the right religion

[1robin]

Because you seem intent on forcing me to play by your rules and get upset when I don't

What is the word are you talking about. A secular dictionary doesn't assume or include God when it says individual, nor Ghosts, aliens, or bigfoot. I have no rules I am forcing on anyone. Unless you consider logic and reason my rules.

My point was more, if God was evil there's be no point in following his standards except to suck up to him. If he exists he gave me free will, yet when I use my free will to do what I've learned to be 'right' he punishes me for it? go figure

If he was evil he wouldn't have given you freewill in the first place. Since the God I defend is in no way whatsoever evil and is said to be the only perfectly just being in history so your other comments might apply to a different God but are not applicable to my claims.

who's the someone?

I can't remember. It was in this thread if you need to know for some reason you can find it.

I disagree. If your main aim is the for everyone to be happy then adultery and theft become immoral (in most cases) and saving someone's life also becomes moral (in most cases)

No, immorality is such a temptation because it does make people happy. It would make a person happy to steal a ferrari if they could get away with it (if not then why do they do it). Happyness is an arbitrary dissfunctional basis for morality. No matter what you call it, it is in effect opinion. Opinion is insuffecient for the morality society needs. That is why God is so often sited as the justification for moral standards.

because God at some point must have conceived morality. So according to the definition it's subjective (or not objective).

God, his nature, and the morality his nature evokes have always existed.

I'll make this simple
1) God is not emotionless and free from bias.

How in the world do you know that?

2) Any morals coming from God will be in some way impacted by his emotions and bias.

Or this?

3) Objective morality must be unaffected by emotion and bias

No it must be unaffected by the emotions (opinions) of the subjects it governs.

4) Objective morality can't come from God.

You are definately not a philisophical graduate student are you.

The name or title whatever it is, isn't important. His requirements are in effect object from our point of view. No matter what you allow it to be named, they are universal and absolute for every human.

common sense? Evolution? I'm sure there are more explanations but these are the 2 that spring to mind.

Common sense is no different than opinion, and it is a common saying that opinion varies wildly so that wasn't it. Evolution if true would always adapt differently under difering conditions so it should have produced a morality as widely varying as biological life. It to would just be an evolution of opinion based on nothing concrete. Morality is an abstract concept not a genetic adaptation.

Because I'm showing you that not everyone who calls themselves atheist use your definition.

And why was that issue important?

ffs. I explained to you what an agnostic atheist is. An agnostic atheist doesn't make a positive assertion that god doesn't exist they just don't believe that there is a god.

Fine, I can't see what this changes.

I only care about what is logical and makes sense

Biblical doctrine and reality are true or false regardles of what you think is logical or makes sence. If you are evaluating Christianity you must use the revealed characteristics of it found in the bible. You can argue against a different God with different characteristics but then that wouldn't apply to the Christian God. Your claims must address existing doctrine to be applicable. Yours didn't and I showed why.

see above

Well if you invent a doctrine or claim God should do this or that inconsistently with the biblical narrative then it isn't applicable to a discussion on the Christian God.

I was wondering when this ridiculous "argument" would peer it's ugly head

There is nothing rediculous about my claim except your comment on it. It is widely known that people have a remarkable habit of drawing conclusions that support what they wish was true even when it flys in the face of reality. Just look at what goes on in politics. Ravi Zacharias said it best: intent determines content. I can't believe you question this obvious universal fact.

 

[9Westy9]

What is the word are you talking about. A secular dictionary doesn't assume or include God when it says individual, nor Ghosts, aliens, or bigfoot. I have no rules I am forcing on anyone. Unless you consider logic and reason my rules.

logic and reason? You mean by just assuming that individual only refers to humans and not God.

If he was evil he wouldn't have given you freewill in the first place. Since the God I defend is in no way whatsoever evil and is said to be the only perfectly just being in history so your other comments might apply to a different God but are not applicable to my claims.

1) prove freewill exists
2) What's to stop a malevolent God from giving us freewill?
3) I'm dealing with possible Gods not a god that's being suggested.

I can't remember. It was in this thread if you need to know for some reason you can find it.

cba.

No, immorality is such a temptation because it does make people happy. It would make a person happy to steal a ferrari if they could get away with it (if not then why do they do it). Happyness is an arbitrary dissfunctional basis for morality. No matter what you call it, it is in effect opinion. Opinion is insuffecient for the morality society needs. That is why God is so often sited as the justification for moral standards.

*sigh* This line of debate isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm just going to agree to disagree

God, his nature, and the morality his nature evokes have always existed.

That doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

How in the world do you know that?

It's an assumption

Or this?

Follows from 1

No it must be unaffected by the emotions (opinions) of the subjects it governs.

re-read the definition "undistorted by emotion or personal bias"

You are definately not a philisophical graduate student are you.

Likewise

The name or title whatever it is, isn't important. His requirements are in effect object from our point of view. No matter what you allow it to be named, they are universal and absolute for every human.

Out of context. I was using the definition of objective from above.

Common sense is no different than opinion, and it is a common saying that opinion varies wildly so that wasn't it. Evolution if true would always adapt differently under difering conditions so it should have produced a morality as widely varying as biological life. It to would just be an evolution of opinion based on nothing concrete. Morality is an abstract concept not a genetic adaptation.

And why was that issue important?

To educate you.

Fine, I can't see what this changes.

Not much. As long as you understand what I mean when i call myself an (agnostic) atheist

Biblical doctrine and reality are true or false regardles of what you think is logical or makes sence. If you are evaluating Christianity you must use the revealed characteristics of it found in the bible. You can argue against a different God with different characteristics but then that wouldn't apply to the Christian God. Your claims must address existing doctrine to be applicable. Yours didn't and I showed why.

Obviously it's true or false. When the definition of God isn't logically consistent with itself it doesn't impact well on the bible

Well if you invent a doctrine or claim God should do this or that inconsistently with the biblical narrative then it isn't applicable to a discussion on the Christian God.

