the right religion

[1robin]

But if a powerful supernatural being inspired the Bible, you cannot reasonably whether he was who he said he was, or is an imposter.

Why not? I need to be sure enough to justify faith. I have no greater burden. You realize you have at least 10 posts in need of answer from one person who posts almost every day. I am going to have to limit what I respond to in order to get to everyone and you are one of the most likely candidates. Volume will never accomplish what quality should.

If Satan, masquerading as a good God, inspired the Bible, obviously, he is evil.

Then only the term Satan would be incorrect and there no longer is anything to discuss. You are as usually getting terminology and burdens all mixed up. I must have reasonable evidence to justify faith and I do in amounts that are absurd to contemplate. You claim here only would effect the label of God and have nothing to do with the evidence. I have been born again and know that God exists even though I could not tell you al the names the OT uses for him.

You have not provided sufficient evidence.

An insufficiency of evidence does not convince billions of people once hostile to its claims. I doubt your ability to perceive what is sufficient.

No, an evil God could easily have deceived the followers of all religions.

Is what is possible (even if it actually was) the rational basis for debate. The list of what is possible but probably did not occur is infinite and an absurd basis for a lack of faith. Do you sit around and think that it is possible that a particular fire will not burn you or do you have enough evidence that it will do so and act appropriately. You are like a lawyer who does not care if their client actually is guilty but only wants a technicality or a doubt to exist so they can get them off. In that analogy I am interested in justice and you are interested in your self interest (even if it is not in your best interest).

 

[1robin]

I was only referring to "ultimate self-interest," not to "temporal self-interest."

Why would I go against all temporal self interest if I only had a belief in ultimate self interest? In human history that is seldom done based on a belief unless that belief has personal verification. If anything is true of the human condition it is that todays convenience almost always triumphs over tomorrows price.

I once told you that your hypothetical arguments about some issue were not practical, and you told me that hypothetical arguments are often useful, and are often valid. I agree, including the one that I made.

What part of they can be valid equals your was?

But the Bible is not reality to billions of non-Christians, so your use of the word is ridiculous.

What word? What Are you talking about? The conclusions of the disinterested are not valid for anything.

You do not believe that the God Islam is reality, but you have discussed him on many occasions.

I believe the faith founded in reason but ultimately wrong. I also have no idea what your talking about.

I made a valid hypothetical argument, and you know that it is valid, and that is why your refused to answer it. I do not recall that I have ever refused to answer any of your hypothetical questions. Refusing to reply to hypothetical arguments is a sign of weakness, and a lack of confidence.

Your argumentation has devolved into the whatever is not impossible stage. It is not rational to reject the conclusion of evidence as long as another conclusion exists and is not impossible. The issue is best explanation not denial of it until all explanations no matter how bad are disproven. All theological, historical, and most legal claims are the best explanations for the evidence. Mine obey that methodology your oppose it directly and you do not use this type of methodology for anything else.

 

[1robin]

The same to you. Why didn't you make a post in my thread on the Trye prophecy at another forum?

I have and you balked so I made additional ones.

If supernatural beings exist, no mere fallible, imperfect human could reasonably know which ones are the most powerful, and which ones are evil and are masquerading as good ones, or even than any good ones exist.

You are confusing the burden of a fact and the burden of a faith claim.

 

[1robin]

No, you must prove that all South Koreans who know about Christianity, and rejected it, were not properly evangelized, and would not have become Christians if they had lived anywhere else in the world, assuming that they knew the same things about the Bible under those hypothetical circumstances. If there are any, then God is not fair. You must also prove that all South Koreans who became Christians would have become Christians if they had lived anywhere else in the world. If any wouldn't have become Christians, God is not fair.

What the heck is this? I have no burden for anything you claimed. In fact what you claimed is not what I would expect from God. I do not think I ever said God is fair (as in equal). Fairness is not always even equal (and even then no apparently equal). You must provide two things to make even this type of claim.

1. You must provide proof that you would have X if the Biblical God existed.
2. Then you must prove X was not provided.

I did not make that up. That is the official burden of a lack of sufficiency arguments of all types.

