Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Good. The Bible says that God did a bunch of horrible things. Is he evil? He allowed a young man to shoot up a grammar school which got this thread started. Should God, could God have prevented that?

Probably not all those kids were Christians. Did they all go to heaven, because they were under the age of "accountability"? Oh yes, where in the Bible does it say there is an age where kids get a free pass into heaven? Oh, and what happens when the killer is under the age of accountability?

Oh, and one more thing, thanks for picking up for 1Robin. I guess he's been busy lately. This thread hasn't been the same without him, that is, until you came along. Oh wait, he's back.

This is a classic argument that has been pronounced dead by most of the philosophical community. I watched a debate last night between Craig and I think Rosenberg at Purdue. BTW that was one of the debates that a vote was taken afterwards. Not one in this case but 3 votes were taken. A panel of 8 professors of philosophy was the first vote, the audience of over 2000 was the second vote and the online international audience of over 10,000 was the third. Craig won all three votes by at least a 3 - 1 margin. The reason this debate is relevant is that Rosenberg made the classic mistake of saying that Omnipotence, Omni benevolence, and the presence of evil are incompatible. Craig read off some of todays and histories most brilliant philosophers that have pronounced that age old canard to be completely devoid of merit. It no longer has much of any professional support. It only persists in the minds of laymen who hold on to it for dear life as one of the treasured foundations that allow for plausible deniability concerning God. Now leaving scholarship behind I will explain "again" why the argument is incoherent.

God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny. Not to coerce our choice, nor to force it by arranging circumstances in which everyone would always choose the good, but to make available true and free choice and sufficient evidence by which to make the choice freely on, but not so much as to force the choice and intrude upon that freewill.


Now given that purpose, no world could be created without the potential for evil. That is a logical absurdity like saying he could create a square circle. The last shriek of this dying argument is the level of evil this world contains is too much for any good God to permit. That is completely arbitrary and not what I would expect anyway given the bible. In a world where mankind has a history of rebelling against God and choosing the only other path which is ungodliness. It would contain holocausts and world wars. If I only read Genesis alone I would expect to have exactly the type of world we have.

Your argument is not a practical problem but an exercise in rhetoric to begin with and a faulty and almost completely discarded one in modern times. If carried out to it's logical conclusion it means that in any world where anyone ever stubbed his toe there can be no God.

It fails rhetorically and fails practically but remains entrenched in laymen arenas IMO because of preference, not logic.

Now I as well as Craig and modern philosophers in general have repeatedly laid this silly argument to rest over and over, in publication of papers, in forums, in books, in professional debates, and official scholarly consensus. It is dead, and lies in state and decay, but not in peace, because people keep trying to wake it up. Let it die in peace.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is a classic argument

What? That if evil exists there can be no God? That's not what I'm asking. Why does the Bible say God did those things. Is he evil? I think you said something that almost sounded like we are so bad that anything he does to punish us, we deserve. And, I always ask, but he made us this way didn't he? Then you said something like no, we turned our back to him, so we got what we wanted, his wrath. No, I didn't. That would be stupid.

It just sounds like the Bible is a bunch of fables sometimes and not worth believing in. That's a little different then knowing that God is real and then, turning away from him. And, oh yes, could you go over the "proofs" of the age of accountability again? That's never really sounded right to me. Oh, and by the way, perfect timing. It's good to have you back posting on this thread again.

 

[Skwim]

This is a classic argument that has been pronounced dead by most of the philosophical community.

No. It's a classic problem of Christian theology that Christians would dearly love to see dead. But because Christian apologetics can't come come up with a satisfactory answer---one consistent with the problematic nature of the issue and reason---it will continue to be the bug-bear of the religion as long as thinking people are confronted with it.

God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny.

Obviously you would never make up such a thing---the thoughts of god---so I have to ask you the source for this rather personal piece of information. So . . . . what is your source? And being specific will go a long way in helping your credibility.

 

[1robin]

What? That if evil exists there can be no God? That's not what I'm asking. Why does the Bible say God did those things. Is he evil? I think you said something that almost sounded like we are so bad that anything he does to punish us, we deserve. And, I always ask, but he made us this way didn't he? Then you said something like no, we turned our back to him, so we got what we wanted, his wrath. No, I didn't. That would be stupid.