I'm not inventing a doctrine. Heck there are so many denominations of Christianity that I must be using one of their doctrines

There is nothing rediculous about my claim except your comment on it. It is widely known that people have a remarkable habit of drawing conclusions that support what they wish was true even when it flys in the face of reality. Just look at what goes on in politics. Ravi Zacharias said it best: intent determines content. I can't believe you question this obvious universal fact.

Seems I have to show you why the "argument" is ridiculous. The fact is you have no evidence to support it. You claim "No matter how many signs people who want to disbelieve see their dark minds will never allow them to believe". The problem here is that you assume people who disbelieve do so because they don't want to rather than because they have a higher standard for evidence than you. Just because you think there is enough evidence or "signs" doesn't mean everyone else does. You then just quote the bible as if it's automatically true to support your claim

 

[Muffled]

It's amazing how much God conforms exactly to your image of Him, isn't it?

Actually it is the other way around. I am conformed to God's image.

However I consider perspicacious of you that there is a conformation.

 

[Muffled]

Wow .. that is very impressive.

Would you mind asking God a few questions for me !?

I keep getting reminded of that. Sometmes I take it for granted as though God were eqaully available to everyone.

I don't mind but I let God decide whether he will answer quesions or not. He seems to be ok with it so fire away.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, they are. But that doesn't mean that they're not "right religions." They are imperfect, because they are human institutions, and human beings are imperfect.

They are God institutions provided for humans. No doubt humans don't live up to the right religion but that is not due to the religion but to human sinfulness.

However like logic where one can start with an erroneous premise and end up with an erroneous conclusion; starting with the wrong religion will never get a person to right actions and thinking.

 

[1robin]

logic and reason? You mean by just assuming that individual only refers to humans and not God.

If you think it is illogical that a secular definition doesn't assume individual as including Gods, Ghosts, aliens, beavers, rocks, demons, quarks, or clouds when addressing humans I don't think I can help.

1) prove freewill exists
2) What's to stop a malevolent God from giving us freewill?
3) I'm dealing with possible Gods not a god that's being suggested.

Determinism is such a pathetic suggestion it needs no explanation.
Free will is a benevolent capability granted to a being. That is inconsistent with a malevolent being.
What possible use is there in debating hypothetical Gods?

cba.

xypd^4

*sigh* This line of debate isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm just going to agree to disagree

Whatever it takes to stay in your comfort zone.

That doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

That is not a necessary requirement and those characteristics are philosophically consistent with the concept of God.

It's an assumption

That is contradictory to revelation.

Follows from 1

Ditto.

re-read the definition "undistorted by emotion or personal bias"

The definition doesn't include any individuals outside the subjects and so is consistent.

Likewise

Good one.

Out of context. I was using the definition of objective from above.

Still doesn't change the effect of the moral system with respect to us. It is universal and absolute even if you label it toaster oven morality. The descriptive title doesn't change the actual nature, even if you were right (which you aren't)

To educate you.

I want a new instructor.

Not much. As long as you understand what I mean when i call myself an (agnostic) atheist

Whatever, but that is like saying I am a agnostic Christian. It makes very little sense.

Obviously it's true or false. When the definition of God isn't logically consistent with itself it doesn't impact well on the bible

That might be true if you had demonstrated that it wasn't.

I'm not inventing a doctrine. Heck there are so many denominations of Christianity that I must be using one of their doctrines

Since your doctrine can't be justified by scripture it is useless to address it.

Seems I have to show you why the "argument" is ridiculous. The fact is you have no evidence to support it. You claim "No matter how many signs people who want to disbelieve see their dark minds will never allow them to believe". The problem here is that you assume people who disbelieve do so because they don't want to rather than because they have a higher standard for evidence than you. Just because you think there is enough evidence or "signs" doesn't mean everyone else does. You then just quote the bible as if it's automatically true to support your claim

I never assumed or said that all people who do not believe do so because they don't want to. I said that evidence doesn't make any difference IF someone doesn't want to believe. That is a proven and obvious fact. I do not claim the bible is known to contain 100% truth. That can't be and I have never claimed it could be proven. If we are to discuss Christianity it is necessary to assume it's existence. If we assume it doesn't exist then there is no discussion. I have been discussing it's implications if true not it's actual truth. I really wish you critics would quit distorting other's positions in order to make you position more tenable. I have to waste significant time restating simple claims that have be butchered to allow rebuttal.

 

[9Westy9]

If you think it is illogical that a secular definition doesn't assume individual as including Gods, Ghosts, aliens, beavers, rocks, demons, quarks, or clouds when addressing humans I don't think I can help.

individual - definition of individual by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Determinism is such a pathetic suggestion it needs no explanation.
Free will is a benevolent capability granted to a being. That is inconsistent with a malevolent being.
What possible use is there in debating hypothetical Gods?

Determinism is pathetic? Good one. The funniest thing is that if God is omniscient then free will does't exist as God knows exactly what we're going to do meaning that no matter what we do has been pre-determined.
It's hardly inconsistent with a malevolent being. All a malevolent being cares about is doing evil to others, allowing free will doesn't affect that at all, at least as far as I can see.
Debating hypothetical gods is important to rule out ones that are unlikely to exist and examine those that are likely to exist.

Whatever it takes to stay in your comfort zone.

If you really want me to address the point I will, but I don't see either of us changing our view on the topic

That is contradictory to revelation.

any quotes to go with that?

The definition doesn't include any individuals outside the subjects and so is consistent.

The definition didn't mention individuals. Only definition 1 mentioned individuals

Good one.

Thanks

Still doesn't change the effect of the moral system with respect to us. It is universal and absolute even if you label it toaster oven morality. The descriptive title doesn't change the actual nature, even if you were right (which you aren't)

Why is a universal and absolute morality better than a relative morality?

I want a new instructor.

Good luck.

Whatever, but that is like saying I am a agnostic Christian. It makes very little sense.

agnostic theism makes sense. and agnostic atheism makes perfect sense, I don't understand how you haven't gotten your head around this yet.