An Internet website says:

"There are big churches, and then there’s the Yoido Full Gospel Church here in Seoul, South Korea. It’s the mother of megachurches, with the largest congregation in the world. On a typical day 200,000 will attend one of seven services along with another two or three hundred thousand watching them on TV in adjoining buildings or satellite branches. While some other churches may be losing members, this one just keeps growing. The main sanctuary here holds 21,000 worshipers packed to the rafters seven times every Sunday. Each service has its own orchestra, its own choir, its own pastor. There are hundreds of assistants. There need to be. Each service is translated into 16 different languages for visitors. Karen Kim is a pastor with the church’s international division. She says she was shocked when she first moved here from Australia."

I take it this was to provide the name of the church for curiosity sake.

Equal opportunity is one of the hallmarks of democracy, love, and fairness, and is intuitive for most humans. Few people would approve of a Texas holdem card playing competition where everyone did not start with the same number of chips.

First of all you have no basis for any equality claim unless God exists in the first place. If evolution produced life without God then inequality is what it justifies and that in spades. To claim God is the basis for love is not to suggest God never acts in a way we would not think is loving. To claim that fairness is only rational if he existed is not to say his actions are always fair from our pathetic perspective anyway. God has a hierarchy of purposes that dictate when he acts equally and when he does not. However fairness has no foundation if he does not exist. You seem to habitually misunderstand this as most non-theists do.

1. You must show that X would occur if God existed. It is invalid to extrapolate from many layers of purposes and requirements that God should do X. You must show he must do X.
2. You must show it did not occur.
3. From another post, you must not merely show that if God exists X should have happened and it is not impossible that Y happened. You must show the evidence that Y occurred is greater that that for X.

What does that have to do with what I said?

I fail to see how what you say is the basis for human benevolence only being true or having a foundation if God exists is not relevant. What could be more relevant?

I did not ask for a garden of Eden, only at least equal opportunity for all humans.

The issue is not what you want, never was. It is what God's existence would produce.

But less effective, at least in cases where some skeptics who are alive today would become Christians if they had the same evidence as the evidence that Jesus provided.

Why do you expect the optimal or even more should exist? See my necessities above for these arguments, I will post them every time they are not meant from here on in. Officially there is only a lack of evidence if it is proven there should be more. You can't do that.

God set his own standard, and later changed it.

I have no idea what that means but it did nothing about what I said your burden was.

Nevertheless, today, more skeptics would become Christians if God provided the same evidence that Jesus provided.

He provides more than that because what Jesus did is available to thousands of times the people it was available to when it occurred.

Indeed, common sense, logic, and reason provide some excellent reasons. First of all, historically, many people accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon far less convincing evidence than the miracles that Jesus performed. Second, If Jesus has performed many miracles all over the world, it is quite obvious that far more people would have become Christians. That is because supposedly authentic miracles were of great interest to many people who lived back then, and would also be of great interest to people who are living today.

None of those demonstrates we should have any evidence at all much less more. Most of those do not even govern these issues and dictate what you have nor ever could. From now own I will demand the verses that guarantee anything you demand God "must" provide.

Today, it is partly a question of to what extent God will go in order to save people. He could easily save lots more people without interfering with their free will, but refuses to do so.

You could not possibly know this even if it was true. Nor can you show God ever promised to do this. Nor can you show it can be inferred from the Bible. Only a theists would think three arguments devoid of merit are enough to wager everything on. These tests you invent were a tactic I used when I did not WANT God to exist. I am not ashamed and embarrassed by them as they have nothing to do with anything.

 

[1robin]

I said:

"How do you know that God could not achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal if he gave everyone enough food to eat? If hurricanes are necessary in order to God to achieve some of his goals, what goals are those, or do you not have any idea what God's goals are?"

Please answer those questions.

That is not the way this stuff works and if you had even a familiarity with the Bible or doctrine we could avoid 80% of these dead ends. God is not sitting around deciding exactly how much food each person gets. We told him we would take care of ourselves and in large part that wish was granted. Buyers remorse is not an argument. Many things (almost all things) are governed by human choice and natural law since we declared independence from God. God is not high jacking aids trucks in Mogadishu, man is. However most of the trucks bringing aid come from countries with a heavy Christian tradition. God is not filling up wells in he Congo, the residents are. However Christians I know go back and dig those wells out every year. God is not directing hurricanes at New Orleans natural law is. However there were a lot of Christians there aiding even the residents who hated God. You have several burdens to make this argument which you have failed to meet.

1. You must show that God caused what you claimed directly. You never will.
2. You must show if he existed the Bible claims he would not do so. You will never do it.
3. You must show his indirect actions in aiding on those occasions do not meet some burden he has. Good luck.
4. In fact you cannot show that if he killed us all he did anything wrong.