I will assume I misunderstood your argument. However most of these God and evil arguments are versions of the one I laid out. I will add a more specific response here to your specific complaint.

You say that since God has killed people or cause suffering the question is, is he evil?

1. The only objective standard for morality (the only way by which a thing can truthfully be classified as evil or good) is found in God to begin with. By the philosophy of divine command theory God does not choose morality or obey an external moral code, he is morality. Moral commands or truths are simply a reflection of his nature.
2. That would make whatever he did right. The only thing we can do is accept or reject God. We cannot judge him. For example I would reject Allah if he existed but I could never judge him. I have no moral basis which exists that is higher than God and capable of judging him.
3. However lets get specific. The most common example of God being "evil" is his command to kill the Canaanites. Since it is a universal principle that killing can be justifiable but murder is not. So which case is this? Did God have sufficient moral reasons for killing the Canaanites? There is little evidence of what occurred outside the bible and a little archeology. The bible says that God had worked with the Canaanites for years in order to get them to repent. They refused. He even held Israel back from attacking them until it says "their cup of iniquity was full". Add to this that Israel was to be God's conduit for revelation and it's contamination would have lessened the impact of he revelation and meant less people being saved. Israel was to be unique. Now was all this a fairy tale invented by Moses to justify killing the Canaanites. I believe not. From the little we know through secular study the Canaanites worshiped a God (Molech). He was a God who demanded human sacrifice. Foundation deposits have been found of live children being buried alive in foundations for buildings, and documents have been found to indicate that children were forced to pass through fire for Molech just as the bible suggests. So it appears that the bible and history agree. The Canaanites were a morally bankrupt society that even when God worked directly on them refused to change. Also the principle of contamination is proven in that Israel did not kill all the Canaanites and were plagued by them year, the Canaanites raided them every harvest season causing starvation. They at times intermarried and even worshiped their God causing the real God to send many judgments against Israel for this. Another time they disobeyed and let a king and queen live. The queen escaped. Her son (Haman) became a Persian official and ordered the death of every Jew in the Persian empire (4/5ths of the civilized world). Only God's intervention through Esther saved them.

You asked if we all deserved punishment. Yes, we have all caused harm and pain that ripples through society causing untold and unknowable damage. We are all condemned before God. He is justified in terminating all life at any moment yet he does not. I will let the bible explain what he does instead of exacting instant retribution for our rebellion.

New International Version
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

New International Version
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

New International Version
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

It just sounds like the Bible is a bunch of fables sometimes and not worth believing in. That's a little different then knowing that God is real and then, turning away from him. And, oh yes, could you go over the "proofs" of the age of accountability again? That's never really sounded right to me. Oh, and by the way, perfect timing. It's good to have you back posting on this thread again.

I did not make any age of accountability claims but it is a biblical principle. I can look it up if you want as I have forgotten the verses that David wrote where it comes from but I never stated any age issue.

What something sounds like or looks like to someone is irrelevant. The question is what is it. The bible does contain fable, parable, allegory, and apocalyptic language but it's historical veracity is awe inspiring (scholarly conclusions to support this on request) and it's textual accuracy exceeds any book of any type by extreme amounts compared to any work in ancient history. There is not even a second.

Thank you for welcoming me back but my time is still very short so I can only post when available.

Your questions need a whole volume of works to answer but I hope I presented at least the basis of a counter position.

 

[1robin]

No. It's a classic problem of Christian theology that Christians would dearly love to see dead. But because Christian apologetics can't come come up with a satisfactory answer---one consistent with the problematic nature of the issue and reason---it will continue to be the bug-bear of the religion as long as thinking people are confronted with it.

Did you not read where I said secular philosophy has pronounced the issue invalid. There is no contradiction, paradox, or inconsistency according to mainstream scholarship. In Christian circles it has never been much of an issue. Our view is that God does not choose morality from an external source nor make it up by declaration. He does not choose morality, he is the locus of morality. His dictates are simply reflections of his nature. No problem there. The only frustration is that laymen atheists seem to be unwilling to allow this perfectly justifiable and reasonable conclusions to exist.