That might be true if you had demonstrated that it wasn't.

problem of evil is a perfect example

Since your doctrine can't be justified by scripture it is useless to address it.

whatever.

I never assumed or said that all people who do not believe do so because they don't want to. I said that evidence doesn't make any difference IF someone doesn't want to believe. That is a proven and obvious fact. I do not claim the bible is known to contain 100% truth. That can't be and I have never claimed it could be proven. If we are to discuss Christianity it is necessary to assume it's existence. If we assume it doesn't exist then there is no discussion. I have been discussing it's implications if true not it's actual truth. I really wish you critics would quit distorting other's positions in order to make you position more tenable. I have to waste significant time restating simple claims that have be butchered to allow rebuttal.

I am aware of your point. Seems I assumed you were trying to say something else. Now maybe you could enlighten me as to why you posted it? Because it had nothing to do with what I said. Because when I read you posting the following

No matter how many signs people who want to disbelieve see their dark minds will never allow them to believe. That is a very common concept in spiritual warfare. The bible also says that if people resist God long enough he will stop striving with them and allow their evil nature to darken and distort their thoughts.

in context it seems as though you were trying to say that all people who disbelieve are choosing not to rather than not seeing enough evidence. Or did that possibility escape you?

I haven't been assuming Christianity's existence? seriously?

 

[illykitty]

I believe in religious tolerance and that everyone has a different belief that fits them. I don't think there's absolute right and wrong religion, since if you really examine them, a lot of the same message comes across and loads of the dogmas have been created by men.

I'm sure great leaders like Jesus, Buddha and so on would scream in terror on how we are behaving ourselves. I'm sure they would say there is more than one path and to focus on doing good instead of getting on each others backs all the time.

 

[waitasec]

They are God institutions provided for humans. No doubt humans don't live up to the right religion but that is not due to the religion but to human sinfulness.

However like logic where one can start with an erroneous premise and end up with an erroneous conclusion; starting with the wrong religion will never get a person to right actions and thinking.

 

[1robin]

individual - definition of individual by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

This is funny. It says this "Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness".A single human considered apart from a society or community: the rights of the individual. b. A human regarded as a unique personality: individual - definition of individual by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Why did you post this? You do realise the word God or deity doesn't appear here but human does many times. Emphasys mine. But lets forget this for now. The definition you provided you are trying hard to say includes all real enities. Ok lets use it. If you claim God is assumed by individual, then God must necessarily exist. Individual cannot apply to an imaginary being. So your own standard requires what you question. Next.

Determinism is pathetic? Good one. The funniest thing is that if God is omniscient then free will does't exist as God knows exactly what we're going to do meaning that no matter what we do has been pre-determined.

Good lord. Knowing what a person will do in no way effects that persons freewill. I sometimes know what friends will do, are you suggesting I have the power to restrain their freewill.

It's hardly inconsistent with a malevolent being. All a malevolent being cares about is doing evil to others, allowing free will doesn't affect that at all, at least as far as I can see.

This point is so unimpotant and silly I refuse to discuss it anymore. If you actually want to prove something that is relevant then prove a benevolent God would not allow freewill without inventing a new definition of benevolent in the process.

Debating hypothetical gods is important to rule out ones that are unlikely to exist and examine those that are likely to exist.

That wasn't the use for which it was used. Also since that would be an infinate undertaking I reject it.

If you really want me to address the point I will, but I don't see either of us changing our view on the topic

I don't care. It's up to you.

any quotes to go with that?

A perfect being would cease to be perfect (and therefore not God) if even if he has emotions and biases he could not compose perfectly just moral requirements. I assume I do not have to produce quotes (how do quotes make things true anyway) to show the concept of a perfect God. If he established a moral requirement that wasn't perfectly just then he isn't God. This is more arguing over the definitions of a word. The word doesn't change the effect whatever it is. If he exists his laws are absolute and universal no matter what we call them.

The definition didn't mention individuals. Only definition 1 mentioned individuals

Either this is a complete contradiction or you left something out.

Why is a universal and absolute morality better than a relative morality?

First of all better has nothing to do with existance. Second universal standards provide a uniform and impartial standard if you can't see the obvious benefit to haveing one moral code instead of 6 billion individual ones then I can't help. If it wasn't absolute there is no hope for ultimate justice. When a mass murderer is set free because of a technicality all an atheist can do is say oh well. The Christian can rest in the knowledge that he will not escape justice in the end.

Good luck.

Believe me I have no hope for it.

agnostic theism makes sense. and agnostic atheism makes perfect sense, I don't understand how you haven't gotten your head around this yet.

For one thing agnostic and theism are without doubts contradictory. It seems you have invented a new one. I thought we were discussing an atheistic agnostic. Are you a theological chamelion?

problem of evil is a perfect example

Ok you are actually saying that the fact that evil exists and that God predicted that it would exist and even explained why and gives it's source is proof God doesn't exist. WOW. God's attributes include all powerful, and all good neither of these address his will or his purpose. It is his will to allow evil. Why you might ask? It is necessary for one reason atleast because it exists. If God tells me there will be evil and there is none I would think God was a liar. He allows us to interact with evil because we need to believe him. Also evil is to a great extent caused by our not following him. So in order to get rid of evil he would have to deny freewill. His purpose for us in this life is not for us to be happy it is for us to freely choose him that requires we believe him. Jesus did not come to make sad people happy, he came to make dead people live. These as well as all your other points are addressed in depth by countless philosophers and theologians why have you not familiarised yourself with them? To prove your case you must demonstrate that a world with less evil would produce more believers. It just might be that we have the perfect ration between evil and good to produce the maximum amount of people who follow God.

whatever.

Maybe

I am aware of your point. Seems I assumed you were trying to say something else. Now maybe you could enlighten me as to why you posted it? Because it had nothing to do with what I said. Because when I read you posting the following
in context it seems as though you were trying to say that all people who disbelieve are choosing not to rather than not seeing enough evidence. Or did that possibility escape you?