This world is condemned and the negative actions are a indirect result of it and allowed to exist as a lesson. You deny the lesson, deny the God who gave the lesson, and indict this non-existent God with things he did not directly do if he did exist. You realize you betting everything you have on these failed arguments?

The Bible says that rain will fall on the unjust and just alike. Meaning this world is condemned and stuff happens. There is no promise any of these things will be suspended until it is too late to heed their lessons and you have no argument they should be. The world is condemned for our actions. Why do you blame the one who promises to eventually clean up what we caused?

I know that with him fairness has a foundation not only because it is the only one great leaders use to justify the concept but because he made us equal in his eyes and is no respecter of persons. Evolution never created two equal things in history and so only a transcendent standard can make them so.

 

[1robin]

That is an example of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum," which Wikipedia says "is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: 'If many believe so, it is so.'"

And that is the fallacious use of a fallacy. It only applies to proof claims not to a sufficiency of evidence claim.

 

[Agnostic75]

If supernatural beings exist, no mere fallible, imperfect human could reasonably know which ones are the most powerful, and which ones are evil and are masquerading as good ones, or even than any good ones exist.

You are confusing the burden of a fact and the burden of a faith claim.

Assuming for the sake of argument that supernatural beings exist, how could human faith reliably determine that both good, and evil ones exist, and that the good ones are more powerful than the evil ones?

No, you must prove that all South Koreans who know about Christianity, and rejected it, were not properly evangelized, and would not have become Christians if they had lived anywhere else in the world, assuming that they knew the same things about the Bible under those hypothetical circumstances. If there are any, then God is not fair. You must also prove that all South Koreans who became Christians would have become Christians if they had lived anywhere else in the world. If any wouldn't have become Christians, God is not fair.

What the heck is this? I have no burden for anything you claimed. In fact what you claimed is not what I would expect from God. I do not think I ever said God is fair (as in equal). Fairness is not always even equal (and even then no apparently equal). You must provide two things to make even this type of claim.

1. You must provide proof that you would have X if the Biblical God existed.
2. Then you must prove X was not provided.

Common sense, and logic are all the proof that I need in order to claim that geography often determines what people believe. South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world. About 19% of South Koreans are Christians. Christianity is very well-known in South Korea. Education, and media, are excellent. Surely there are at least some South Korean Christians who would not have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S., and had heard the Gospel message many times, and surely there are at least some American Christians who would not have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea, and had heard the Gospel message many times. No moral God would set up such a system. Hearing the Gospel message many times, including from family, and friends, certainly qualifies as being properly evangelized.

My arguments are valid even within a single country. In Utah, 78% of the people are Christians. In Maine, only 27% of the people are Christians. Sure at least some Christians who grew up in Utah would not have become Christians if they had grown up in Maine. You cannot logically claim that no skeptic who lives in Maine would have become a Christian if he had been raised in Utah.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but the Bible is definitely confusing. At another forum, I told you that the story of the flood since it is not obvious whether the flood was global, regional, or a parable. You were not able to tell which was the case, which proves that the story is confusing, and you said that the message would be clear even to a child since the message is that bad things sometimes happen as a consequence of sin. However, to many Christians, what happened is very important, not just what the message is, and lots of time has been spent debating what happened. Anyway, your interpretation of the message is absurd since it does not tell which bad actions cause which bad consequences, and for which people. Hurricane Katrina had consequences for all kinds of people, including some devout Christians, so your interpretation of the flood story does not make any sense.

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but millions of Christians who have not committed adultery have gotten divorced. You refused to discuss the issue because you said that it is a contentious issue. Yes, it is a contentious issue because it is confusing. What Jesus said was very clear, but many Christians who have not committed adultery and want to get divorced do not want to separate and practice abstinence for the rest of their lives (although you have no problem demanding that for all homosexuals), so they interpret the Bible in ways that allow them to enjoy the pleasures of having sex with other people after they get divorced.

Tithing is another confusing issue, and so is the role of women in the church. Many churches do not allow women to become pastors.

I said that it is immoral for God to punish skeptics for eternity without parole. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, you said that God destroys skeptics. If that is the case, that is also immoral, but anyway, I told you that your gurus William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas disagree with you. At first, you claimed that that is not William Lane Craig's position even though what I quoted from one of his articles was very clear, and shows that that is his position, but I proved to you that that it is his position. I also told you that the Southern Baptist Convention disagrees with you. You said that that was surprising, but it might be surprising to them, and to three of your gurus that you claimed that God will destroy skeptics. Anyway, once that I had proven that the issue is confusing, you said that it is not clear who is right, but since you previously believed that you were right, you are definitely confused.

