is the diametrical opposite of apathy.

And your argument is that an all powerful god couldn't create a better world? Seriously?

It is your burden to prove that the existence of evil and suffering disproves the existence of God. in fact I am just going to take the easy road and let a scholar disprove the argument you won't even state (but merely hint at)

So good children and bad children all end up with the same ultimate fate? What a tragedy.

First of all how do you know which are which? Second are you suggesting that God condemn a person to young to understand right from wrong (including the mentally impaired)? You would make for a cruel God. Third since you can't know either of the two things I asked, on what are your complaints based?

A 2 year old is no automaton. But we don't give them access to a sharp knife or gun. This whole notion that freewill obfuscates any responsibility on gods part is silly. He knew what the outcome was and allowed it to happen. What kind of loving person does that to people he cares about?

Quote me the verse where God gave Adam and Eve guns, but I an give you actual cases where adults allowed kids access to guns. It does not matter what the potential mistake it is. It only matters that the misuse of freewill exists, necessarily results in suffering, and is necessary for true love to exist. God is responsible to who for allowing our sin to ruin paradise exactly?

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I am simply taking what the bible says god did in the old testament and applying the same morality most humans hold as important.

No you are not. I do not remember a single version, chapter, and verse being posted by you. You usually mangle up your paraphrasing biblical verses so bad I can't even recognize what the original even was.

Brilliant response. This is called an appeal to tradition. It must be true because so many people believe it. A fallacy in debate.

Atheists usually over use and misunderstand fallacies. If my statement was a fallacy it was an appeal to popularity not tradition. However fallacies usually apply to statement of fact which I did not make. I did not say that since C.S. Lewis is more popular then he is right. I said that a man with his credibility will trump yours everything else being equal.

Why do you insist on twisting my words?

Oh the irony.

There is a difference between parents who know their kids will require correction and god creating rules knowing they will be broken and then making the punishment eternal banishment.

He created a life he holds complete sovereignty over and gave you temporary sovereignty over for a specific time (forgetting other people due to non-relevance here) you have used the life you have been given to reject your creator and willfully and with full knowledge engage in immoral acts which causes ripples of suffering to echo through the ages in ways you have no way to assess. One day you die, you are awoken sometime in the future, and then taken before God. You obviously have no defense and so the life you were bestowed is taken back by the one who created it and "you" are annihilated. What has God done contradictory to objective morality? How has he wronged you? In the end you received exactly what you wanted - no God.

The moral equivalent would be something closer to a parent kicking a kid out of their house at the age of 3 for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. And yes, I would hold the parents responsible in that case, as would most any sane person.

How is the judging of your sins consistent with your analogy? You are responsible to God for what you have done and for what you have chosen. Your arguing by a proxy analogy and by equating the unequal, I do not often see all those mistakes in such a small place.

My point was raising people from the dead is one of those miracles with minor consequence. Want a miracle? Change living peoples lives on a grand scale.

Fine, read the biographies of Johnny Cash and George Forman.

Small miracles never impressed me. They are too small for one who claims to be one with the all powerful creator of the universe.

What objective scale do you have for judging the magnitude by which natural law was suspended or supplanted? and where did you get it? It does not matter - Christianity contains supernatural acts from the creation of all existent things, resurrection of the dead, to my winning a chess match against a master. We played about a thousand times and I won 3 games. Two when he was drunk, the third when I felt the presence of God and predicted I would win based upon that presence before we even got the board out.[/quote][/quote]

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

As a new age spiritual leader, I find your tolerance for others' religious beliefs and lifestyle a bit subjective.

That maybe the only honest thing you have stated so far.

Good....baby steps is where I began, and now you have taken yours.

FYI - to find religion subjective is an understatement......in truth.....Christianity is incomplete.

So you are very correct.....you just can't realize what you are saying....well......is true.

As you were.

 

[shmogie]

How do you derive ethical systems (right and wrong systems) without taking as axiomatic that right and wrong have weight/exist?

In a purely natural system they don't exist. Matter is just matter, your brain is just matter, incapable of appreciating and valuing concepts like right or wrong, good or evil. According to Dawkins, "we dance to our genes". We are driven by the purely genetic drives to eat, procreate, survive. Anything is only right or wrong within this framework, and it really isn't right or wrong, it is only what is best to meet our genetically driven needs

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

oh, you you're pulling the tired old man card. is that because you really have nothing factual, rational, or relevant to contribute? here is a synopsis, since you cannot go back to the origin of the quote which would have definitely cost you a minute of your created life. nice that you can insult someone ho responds to your rantings and not even know what you are ranting on about. oh, by the way, it's nice that you have russian family, as you mentioned, but that clearly means nothing as it concerns knowledge and/or understanding of russian history and the role of the orthodox church within that framework.
everytime you are called on your ignorance you get abusive and insulting, but you still cannot refute anything that was said because you simply do not have command of facts. so, read some non-fiction history once in a while to help with that problem.