I think all this goes in one statement above. I said that that is the cause for the lack of faith for many. I also showed that the bible records that many people were shown many unmistakable signs and they chose to disbelieve because of their dark (sinful) minds. I think all this was in response to your original assertion that God should have given more evidence. I was demostrating that won't fix the problem for people who desire to resist.

I haven't been assuming Christianity's existence? seriously?

I have no idea what you have been doing, but if you want to discuss something you can't assume it doesn't exist before hand.

 

[9Westy9]

This is funny. It says this "Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness".A single human considered apart from a society or community: the rights of the individual. b. A human regarded as a unique personality: individual - definition of individual by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Why did you post this? You do realise the word God or deity doesn't appear here but human does many times. Emphasys mine. But lets forget this for now. The definition you provided you are trying hard to say includes all real enities. Ok lets use it. If you claim God is assumed by individual, then God must necessarily exist. Individual cannot apply to an imaginary being. So your own standard requires what you question. Next.

1) Individual refers to more than just humans.
2) God does exist, as an idea at least

Good lord. Knowing what a person will do in no way effects that persons freewill. I sometimes know what friends will do, are you suggesting I have the power to restrain their freewill.

Not sure we're using the same definition of free will here. If free will exists then you have "the ability to do differently to what you did" agree or disagree?

A perfect being would cease to be perfect (and therefore not God) if even if he has emotions and biases he could not compose perfectly just moral requirements. I assume I do not have to produce quotes (how do quotes make things true anyway) to show the concept of a perfect God. If he established a moral requirement that wasn't perfectly just then he isn't God. This is more arguing over the definitions of a word. The word doesn't change the effect whatever it is. If he exists his laws are absolute and universal no matter what we call them.

Define perfect god (as fully as you can) and we'll see if I can find at least one person who disagrees.

Either this is a complete contradiction or you left something out.

I re-read your definitions, so you tell me.

First of all better has nothing to do with existance. Second universal standards provide a uniform and impartial standard if you can't see the obvious benefit to haveing one moral code instead of 6 billion individual ones then I can't help. If it wasn't absolute there is no hope for ultimate justice. When a mass murderer is set free because of a technicality all an atheist can do is say oh well. The Christian can rest in the knowledge that he will not escape justice in the end.

1) Not sure what this has to do with what I asked you.
2) It gives good moral accountability but not necessarily a fairer morality. This objective morality could be from a malevolent being rather than a benevolent being for example.

For one thing agnostic and theism are without doubts contradictory. It seems you have invented a new one. I thought we were discussing an atheistic agnostic. Are you a theological chamelion?

(a)gnostic answers the question of knowledge, (a)theism answers the question of belief. They don't contradict. There are also other definitions that I think you're using (i.e. agnostic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic)

Ok you are actually saying that the fact that evil exists and that God predicted that it would exist and even explained why and gives it's source is proof God doesn't exist. WOW. God's attributes include all powerful, and all good neither of these address his will or his purpose. It is his will to allow evil. Why you might ask? It is necessary for one reason atleast because it exists. If God tells me there will be evil and there is none I would think God was a liar. He allows us to interact with evil because we need to believe him. Also evil is to a great extent caused by our not following him. So in order to get rid of evil he would have to deny freewill. His purpose for us in this life is not for us to be happy it is for us to freely choose him that requires we believe him. Jesus did not come to make sad people happy, he came to make dead people live. These as well as all your other points are addressed in depth by countless philosophers and theologians why have you not familiarised yourself with them? To prove your case you must demonstrate that a world with less evil would produce more believers. It just might be that we have the perfect ration between evil and good to produce the maximum amount of people who follow God.

1) A god who wills evil isn't benevolent
2) A god who cares more about our free will than our well being is possibly benevolent. If he's also omnipotent then he isn't benevolent as he'd be able to achieve both at the same time.

Also I have read a bit into the arguments and counter arguments for the problem of evil and agree more with the people making the argument than those trying to counter it.

I think all this goes in one statement above. I said that that is the cause for the lack of faith for many. I also showed that the bible records that many people were shown many unmistakable signs and they chose to disbelieve because of their dark (sinful) minds. I think all this was in response to your original assertion that God should have given more evidence. I was demostrating that won't fix the problem for people who desire to resist.

Then I agree. As long as you're aware that there are people (a lot of atheists on rf) who haven't seen enough evidence http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/98030-why-you-atheist.html

I have no idea what you have been doing, but if you want to discuss something you can't assume it doesn't exist before hand.

and I haven't.....

 

[1robin]

1) Individual refers to more than just humans.
2) God does exist, as an idea at least

An idea isn't an individual. I can't believe you are still beating this dead horse.

Not sure we're using the same definition of free will here. If free will exists then you have "the ability to do differently to what you did" agree or disagree?

Tell my why if I know what you are going to do would mean that you didn't exercise freewill when you chose it. The one doesn't effect the other. God knows what I will use my freewill to choose. I think that is consistent with the bible. I usually stay away from subjects so abstract but I do not see a problem here.

Define perfect god (as fully as you can) and we'll see if I can find at least one person who disagrees.

That should take about 10 seconds.
The world is full of disagree rs.

It’s easy to give content to the word “God.” This word can be taken either as a common noun, so that one could speak of “a God,” or it can be used as a proper name like “George” or “Suzanne.” Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. Now the YouTube atheist might protest, “But how do you know God has those properties?” The question is misplaced. “God” has been stipulated to be the person, if any, referred to by that description. The real question is whether there is anything answering to that description, that is to say, does such a person exist? The whole burden of Swinburne’s natural theology is to present arguments that there is such a person. You can reject his arguments, but there’s no disputing the meaningfulness of his claim.

The best definition of God as a descriptive term is, I think, St. Anselm’s: the greatest conceivable being. As Anselm observed, if you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God! The very idea of God is of a being than which there cannot be a greater. Defining “God” | Reasonable Faith

This would of course mean the most just being possible.