Millions of Christians strongly disagree about whether creationism, or theistic evolution is true. That is because the story of Adam and Eve is confusing. In order to try to eliminate the confusion, William Lane Craig said that he does not have any idea whether or not creationism is true (which proves that the story of Adam and Eve is confusing), but that it doesn't matter since even if it isn't true, God gave early humans a soul. Well my gracious, of course it matters to millions of conservative Christians since if it isn't true, that means that the entire book of Genesis might be parables other than the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, as well as all other supernatural claims in the Old Testament, and maybe even some in the New Testament.

The issues of slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women have certainly been confusing to millions of Christians for thousands of years. In 1650, many Christians accepted slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, but most of them would not have accepted those things if they had been born in the 21st century instead of the 1600s.

An omniscient God could easily have prevented lots of needless confusion, and wars even among Christians, but he preferred to cause confusion, with no possible benefits for himself, or for humans. Regarding morality, motives are everything. With no known, or postulated motives for God needlessly causing confusion, it is reasonable to assume that the God of the Bible does not exist, although some other God might exist.

At another forum, you mentioned that some of the greatest scientists were Christians, but what does that prove? Today, the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and ancient Greeks knew far more about science than ancient Hebrews did, not to mention art, literature, and philosophy.

Regarding the issue of Christian martyrs, did you say that that reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible? If so, I visited a number of Christian websites that discuss that issue, and all of them said that Christian martyrs does not reasonably prove that, and only reasonably proves that some early Christians died for beliefs that they believed were true.

Many Christians claim that the disciples died for their beliefs. What non-biblical evidence do you have regarding how all of the disciples died? What biblical evidence do you have regarding how all of the disciples died?

There is not any valid research that shows that the religion that has the most martyrs is the one true religion.

The large size of Christianity is only due to it being the most popular choice among "available" choices, not the best choice among "all possible" choices. If Islam becomes larger than Christianity, I am sure that very few Christians will give up Christianity just because of that.

There are easily hundreds if not thousands of other examples, and if you wish, I will be happy to discuss many of them with you.

 

[Agnostic75]

How do you know that God could not achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal if he gave everyone enough food to eat? If hurricanes are necessary in order to God to achieve some of his goals, what goals are those, or do you not have any idea what God's goals are?

God is not sitting around deciding exactly how much food each person gets. We told him we would take care of ourselves and in large part that wish was granted. Buyers remorse is not an argument. Many things (almost all things) are governed by human choice and natural law since we declared independence from God.

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. They never told God that they would take care of themselves.

God is not directing hurricanes at New Orleans natural law is.

God most certainly does direct hurricanes everywhere that they go since he originally supernaturally created the weather, and most subsequent weather events have been due to the way that he originally programmed the weather.

If you are right, that makes it even worse since God injures or kills humans, and innocent animals indiscriminately, without any possible beneficial purposes for himself, or for humans. The Bible says that God killed lots of people, for example, the flood, at Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of the firstborn males in Egypt.

What are God's goals? What did Hurricane Katrina have to do with those goals, and what did God creating harmful viruses have to do with those goals?

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Tell that to the 3 out of every four people in history that have thought he made perfect sense.

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest possible being, and his friend, colleague, and noted scholar J.P. Moreland has said that God is so perfect that he cannot improve. A being like that would always think, and do the best possible things.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good things since all good things are obviously not equal.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible things before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

From a moral perspective, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being who always has to do what he does would ask people to love him is preposterous. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Muffled]

As long as you live your life quoting from the scriptures and Webster's Dictionary, you will never truly know what is behind the words, behind the organised religion. Yes I do have my own language in how I share what i share, that is because I have gone within and found my true SELF, the Christ, my words are from my own inner religion, not second hand hand me downs.

I believe that I do not live my life that way and I do know what is behind the words.

I believe this is revealing that self can be considered Christ.

I believe there is safety in mumbers. There is a cloud of witnesses who have had the same experience as I. I believe a person stuck on himself can sometimes have weird thinking that strays very far from the truth.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my recent posts #3867, and #3868.