We don't need our words to expose their inabilities.....they do it on their own, if you ask the right questions.

Thank you for trying to help bring honesty back into the world.

 

[Underhill]

I had decided lack sincerity and rationality and so I gave up on the debate. However I am so bored at the moment I decided to respond, hope I do not regret it.

You are re-writing the bible in your own bias slanted words. If you want to debate the bible then use the bible. Post a verse and then we can discuss what the verse means.

No matter what I do I just can't get you to formally make "the argument from evil".

Are you saying the existence of cancer somehow precludes the ability of a good God existing?

The heck with it. I can't get you to state it formally but your primary "complaint" is called "the problem of evil" and few still consider it relevant, but I will let a board sitting philosopher explain it.

The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and depth of suffering in the world, whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or to natural disasters, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe that God exists. No doubt many of you have felt the same way. Perhaps we should all become atheists.

But that’s a pretty big step to take. How can we be sure that God does not exist? Perhaps there’s a reason why God permits all the evil in the world. Perhaps it somehow all fits into the grand scheme of things, which we can only dimly discern, if at all. How do we know?

As a Christian theist, I’m persuaded that the problem of evil, terrible as it is, does not in the end constitute a disproof of the existence of God. On the contrary, in fact, I think that Christian theism is man’s last best hope of solving the problem of evil.

In order to explain why I feel this way, it will be helpful to draw some distinctions to keep our thinking clear. First, we must distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of how God and evil can co-exist. The emotional problem of evil concerns how to dissolve people’s emotional dislike of a God who would permit suffering.

Now let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions of this problem: first, the logical problem of evil, and second, the probabilistic problem of evil.

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.

But we’re not out of the woods yet. For now we confront the probabilistic problem of evil. According to this version of the problem, the co-existence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it’s highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world is so great that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it’s improbable that God exists.

Now this is a much more powerful argument, and therefore I want to focus our attention on it. In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three main points:

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God’s wider framework. To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four:

a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. One reason that the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that if God exists, then His goal for human life is happiness in this world. God’s role is to provide comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view this is false. We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or those around him. Of course, whether God's purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure?

b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is not surprised at the human evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen; He does not interfere to stop it, but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.

c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as their Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering. Yet he wrote, “We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (II Cor. 4:16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which all the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory that God will bestow on his children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that it is literally beyond comparison with the suffering. Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. That’s why Paul could call them “a slight and momentary affliction”—they were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes on those who trust Him.

d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, “God is good to me,” simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw on the existence of God.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-evil#ixzz4fCJOspiq

Continued below:

Yeah, I hear you. We're just on different wavelengths. I suspect you cannot, as a christian in good faith, get what I am saying to you because you are a christian in good faith.

It isn't about belief. It has nothing to do with belief. So your first quote is pointless as it has nothing to do with my point.

Your second quote is the christian answer. The answer, assuming the bible is true. This is problematic as it is not an argument based in reason but in faith.

I will break it down for you in the simplest possible terms I can think of. Please answer these two questions in your own words. They are not complex and they are not deceptive in any way shape or form.

1) Do you agree that god (according to the bible) created people knowing they would sin, put in place rules he knew they would break, then used the fact that they broke those rules as grounds for eternal punishment (being separated from him)?

2) If I were to raise my kids in the same manner, taught them right from wrong, but cut them off from me and my support the first time they broke those rules, would you consider me a good parent? A parent worthy of respect?

Of course the bible gives excuses and talks about gods love and how good he is. It wouldn't be much of a religion if it didn't. But there are some fundamental problems with this.

Like it or not a god who cannot live up to the basic standards of goodness we hold sacred is not any more worthy of respect than the parent who sends his 2 year old to the orphanage because the kid stole a cookie from the cookie jar (essentially what Adam and Eve did).

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

I take responsibility for my moral decisions and also base them on the scriptures. I look to the scriptures to help define what morality is.

You don't know what texts are scriptures. "God" never declared which texts are and which are not.....only men have.