I re-read your definitions, so you tell me.

Your statement was absolutely contradictory. I have no idea if you had additional information in your head that would render it non contradictory.

1) Not sure what this has to do with what I asked you.
2) It gives good moral accountability but not necessarily a fairer morality. This objective morality could be from a malevolent being rather than a benevolent being for example.

First a moral system may be true even if malevolent. Regardless since biblical morality contains a vast number of requirements which when followed result in improved conditions for human beings (not just the ones that specifically make God happy) . They contain instructions that maximize what we believe to be good. This is completely inconsistent with malevolence so why are we discussing it?

(a)gnostic answers the question of knowledge, (a)theism answers the question of belief. They don't contradict. There are also other definitions that I think you're using (i.e. agnostic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic)

That was very poetic but does not solve the issue that what makes an atheist different from agnosticism is a positive assertion of a negative. Actually I forgot that this is irrelevant anyway so fine you are right let's move on.

1) A god who wills evil isn't benevolent

Actually I said God's will is to allow freewill which can only be done if we are allowed to screw up and create evil. I did not say he wills that evil be done.

2) A god who cares more about our free will than our well being is possibly benevolent. If he's also omnipotent then he isn't benevolent as he'd be able to achieve both at the same time.

There are certain things that trivial atheists like to use to show God is not omnipotent. They say God couldn't create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it and other such intellectual gems. The actual case is some things aren't possible because they aren't things. Freewill without the ability to choose evil isn't anything. It's nothing. You have just repackaged this nonsense in a new proposition.

Also I have read a bit into the arguments and counter arguments for the problem of evil and agree more with the people making the argument than those trying to counter it.

Of course you do. That justifies your preconceived position. Actually the philosophic implications or arguments are airtight. The component that stops people from universally adopting it is the emotional component. You can sufficiently explain why a thing happens but you can't explain away the shock or horror of the thing. Since most people decide things by emotion, especially liberal minded people then this makes people reject the completely sufficient philosophic explanation.

Then I agree. As long as you're aware that there are people (a lot of atheists on rf) who haven't seen enough evidence http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/98030-why-you-atheist.html

I thought that is the very definition of an agnostic. Someone who does not have sufficient info for belief. Or at least claims to. Fine, I give up. How did this become important?

and I haven't.....

Most critics want to discuss Christianity but when I bring up an implication they don't like that is perfectly consistent with it they yell foul (that I am assuming it's true) even when I have said countless times it is highly probable but not a proven fact. I can't assume it's false and have a meaningful discussion of it.

 

[9Westy9]

An idea isn't an individual. I can't believe you are still beating this dead horse.

ex. An individual narwahl. Individual applies perfectly to ideas. Can we move on now?

Tell my why if I know what you are going to do would mean that you didn't exercise freewill when you chose it. The one doesn't effect the other. God knows what I will use my freewill to choose. I think that is consistent with the bible. I usually stay away from subjects so abstract but I do not see a problem here.

You avoided my question. Also if I know what i'm going to do then there isn't a free choice as it's already been made.

a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology.

good is subjective rather than objective, how do you know a spirit is better than a body?

Your statement was absolutely contradictory. I have no idea if you had additional information in your head that would render it non contradictory.

Explain how it was contradictory, don't just assert it.

First a moral system may be true even if malevolent. Regardless since biblical morality contains a vast number of requirements which when followed result in improved conditions for human beings (not just the ones that specifically make God happy) . They contain instructions that maximize what we believe to be good. This is completely inconsistent with malevolence so why are we discussing it?

1) But would it be better than a relative morality that was benevolent.
2) Biblical morality also contains requirements that result in detrimental conditions for humans.

That was very poetic but does not solve the issue that what makes an atheist different from agnosticism is a positive assertion of a negative. Actually I forgot that this is irrelevant anyway so fine you are right let's move on.

last thing I have to say on this matter: A belief isn't an assertion.

Actually I said God's will is to allow freewill which can only be done if we are allowed to screw up and create evil. I did not say he wills that evil be done.

I quote "It is his will to allow evil."

There are certain things that trivial atheists like to use to show God is not omnipotent. They say God couldn't create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it and other such intellectual gems. The actual case is some things aren't possible because they aren't things. Freewill without the ability to choose evil isn't anything. It's nothing. You have just repackaged this nonsense in a new proposition.

I disagree. Freewill without evil makes perfect sense. You have a choice between different non-evil options.

Of course you do. That justifies your preconceived position. Actually the philosophic implications or arguments are airtight. The component that stops people from universally adopting it is the emotional component. You can sufficiently explain why a thing happens but you can't explain away the shock or horror of the thing. Since most people decide things by emotion, especially liberal minded people then this makes people reject the completely sufficient philosophic explanation.

You do realise that I could say the exact same about you right?

I thought that is the very definition of an agnostic. Someone who does not have sufficient info for belief. Or at least claims to. Fine, I give up. How did this become important?

Stop trying to use one definition for the word atheist and agnostic. Words tend to have several definitions and these two are no different. I've already shown you the definitions of these words, that I'm using, yet you keep ignoring them, I've even pointed you to a dictionary that uses the definitions.

Most critics want to discuss Christianity but when I bring up an implication they don't like that is perfectly consistent with it they yell foul (that I am assuming it's true) even when I have said countless times it is highly probable but not a proven fact. I can't assume it's false and have a meaningful discussion of it.

Then prove it's highly probable rather than highly improbable

 

[1robin]

ex. An individual narwahl. Individual applies perfectly to ideas. Can we move on now?

I have no idea what a Narwahl is. Sounds familiar though. I take it is an idea. Let me put it this way. If a secular dictionary could do so and was to catalog every individual living entity it could find in the universe. Are you suggesting that that would include God or Gods, angels, spirits, demons, flying spaghetti men, NARWHALS, tribles, or any other being whos existence could not be proven. I think you are being obstinate just because you enjoy it.

You avoided my question. Also if I know what i'm going to do then there isn't a free choice as it's already been made.