 

[1robin]

Assuming for the sake of argument that supernatural beings exist, how could human faith reliably determine that both good, and evil ones exist, and that the good ones are more powerful than the evil ones?

I am not sure there is a proof. That is why I say God is right instead of good. However there are some ways to evaluate it. Humans have developed a core set of standards that almost everyone would say is benevolent, and a section that almost all agree is malevolent. God's actions can be examined by that standard the same way science is compared to our rationality. Another is provision. Is God providing things consistent with our good, or our harm. Another would be ascetics. Did God create a universe with vast beauty or full of thorns and fire.

This argument is invalid anyway. It is a fallacy but I can not remember the name. It is often called "death by a thousand qualifications". You have set up a test for truth so exactly that nothing would pass it. If you examine anything at ll with this many filters nothing would ever be proven. You can do this if you wish butt you can't do it inconsistently, and you are.

Common sense, and logic are all the proof that I need in order to claim that geography often determines what people believe. South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world. About 19% of South Koreans are Christians. Christianity is very well-known in South Korea. Education, and media, are excellent. Surely there are at least some South Korean Christians who would not have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S., and had heard the Gospel message many times, and surely there are at least some American Christians who would not have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea, and had heard the Gospel message many times. No moral God would set up such a system. Hearing the Gospel message many times, including from family, and friends, certainly qualifies as being properly evangelized.

Is the geography you claim influences faith proof it is not true. This is another fallacy called the genetic fallacy. If I got faith of a cereal box that does not mean it is wrong. You have also not explained why even if true this is unacceptable. I have typed until my fingers bled that God judges corporately as well as individually. If a nation denies him that nation has few in it that have access to scripture. You are also picking on the most universal of al faiths. One that has done extraordinary things to break down empires or cultures that have excluded it. One story was a POW in a prison camp. His atheist guards hated God so much they confiscated Bibles and used them for toilet paper. He was punished by having to clean the latrine. He found page after page and eventually constructed a Bible. He became a Christian. Satan is the prince of this world. He has strongholds where people have chosen him.

My arguments are valid even within a single country. In Utah, 78% of the people are Christians. In Maine, only 27% of the people are Christians. Sure at least some Christians who grew up in Utah would not have become Christians if they had grown up in Maine. You cannot logically claim that no skeptic who lives in Maine would have become a Christian if he had been raised in Utah.

Using your argumentation I could claim it is true within a household. The guy in that bedroom believes, the girl in that one does not. No God would make bedrooms unfair. Is that rational? BTW you can't prove a single claim about geography anyway. I believe it is probably true to a certain extent and the Bible claims it would occur but you cannot prove it.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but the Bible is definitely confusing. At another forum, I told you that the story of the flood since it is not obvious whether the flood was global, regional, or a parable. You were not able to tell which was the case, which proves that the story is confusing, and you said that the message would be clear even to a child since the message is that bad things sometimes happen as a consequence of sin. However, to many Christians, what happened is very important, not just what the message is, and lots of time has been spent debating what happened. Anyway, your interpretation of the message is absurd since it does not tell which bad actions cause which bad consequences, and for which people. Hurricane Katrina had consequences for all kinds of people, including some devout Christians, so your interpretation of the flood story does not make any sense.

It also says it is the Glory of God to conceal a matter and the honor of men to search it out. You can't cherry pick verses and leave out others. IMO God has set up truth that requires effort to discover it. I believe a heart that is not completely corrupt will do so, and I believe a heart that is will not do so, will invent every excuse imaginable to not do so, and will use every excuse imaginable to dismiss it even if they attempt it. It says that al who diligently seek him will find him. Every one I know that has not found him has not diligently sought him.

I did not understand the flood reference. The Bible says it rains on the just and unjust alike. The entire narrative must be examined as a whole. It should not be cut to ribbons as Jefferson did in order to justify some prior position based in preference.

Continued below:
BTW I gave you some props in the homosexuality thread.

 

[1robin]

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but millions of Christians who have not committed adultery have gotten divorced. You refused to discuss the issue because you said that it is a contentious issue. Yes, it is a contentious issue because it is confusing. What Jesus said was very clear, but many Christians who have not committed adultery and want to get divorced do not want to separate and practice abstinence for the rest of their lives (although you have no problem demanding that for all homosexuals), so they interpret the Bible in ways that allow them to enjoy the pleasures of having sex with other people after they get divorced.

God said he was not the author of confusion. He did not say wayward, fallible, and finite men would not be confused about clear teachings. Claiming disagreements exist is not evidence the truth does not or the text is confusing.