Why do you believe men over Jesus and "God"?

Where does "God" specifically states whom is inspired and whom is not?

Where does "God" specifically states which texts are more holier than others?

Where does "God" specifically states which texts are scripture and which are not?

Go on "Billiards"......continue to show your ignorance.....OR.....act according to what you say to yourself......and "take responsibility for my moral decisions".

You can do this, right?.....and it has nothing to do with accepting all of what Jesus taught, huh?

I told you that you will be exposed for the deceit.....I am not playing around. I am serious.

Either you step up to help change the world to be a better place.....or be exposed for destroying it.

Your choice as always, huh?

Self.

 

[1robin]

Most parents I know would sacrifice almost nearly anything and everything for their child, and do everything they can to help them, and their love is unconditional and unshakeable. God just seems to have given up after Adam and Eve sinned, and decided there would be no more chances and that everyone in the future who was absolutely in no way involved will be punished as well.

You did not answer the question I asked. If you claim that the level of suffering and evil is so great on out planet that God could not possibly exist requires that you MUST know some things.

1. Show me on an objective scale what level of suffering exists on earth.
2. Show me on an objective scale how much evil exists on earth.
3. Show me where the line that separates the possible existence of God from the impossible existence of God.
4. Show me where you got any of the above 3 and why I should agree with them.

If you can't, and trust me, you can't then you are arguing from preference and emotion, not rationality.

That's like saying because your first born is a delinquent you are going to hold your children after the first to the same standards because of the wrongs of the first. You aren't even giving the second or third a chance to prove themselves any different.
And, seriously, if we are "god's children," what sort of sadistic parent would find anything acceptable about childhood cancer? How can it be possible for us to describe your god as loving, merciful, and benevolent when he allows children to suffer so and put their parents through the worst parental anguish possible, burying their own child?
And telling a father to kill his own son? Even if God never meant for Isaac to be killed, it's not a test to have a parent do such a thing but a very cruel and wicked demand, something only a real sadist and psychopath would even think of.

I notice that you (like another I am debating on this issue) never quote the bible. If your trying to deny the bible why do you not post anything from it?

Just as an example I will show you just how bad your analogies are. God never intended Abraham to kill Isaac (and you agreed with that), but if God is God why should he not be obeyed even if that is what he asked? Is not all of creation the property of God? Are not our souls part of that creation? Does God not hold absolute sovereignty over everything? The only thing bad about a father killing his son at the request of God is that the father would not like it. Is what we like a good way to determine whether God is good or evil? Your getting the potter and the clay reversed. God is not made in my image.

However that's not the primary error you made. God used this event to instill a law about his will. Namely that he does not require us to sacrifice each other, because God himself was going to provide the sacrifice. If you can't see the other worldly wisdom in this story I feel sorry for you. God was going to send Abraham's descendants into lands where human sacrifice was popular (worshipers of Moloch for example) and he wanted to establish that was something he does not require. In addition to this practical purpose it was another example of what is called a type and a shadow. God's providing the sacrifice to substitute for Isaac was a shadow and predictor of Christ who was the true sacrifice. BTW you can see this exact type and shadow concerning the night of Passover. You need to get out of your own way, it is just a shame if you can't see past your emotional bias. God may ask us to do many things that we may not like or understand at the moment but we are supposed to respond not my will but your will be done. If God is God, isn't that the way it should be?

 

[1robin]

I haven't put 1, 2 and 3 anywhere in this thread and certainly not in the OP.

You seem to be obsessed with making sure I post in some narrow band that I am not even aware of.

BB Please either agree or disagree with what I say instead of playing OP police. If your interested at all in the ontology of morality then everything I have said to you is relevant and meaningful. If you are not then just ignore what I am saying instead of calling foul.

Because of your great debate experience, I would hope you would bear two things in mind:

1. Get the other side to define terms. The skeptics on this thread won't admit that cannot have objective morality without God, so we hang out and discuss point 1 as much as we can.

A. The other side of what?
B. You left out a word between "that" and "cannot" and I couldn't think of a word to fit in there that made it make sense.

2. When you are debating you dislike people hijacking your threads.

Your OP concerned the nature of morality, my posts to you have been about the nature of morality. Other people have responded to my posts about moral ontology with responses about other issues, to which I responded to them in their context. I have never seen nor heard of anyone demanding that posts must fall within some slender range of context that the OP established without defining, and in this case my responses to you have been in the same context as the OP. If you do not want posts drifting out of some arbitrary corridor, the only mechanism to do so would be a one on one thread. Maybe you should try that.