I don't think you get it. If another entity can know the future and knows what you will choose that has no effect on the choices you make. The one has no effect on the other. I understand this is a complex philosophical issue that troubled me in the past but I finally worked my way around it and see the truth of it. Weren't you the one that was arguing for determinism anyway or was that someone else.

good is subjective rather than objective, how do you know a spirit is better than a body?

Regardless what you label it it still has the same effect if true on you so then why is the name important. Is it because semantics is the only place where you think you have any traction. I still believe it is objective but as it doesn't matter I don't care. I never said a spirit is better than a body. Never even thought about it. Regardless if a spirit still retains basically the same capabilities as I have and God certainly does and then an infinite more then a body that can feel pain, be depressed and get involved in meaningless discussions on the web is definitely inferior. You seem to never address the actual issue but invent side bars to discuss.

Explain how it was contradictory, don't just assert it.

It was days ago. Fine it wasn't since I couldn't understand it anyway lets move on.

1) But would it be better than a relative morality that was benevolent.

Sidebar. I made a claim about existence or truth not value.

2) Biblical morality also contains requirements that result in detrimental conditions for humans.

Without sufficient experience with the bible I could definitely see why someone might claim that. Usually his requirements even if detrimental to a few immoral people or even others are however good for the group. I know why you said this so list a couple and I will explain. It requires the inclusion of purpose as well as value.

last thing I have to say on this matter: A belief isn't an assertion.

Very well

I quote "It is his will to allow evil."

This was the statement which you responded with this previous statement. "I did not say he wills that evil be done". These statements are not contradictory in any way. To allow something is not to wish it's existence. Parents will many times allow their children to screw up an suffer the consequences. They allowed it to happen they did not desire that it happen. In fact it is well understood that one of the worst things a parent can do is protect their children from consequence. That is actually a malevolent act because it compounds trouble later. That is exactly the same arrangement with God. God says:

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!
Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
What honorable person could find that unjust.

I disagree. Freewill without evil makes perfect sense. You have a choice between different non-evil options.

You don't understand. Evil results from a rejection of God. In Genesis it says that sin, death, pain, and misery did not even exist until Adam and Eve chose to reject God. If God only gave you the choice to accept him then that for one thing wouldn't be freewill and it sure isn't love.

You do realise that I could say the exact same about you right?

Well I will agree to some extent but there is a difference my position is supported by the most studied, respected, and profound book in human history. It is the only justification for the morality society needs and assumes exists. It is also consistent with mainstream philosophy and is the only possible source of answers to life's really big questions purpose, meaning, destiny, value. etc..... Your position might partially deal with one of these claims and you may resort to denying that answers exist for others but I have no such limitations found in my position. The only thing missing from my position is 100% proof that it is true. That is equally true with yours as well.

Stop trying to use one definition for the word atheist and agnostic. Words tend to have several definitions and these two are no different. I've already shown you the definitions of these words, that I'm using, yet you keep ignoring them, I've even pointed you to a dictionary that uses the definitions.

I find them contradictory. Why does this matter?

Then prove it's highly probable rather than highly improbable

Just to mention one way. It contains over 2300 prophecy, at least 351 concerning Jesus alone. If the ones that are supposed to have been fulfilled have been then case closed. Another is the bibles vastly (and I mean vastly superior textual tradition) when compared with any other work of ancient history. Since I doubt any evidence whatsoever is capable of convincing you I will wait and see what you attempt to do with this. There is a saying (I think in the bible but not sure) that says that to give truth to one who loves it not is only to compound areas for contention. Just a warning any effort to discredit either of these has been tried and failed by countless people. The bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

 

[9Westy9]

I have no idea what a Narwahl is. Sounds familiar though. I take it is an idea. Let me put it this way. If a secular dictionary could do so and was to catalog every individual living entity it could find in the universe. Are you suggesting that that would include God or Gods, angels, spirits, demons, flying spaghetti men, NARWHALS, tribles, or any other being whos existence could not be proven. I think you are being obstinate just because you enjoy it.

I guess it'd still count. I don't really see what you're trying to get at here. Either way I showed you an example of how "individual" applies to ideas as well as entities we know to exist.

I don't think you get it. If another entity can know the future and knows what you will choose that has no effect on the choices you make. The one has no effect on the other. I understand this is a complex philosophical issue that troubled me in the past but I finally worked my way around it and see the truth of it. Weren't you the one that was arguing for determinism anyway or was that someone else.

If another entity knows the choice you're about to make you have no say in determining what you will choose. Therefore you didn't actually choose it in the first place as it was foreknown.

Regardless what you label it it still has the same effect if true on you so then why is the name important. Is it because semantics is the only place where you think you have any traction. I still believe it is objective but as it doesn't matter I don't care. I never said a spirit is better than a body. Never even thought about it. Regardless if a spirit still retains basically the same capabilities as I have and God certainly does and then an infinite more then a body that can feel pain, be depressed and get involved in meaningless discussions on the web is definitely inferior. You seem to never address the actual issue but invent side bars to discuss.

There was an issue here? I thought you merely defining "Perfect God"

Sidebar. I made a claim about existence or truth not value.

Dodge. I asked you a question about whether an objective malevolent morality is better than a subjective benevolent morality

Without sufficient experience with the bible I could definitely see why someone might claim that. Usually his requirements even if detrimental to a few immoral people or even others are however good for the group. I know why you said this so list a couple and I will explain. It requires the inclusion of purpose as well as value.

1) Anti-homosexual (at the very least it's against male-make intercourse)
2) Appears to support slavery more than it condemns it

This was the statement which you responded with this previous statement. "I did not say he wills that evil be done". These statements are not contradictory in any way. To allow something is not to wish it's existence. Parents will many times allow their children to screw up an suffer the consequences. They allowed it to happen they did not desire that it happen. In fact it is well understood that one of the worst things a parent can do is protect their children from consequence. That is actually a malevolent act because it compounds trouble later. That is exactly the same arrangement with God.