Tithing is another confusing issue, and so is the role of women in the church. Many churches do not allow women to become pastors.

Tithing is very simple, do it. Women in church is very simple, go. I know of no scripture that can be used to deny women the right to preach if called. I know what one you will use to say it but you will be incorrect.

I said that it is immoral for God to punish skeptics for eternity without parole. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, you said that God destroys skeptics. If that is the case, that is also immoral, but anyway, I told you that your gurus William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas disagree with you. At first, you claimed that that is not William Lane Craig's position even though what I quoted from one of his articles was very clear, and shows that that is his position, but I proved to you that that it is his position. I also told you that the Southern Baptist Convention disagrees with you. You said that that was surprising, but it might be surprising to them, and to three of your gurus that you claimed that God will destroy skeptics. Anyway, once that I had proven that the issue is confusing, you said that it is not clear who is right, but since you previously believed that you were right, you are definitely confused.

I said I do not believe they suffer forever consciously. They are punished forever in being annihilated forever but they are not aware of that problem. I have said why. I have also said what others believe is not binding on me. Most of this is your misunderstanding of what they mean anyway.

Notice: Above you have said there is no way to determine if God is good or bad. The rest of this has been the argument that you can and know he is bad. Which is it? I doubt the morality of man, especially ungodly men has the capacity to KNOW if God is good or evil. I think the evidence strongly suggest he is and Christians are the most capable of determining this.

Millions of Christians strongly disagree about whether creationism, or theistic evolution is true. That is because the story of Adam and Eve is confusing. In order to try to eliminate the confusion, William Lane Craig said that he does not have any idea whether or not creationism is true (which proves that the story of Adam and Eve is confusing), but that it doesn't matter since even if it isn't true, God gave early humans a soul. Well my gracious, of course it matters to millions of conservative Christians since if it isn't true, that means that the entire book of Genesis might be parables other than the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, as well as all other supernatural claims in the Old Testament, and maybe even some in the New Testament.

That does not prove or even suggest that no truth exists. It says more about some Christians that the claims themselves.

The issues of slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women have certainly been confusing to millions of Christians for thousands of years. In 1650, many Christians accepted slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, but most of them would not have accepted those things if they had been born in the 21st century instead of the 1600s.

No, God's instructs have ben confused by mans greed.

An omniscient God could easily have prevented lots of needless confusion, and wars even among Christians, but he preferred to cause confusion, with no possible benefits for himself, or for humans. Regarding morality, motives are everything. With no known, or postulated motives for God needlessly causing confusion, it is reasonable to assume that the God of the Bible does not exist, although some other God might exist.

You must show he should have, not that he could have.

At another forum, you mentioned that some of the greatest scientists were Christians, but what does that prove? Today, the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and ancient Greeks knew far more about science than ancient Hebrews did, not to mention art, literature, and philosophy.

It proves your claims about what scientists believed are less significant than mine. The majority of the greatest scientists in history were theists. Either never mention it or mention more than the modern secular scientists. Be consistent.

Regarding the issue of Christian martyrs, did you say that that reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible? If so, I visited a number of Christian websites that discuss that issue, and all of them said that Christian martyrs does not reasonably prove that, and only reasonably proves that some early Christians died for beliefs that they believed were true.

I stand by what I said, so do most professional theologians and common sense.

Many Christians claim that the disciples died for their beliefs. What non-biblical evidence do you have regarding how all of the disciples died? What biblical evidence do you have regarding how all of the disciples died?

First you must tell me why I need non-biblical sources.

There is not any valid research that shows that the religion that has the most martyrs is the one true religion.

I did not say it was proof. I said it was evidence. If you can't see why, you do not want to. Quit confusing evidence, consistency, and proof claims with each other.

The large size of Christianity is only due to it being the most popular choice among "available" choices, not the best choice among "all possible" choices. If Islam becomes larger than Christianity, I am sure that very few Christians will give up Christianity just because of that.

When billions believe in an experience that is evidence of that experience. I do not believe in UFO's but if even a million people claimed to have been in one I would never ever suggest they were full of it or that UFO were a popular choice. We all go to popular restaurants or places on the basis that if it is popular that it must have merit. Why only concerning God are things used by billions for every other issue not allowed? Be consistent if nothing else.

T

here are easily hundreds if not thousands of other examples, and if you wish, I will be happy to discuss many of them with you.