 

[1robin]

I'd be pleased to here how you parse the two terms, so I can learn.

I thought I requested you not to ask why, because I have no idea. I can tell you of a well credentialed scholar who....... heck I will give you a link. You will see both the question and the response at the following link.

“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

 

[1robin]

You formatted your post in the wrong way, it would be hard to respond to. However I love the avatar.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, I hear you. We're just on different wavelengths. I suspect you cannot, as a christian in good faith, get what I am saying to you because you are a christian in good faith.

Who are you and what did you do with the sarcastic Underhill?

Of course I can understand what your saying. I was raised in a Church by a mother who got cancer, was tortured to death for 5 years, and left me alternating between denying God's existence and hating him.

However after the twists and turns of over a decade later I discovered Christ and you will never know what true love and peace is until your in his presence. However I was about as ignorant a Christian as ever existed so I set in to studying (I spent 3 years on one subject). As part of that studying I learned there is no logical contradiction between a good God and a fallen creation. However we will never like suffering, injustice, and death. What we can do is separate our emotions from rationality. That is why I can't even get you to formally state the argument. What you have is your dislike, I can't make you like anything, I can only show your dislike is unreasonable.

It isn't about belief. It has nothing to do with belief. So your first quote is pointless as it has nothing to do with my point.

I made several claims (none numbered), and I made several quotes (some numbered and some lettered). The words that followed the #1 in my post are not about faith. #2 contains the word but is merely talking about what doctrines Christianity holds to. So I have no idea what your referring to.

Your second quote is the christian answer. The answer, assuming the bible is true. This is problematic as it is not an argument based in reason but in faith.

That is like saying gravity was Newton's answer. It's not my 70 degrees outside, it is simply 70 degrees outside. Regardless it is based on truth and reason which can be accepted by faith in the same way all our beliefs are. There are people who believe the planet is hollow. I can only show them that their lack of faith in our non-hollow planet is irrational.

I will break it down for you in the simplest possible terms I can think of. Please answer these two questions in your own words. They are not complex and they are not deceptive in any way shape or form.

I can already tell you didn't give what I quoted much thought but what the heck, lets roll on.

1) Do you agree that god (according to the bible) created people knowing they would sin, put in place rules he knew they would break, then used the fact that they broke those rules as grounds for eternal punishment (being separated from him)?

2) If I were to raise my kids in the same manner, taught them right from wrong, but cut them off from me and my support the first time they broke those rules, would you consider me a good parent? A parent worthy of respect?

This is a biblical argument, why is it the only thing you never quote? Your misrepresenting the bible again. I do not have to answer a false question. Lets make it even worse than your terrible analogies. Lets say we are all born cut off from God at birth before we had a chance to do anything. According to the bible he would let us into heaven anyway if we died before the age of accountability (which according to Hebrew age categorization is the mid teens). However long before our mid teens we have rebelled and willfully sinned enough to easily warrant being separated from God. Regardless God does not give up on us, before we even existed he paid the entire price to unite us to him for eternity. All we have to do is accept his gift.

Now if you are a person that died in a car wreck 1 hour after they became accountable, or if you are a person who was saved (born again) but yet lost their salvation when they committed their very next sin then you may have the right to complain but I doubt you fit in either bracket making them irrelevant.

If you wind up before him and he reads off the thousands of misdeeds and the unimaginable amount of suffering they resulted in you will neither have an excuse for them, anything of your own to offer to make up for it, nor will you have the gift God himself provided. The best you can hope for is annihilation, in my worldview at least there is cause for hope (though that is not why I believe).

Inventing inaccurate hypotheticals that represent neither yourself nor God isn't accomplishing a thing.

Of course the bible gives excuses and talks about gods love and how good he is. It wouldn't be much of a religion if it didn't. But there are some fundamental problems with this.

I am not responding to any claim you make about the bible after this post unless it comes with the verses it refers to.

Like it or not a god who cannot live up to the basic standards of goodness we hold sacred is not any more worthy of respect than the parent who sends his 2 year old to the orphanage because the kid stole a cookie from the cookie jar (essentially what Adam and Eve did).

So you finally admit it, God must be likable to you or he could not possibly exist. It just does not work that way, we are made in his image, we can not make him into ours.

Ok, biblical verses or nothing from this point on UH. I did not see anything in here that suggests you even read what I quoted from that great philosopher. Your argument is emotion based and reason can find no purchase against preference.