Very well, my bad

You don't understand. Evil results from a rejection of God. In Genesis it says that sin, death, pain, and misery did not even exist until Adam and Eve chose to reject God. If God only gave you the choice to accept him then that for one thing wouldn't be freewill and it sure isn't love.

You seems to be saying that if we didn't have free will to commit evil then we can't make a choice between God or not. To me that's ridiculous.

Well I will agree to some extent but there is a difference my position is supported by the most studied, respected, and profound book in human history. It is the only justification for the morality society needs and assumes exists. It is also consistent with mainstream philosophy and is the only possible source of answers to life's really big questions purpose, meaning, destiny, value. etc..... Your position might partially deal with one of these claims and you may resort to denying that answers exist for others but I have no such limitations found in my position. The only thing missing from my position is 100% proof that it is true. That is equally true with yours as well.

so your position is better than mine because you have a book? okay . The truth is that lots of people like buying into an argument because it supports their already existing beliefs. and to accuse me of being one of them is just as unfounded as me saying the same back to you.

I find them contradictory. Why does this matter?

Because I've provided you definitions that aren't contradictory. Can you at least admit that these words have more than one "correct" definition. Or are you so convinced that you definitions are absolutely correct?

Just to mention one way. It contains over 2300 prophecy, at least 351 concerning Jesus alone. If the ones that are supposed to have been fulfilled have been then case closed. Another is the bibles vastly (and I mean vastly superior textual tradition) when compared with any other work of ancient history. Since I doubt any evidence whatsoever is capable of convincing you I will wait and see what you attempt to do with this. There is a saying (I think in the bible but not sure) that says that to give truth to one who loves it not is only to compound areas for contention. Just a warning any effort to discredit either of these has been tried and failed by countless people. The bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

The prophecies are questionable and superior textual tradition doesn't mean a lot in regards to how true the Christian doctrine is when it deals with the afterlife and the supernatural (i.e. God) .

 

[Muffled]

I believe in religious tolerance and that everyone has a different belief that fits them. I don't think there's absolute right and wrong religion, since if you really examine them, a lot of the same message comes across and loads of the dogmas have been created by men.

I'm sure great leaders like Jesus, Buddha and so on would scream in terror on how we are behaving ourselves. I'm sure they would say there is more than one path and to focus on doing good instead of getting on each others backs all the time.

This can mean different things to different people. To me it means accepting the fact that other people have religious beliefs that are not quite evolved yet. I don't see any need to tolerate fiction or fancy.

Jesus said He is the way (another word for path).

However to be able to focus on what is good one needs to be on the right path. It is incumbent on those who have found the right path to lead others to it as well. For whom much is given much is required.

 

[waitasec]

This can mean different things to different people. To me it means accepting the fact that other people have religious beliefs that are not quite evolved yet. I don't see any need to tolerate fiction or fancy.

:spit: :biglaugh: :tigger::jam::jiggy::danana:


the irony

 

[1robin]

I guess it'd still count. I don't really see what you're trying to get at here. Either way I showed you an example of how "individual" applies to ideas as well as entities we know to exist.

No you didn't you made up some strange example and just declared it did. However this issue has been cirleing the drain for a while now and I am bored with it. Can you tell me what would actually be different in your life regardless if you are right about this issue or I am. If you find yourself before God one day and he asks you why you didn't accept his sacrifice on your behalf and what have you to say in defense. Are you going to say that some definition may or may not have included the concept of God and so that may or may not mean his standards were objective? Good luck with that.

If another entity knows the choice you're about to make you have no say in determining what you will choose. Therefore you didn't actually choose it in the first place as it was foreknown.

This is completely false. Lets say I was watching you address a Golf ball. I could tell by your stance you would slice the ball into the woods. Would my knowing this have anything to do with the fact you exercised freewill in order to choose your stance. This isn't the part I meant when I said it was complex this is very simple.

There was an issue here? I thought you merely defining "Perfect God"

The philisophical concept is that the idea of God and what is consistent with the bible is that God is the greatest concievable being. The most just, omnipotent, omniscient, etc..... If you are proposing some hypthetical fault then you are discussion a different God.

Dodge. I asked you a question about whether an objective malevolent morality is better than a subjective benevolent morality

This was my statement
"First a moral system may be true even if malevolent. Regardless since biblical morality contains a vast number of requirements which when followed result in improved conditions for human beings (not just the ones that specifically make God happy) . They contain instructions that maximize what we believe to be good. This is completely inconsistent with malevolence so why are we discussing it?"

To which you replied with
"1) But would it be better than a relative morality that was benevolent."
So my claim that you ignored what I said and asked a very different type of question about a position which I have never claimed. So this is without a doubt a sidebar issue. To answer this out of the blue question. I would need far more information about this hypothetical fantasy system to make a decision.

1) Anti-homosexual (at the very least it's against male-make intercourse)

That's a new description of it for me at least. You must be reffering to God's commandment against the practice that was given specifically to the Hebrews for a specific reason for a specific time frame. While I believe it has always been a sin and always will be I am in no way instructed to treat them differently and as a matter of fact I am strictly prohibited from actively carrying out any form of condemnation or unjust action towards them. We live under the covenant of grace and have been for 2000 plus years so this issue is not relevant. It also isn't relevant why God commanded what he did 3000yrs ago but if you require it I will explain how his reasons were justified completely.

2) Appears to support slavery more than it condemns it

Critics have a very inaccurate and completely false way of examineing scripture. Dr Ravi Zacharias says "intent determines content" You see what you want to. If you actually include context and cultural language use it is obvious the bible in no way justifies slavery. In response to some questions about a practice that was virtually universal at the time God instructed mainly more benevolent procedures for a system already in place and no going away anytime soon. However it was Christians who have generally carried much of the burden of the fight against slavery throughout history.

You seems to be saying that if we didn't have free will to commit evil then we can't make a choice between God or not. To me that's ridiculous.