I am sure you will. Just do not repeat and try and be consistent and it is fine with me. Try and be more concise and brief if possible as well. I understand the principle given one example or thirty.

 

[1robin]

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. They never told God that they would take care of themselves.

Let me state again, God judges corporately. When Adam sinned the whole race was separated from God. The reason that can be understood is Adam perfectly represented man. All of us would have sinned. All of us have sinned. Those babies however will go to heaven because they were unaccountable for their sins at their age. We have dead babies either way. For some reason you deny the only solution because it is bad. Atheism always produces logical paradoxes like this.

God most certainly does direct hurricanes everywhere that they go since he originally supernaturally created the weather, and most subsequent weather events have been due to the way that he originally programmed the weather.

He left creation to it sown laws. He no longer supervises nature as he once did. Hurricanes go where natural law dictates.

If you are right, that makes it even worse since God injures or kills humans, and innocent animals indiscriminately, without any possible beneficial purposes for himself, or for humans. The Bible says that God killed lots of people, for example, the flood, at Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of the firstborn males in Egypt.

If any being ever had any right to kill it would be God. However your side of the aisle grants it to humans in the case where the one killed did not deserve it. This is so inconsistent as to render that person devoid of the credibility to comment on that issue. You must show God did not have morally sufficient reasons to kill to have a point.

What are God's goals? What did Hurricane Katrina have to do with those goals, and what did God creating harmful viruses have to do with those goals?

When you give me something he directed to happen I will try and tell you what the goal was. He did not create harmful virus and did not send Katrina anywhere.

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

Makes sense to me, Makes sense to billions. What you said has nothing to do with reality. Even almost all of those that do not believe, did not arrive at that conclusion based on your reason.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest possible being, and his friend, colleague, and noted scholar J.P. Moreland has said that God is so perfect that he cannot improve. A being like that would always think, and do the best possible things.

Not when restricted by he freewill of faulty human beings. I went to much trouble to explain the hierarchy of purpose and promises, etc... Why have you so quickly forgotten it? I also deny any capacity you have to evaluate the perfection of God's actions. Were you at the tower of Babble, the flood, creation?

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good things since all good things are obviously not equal.

His plans are consistent with his nature but are not derived from his nature. His plans came from his mind. He is a personal being and can choose.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible things before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

From a moral perspective, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being who always has to do what he does would ask people to love him is preposterous. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

Please reply to my previous post.

This is part a repeat of the same idea as contained in a previous paragraph, the other is a repeat from another post. A thing most certainly can be loved even if it had no choice but to be lovable. God is loved by billions (that is proof your wrong), and we all (including you) love or care for things that have no choices what so ever.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my recent posts #3867, and #3868.

Calm down Beavis. I only have two hands and a lab to run.

 

[Agnostic75]

When billions believe in an experience that is evidence of that experience.

Absolutely not, nothing in philosophy, logic, common sense, and reason supports such a preposterous notion. Following your own same line of reasoning, if Islam became larger than Christianity is, or if any other religion became larger than Christianity is, that would be the one true religion.

I am not sure there is a proof. That is why I say God is right instead of good. However there are some ways to evaluate it. Humans have developed a core set of standards that almost everyone would say is benevolent, and a section that almost all agree is malevolent. God's actions can be examined by that standard the same way science is compared to our rationality. Another is provision. Is God providing things consistent with our good, or our harm. Another would be ascetics. Did God create a universe with vast beauty or full of thorns and fire.

This argument is invalid anyway. It is a fallacy but I can not remember the name. It is often called "death by a thousand qualifications". You have set up a test for truth so exactly that nothing would pass it. If you examine anything at all with this many filters nothing would ever be proven. You can do this if you wish butt you can't do it inconsistently, and you are.

You are not making any sense. If powerful evil supernatural beings exist, if they have enough power, they would easily be able to do anything that they wanted to do, including pretending to be good, which even the Bible says they do. I did not make up the existence of powerful evil supernatural beings, the Bible did. You cannot even reasonably prove that any good supernatural beings exist. If good, and evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that the good ones are more powerful than the evil ones are.

Is the geography you claim influences faith proof it is not true?

Yes, by implication. The Bible says that God is good, and its implies that he is fair, and moral. You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S. No good, fair, and moral God would destroy anyone after they died who rejected Christianity if they had lived in one place, and would have accepted it if they had lived in another place. So, by implication, the God of the Bible does not exist.

Please reply to my post #3868. In that post, I provided additional reasonable proof that the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

[Agnostic75]

BTW I gave you some props in the homosexuality thread.

What do you mean? Please reply to my two most recent replies to you in that thread.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely not, nothing in philosophy, logic, common sense, and reason supports such a preposterous notion. Following your own same line of reasoning, if Islam became larger than Christianity is, or if any other religion became larger than Christianity is, that would be the one true religion.

This is too irrational for even your side. If a patient walks into a doctors office. The first thing he wants to know from that one single person alone is what they experienced. If they had X, Y, and Z symptoms, experiences, feelings. He can rightly assume what Germ exists in them that is responsible for their condition. That is only one person. I give you billions and you reject the exact same logic as non-logic. Why do you have a standard for everything else and another one for God?

You are not making any sense. If powerful evil supernatural beings exist, if they have enough power, they would easily be able to do anything that they wanted to do, including pretending to be good, which even the Bible says they do. I did not make up the existence of powerful evil supernatural beings, the Bible did. You cannot even reasonably prove that any good supernatural beings exist. If good, and evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that the good ones are more powerful than the evil ones are.

Death of a thousand qualifications it is I guess. So if I have a being that always acts benevolently and offers X. By your strange logic what am I to do.
I am to assume he is lying and is actually evil and so do not receive X. Or I am to believe that what acts benevolent for thousands of years in millions of ways is probably benevolent? I must choose one, which is the most logical? Do you think your doctor might be a bad man acting like he wants to help you and stay home when you get cancer, or do you and everyone else make the best decision you can given the evidence you have, and go to the dang doctor? Why the double standards? I have no proof burden, I have the faith position, remember. I must have enough evidence to justify belief.

Yes, by implication. The Bible says that God is good, and its implies that he is fair, and moral. You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S. No good, fair, and moral God would destroy anyone after they died who rejected Christianity if they had lived in one place, and would have accepted it if they had lived in another place. So, by implication, the God of the Bible does not exist.

What it does not say is that you (especially being not of God) have the capacity to evaluate his character.

Just look at what your claiming just in this one post.

1. We can't know if God is good or not so we should neglect him all together.
2. We can know if God is good or bad and we should think bad.
3. We can't know what God did or if he is good or bad. But lets credit him with everything bad (whether he did it or not), ignore the good, call him bad anyway, and reject the only solution to what was bad anyway.
4. Lets have one set of standards for everything we do. Then lets deny those standards as being totally illogical if they are ever used to make God look any more likely to exist.
5. You saddle faith claims with burdens of proof they do not have, and then do not provide evidence for the burdens of proof that your truth claims have.

This is intellectual schizophrenia. It is a bias driven methodology designed to return a desired result, even if you are unaware of that bias. It is obvious from where I am sitting.

This is very strong evidence that you (as the Bible) confirms are incapable of making accurate conclusions about God, while being hostile to him. The Bible says hostility towards God and a carnal mind produce a sort of incapacity to rightly determine, which produces stuff like the above. That is why the Bible says these a Godly man has: Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both. Paul even experienced a physical example of this. It is also why it says this of unbelievers, and to the prophet who predicted Tyre: New International Version
"Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people. Your heart is what determines what you see and hear.

Please reply to my post #3868. In that post, I provided additional reasonable proof that the God of the Bible does not exist.

I have done nothing but reply to your posts all morning.

 

[1robin]

What do you mean? Please reply to my two most recent replies to you in that thread.

That thread has left me so disgusted recently it is even lower on my priorities. It became all repeats of your repeats. I said you were the only one that had made any claim that was valid so far. It concerned one part of one aspect of one of my two claims. It only meant God is needed to fully evaluate that specific part and was no help to homosexuality anyway but it had in it a technical truth of sorts.

I will get back to it when I am very bored.

 

[Agnostic75]

That thread has left me so disgusted recently it is even lower on my priorities. It became all repeats of your repeats. I said you were the only one that had made any claim that was valid so far. It concerned one part of one aspect of one of my two claims. It only meant God is needed to fully evaluate that specific part and was no help to homosexuality anyway but it had in it a technical truth of sorts.

Oh no, from a secular perspective, many of my arguments were much better than you just implied. Most anyone who has read my two most recent replies to you knows that that is true. You have made many invalid arguments in that thread. You are partly disgusted because you know that you are not able to logically refute much of what I have said.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.