To not choose God is evil and usually results in evil action. Nothing could be simpler. God says do not murder. If we could not deny God and so commit murder then we wouldn't have freewill. God also says if we choose to defy him he will eventually remove the spiritual power (consience) that ghelps us resist evil temptations. You may not like this idea but it is a very simple and consistent one which explains so much in the world. An atheist can provide no atheistic explanation for even the concepts of good and evil.

so your position is better than mine because you have a book? okay . The truth is that lots of people like buying into an argument because it supports their already existing beliefs. and to accuse me of being one of them is just as unfounded as me saying the same back to you.

No I mentioned many things completely seperate from any book. My position has suffecient explanitory power to account for reality for one. Etc....
By the way I was completely and utterly opposed to Christianity when I began seriously investigateing it. I actuall began the effort for the reason that I wanted to once and for all reject it. Try again.

Because I've provided you definitions that aren't contradictory. Can you at least admit that these words have more than one "correct" definition. Or are you so convinced that you definitions are absolutely correct?

I honestly don't have a dog in this race. It seems your definitions require an overlapping majesterium between agnosticism and atheism. I find that useless and contradictory but I will just go with your ideas on the subject as I am not really interested.

The prophecies are questionable and superior textual tradition doesn't mean a lot in regards to how true the Christian doctrine is when it deals with the afterlife and the supernatural (i.e. God) .

The majority of prophecy found in the bible is in no way questionable. They have a wealth of detail and descriptiveness that even the most critical person can't deny. I just finished a legnthy discussion with a guy over the prophecy concerning the destruction of tyre. He argued that even though the time frame was consistent, the character of the warfare, the utter destruction of the phonecian society, and many seperate details for example that it's foundations would be used for drying fishing nets after the battle were all perfectly predicted, that it was still inacurate because later a completely different society rebuilt the city. That is until I showed him that the bible only said that the society would be utterly destroyed not that buildings would never be built again. God was mad at the phonecian people after all not the stones in the buildings. Another would be the exact day Israel would become a nation again and the fact that they would be repeatedly attacked after that time by an overwhelming enemy but they would be victorious. Israel has fought several wars and countless battles since 1948 outnumbered many times 40 -1 but has always completely crushed the enemy even before we started helping them (when they were attacked the first time by 5 nations they had a total of three tanks and virtually no army at all). If someone can't see the hand of God in that they are trying very hard not to. Their recent battles are among the most lopsided in history. Plus about 2297 more like these.

 

[Nakosis]

This can mean different things to different people. To me it means accepting the fact that other people have religious beliefs that are not quite evolved yet. I don't see any need to tolerate fiction or fancy.

Jesus said He is the way (another word for path).

However to be able to focus on what is good one needs to be on the right path. It is incumbent on those who have found the right path to lead others to it as well. For whom much is given much is required.

Everyone who values life, love, beauty, compassion tend to consider themselves to be on the right path. Another word for way is example. If Jesus was the example then healing the sick, feeding the poor. Forgiving people of their sins. Anyone who does these thing regardless of belief is following the example of Jesus.

If you teach, encourage, become the example of these values, regardless of anything else how can you say that person is not on the right track?

 

[1robin]

Everyone who values life, love, beauty, compassion tend to consider themselves to be on the right path.

Maybe but that is a flase standard for truth.

Another word for way is example.

This is irrelevant unless you can show that is what was meant by the actual Greek word that was used. The Greek used is the most descriptive language in human history and so it should be easy for you if you are correct.

If Jesus was the example then healing the sick, feeding the poor. Forgiving people of their sins. Anyone who does these thing regardless of belief is following the example of Jesus.

This is wrong because that is in fact not what Jesus meant by him being the way. Lets look at this statement in context.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus answered him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me.
No man cometh to the Father but by me - To come to the Father is to obtain his favor, to have access to his throne by prayer, and finally to enter his kingdom. No man can obtain any of these things except by the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. By coming by him is meant coming in his name and depending on his merits. We are ignorant, and he alone can guide us. We are sinful, and it is only by his merits that we can be pardoned. God has appointed him as the Mediator, and has ordained that all blessings shall descend to this world through him. Acts 4:12; Acts 5:31.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Since this is an English translation let's look at the original Greek.
Jhn 14:6λέγειαὐτῷὁἸησοῦςἘγώεἰμιἡὁδὸςκαὶἡἀλήθειακαὶἡζωήοὐδεὶςἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸνπατέραεἰμὴδι᾽ἐμοῦ
The word for through is dia atht is what is in red above. This is the definition for the Greek word dia.
1) through
1) with
2) in
c) of means
2) by the means of
a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
1) by reason of
2) on account of
3) because of for this reason
4) therefore
5) on this account
All of these imply a concept that the only way to the father is through, by virtue of, or on account of what Christ did. It is not suggesting we can get there on account of what we do that is similar to what he did. Lets look at another place in the same book whether Christ gives more detail about how to get to heaven.
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]" 4 "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."[d] 9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.10 "You are Israel’s teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. John 3 NIV - Jesus Teaches Nicodemus - Now there was - Bible Gateway
Nicodemus was an expert in the law but he was wise enough to know he needed help to get to heaven. When he asked Jesus about it. Jesus said the only way was to be born again. That is the experience we have when we believe in Christ’s sacrifice. Christ did not say to do what he did to get there he said to be born again. That is how we get to heaven through (dia) him. That is also why Christianity claims it is not one way to heaven it is the only way.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
John 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
Not Buddha, Allah, Zeus, or any other name.

If you teach, encourage, become the example of these values, regardless of anything else how can you say that person is not on the right track?

You are of course free to invent your own religion a regardless of how little basis for it but I found it too important to just adopt whatever I found convenient. Jesus says be the basis of our being born again (reborn, converted, our name is written in the lambs book of life, are adopted as sons of God, etc....) by believing in his death and resurrection and receiving the holy spirit which comes to live in our hearts when we are saved we will be allowed into heaven. The subject requires and deserves diligent research not the adoption of the first groundless politically correct philosophy that tickles our ears.