Obviously you would never make up such a thing---the thoughts of god---so I have to ask you the source for this rather personal piece of information. So . . . . what is your source? And being specific will go a long way in helping your credibility.

Are you asking me if the purpose of the universe was for freewill and the choice of intelligent creatures to accept or deny him? It seems that you are but that is so obvious that I hesitate to believe it. Before I launch into any explanation please confirm what your asking for.

 

[Koldo]

This is a classic argument that has been pronounced dead by most of the philosophical community. I watched a debate last night between Craig and I think Rosenberg at Purdue. BTW that was one of the debates that a vote was taken afterwards. Not one in this case but 3 votes were taken. A panel of 8 professors of philosophy was the first vote, the audience of over 2000 was the second vote and the online international audience of over 10,000 was the third. Craig won all three votes by at least a 3 - 1 margin.

What was the vote about?

The reason this debate is relevant is that Rosenberg made the classic mistake of saying that Omnipotence, Omni benevolence, and the presence of evil are incompatible. Craig read off some of todays and histories most brilliant philosophers that have pronounced that age old canard to be completely devoid of merit. It no longer has much of any professional support. It only persists in the minds of laymen who hold on to it for dear life as one of the treasured foundations that allow for plausible deniability concerning God. Now leaving scholarship behind I will explain "again" why the argument is incoherent.

You have made me giggle. Trying to use a disguised argument from authority to support your position on philosophy is quite laughable.

God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny. Not to coerce our choice, nor to force it by arranging circumstances in which everyone would always choose the good, but to make available true and free choice and sufficient evidence by which to make the choice freely on, but not so much as to force the choice and intrude upon that freewill.

So, what you are going to do is to use the free will defense to explain why there is no contradiction. I am not aware of any liberterian consensus on free will, which is required to make the argument even attempt to work. Where did you get that from? What is your source?

I have a source ( http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf page 15 ) that says that on regards to free will, only a real minority ( about 14% ) among philosophers accept or lean towards libertarian free will.

Now given that purpose, no world could be created without the potential for evil. That is a logical absurdity like saying he could create a square circle. The last shriek of this dying argument is the level of evil this world contains is too much for any good God to permit. That is completely arbitrary and not what I would expect anyway given the bible. In a world where mankind has a history of rebelling against God and choosing the only other path which is ungodliness. It would contain holocausts and world wars. If I only read Genesis alone I would expect to have exactly the type of world we have.

Your argument is not a practical problem but an exercise in rhetoric to begin with and a faulty and almost completely discarded one in modern times. If carried out to it's logical conclusion it means that in any world where anyone ever stubbed his toe there can be no God.

It fails rhetorically and fails practically but remains entrenched in laymen arenas IMO because of preference, not logic.

Now I as well as Craig and modern philosophers in general have repeatedly laid this silly argument to rest over and over, in publication of papers, in forums, in books, in professional debates, and official scholarly consensus. It is dead, and lies in state and decay, but not in peace, because people keep trying to wake it up. Let it die in peace.

Have you had enough with your rhetoric by now?

 

[1robin]

What was the vote about?

Which side was more persuasive.

Very few of these debates have any judging to them but they are my favorites. I have seen hundreds of professional theistic debates and maybe a half dozen have been judged. The theist has won every single one I have viewed, by not by the margins Craig won the one I mentioned. Some were close.

You have made me giggle. Trying to use a disguised argument from authority to support your position on philosophy is quite laughable.

Which part made you Giggle.

1. The accepted and constantly practice of using informed opinions in law, scholarship, and every day life by virtually everyone and every institution on earth?
2. Or was it the false idea that I was trying to hide anything. I make arguments from authority because they are valid in every circle of academia. I do not hide them.

So, what you are going to do is to use the free will defense to explain why there is no contradiction. I am not aware of any liberterian consensus on free will, which is required to make the argument even attempt to work. Where did you get that from? What is your source?

You lost me. Are you denying freewill or the argument that follows? Do you hold to strict determinism or some kind of hybrid naturalism? What does the political term libertarian have to do with this?

I have a source ( http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf page 15 ) that says that on regards to free will, only a real minority ( about 14% ) among philosophers accept or lean towards libertarian free will.

Again I am a little confused. Are you saying you have a source that claims philosophers in general deny freewill, deny a certain type of freewill, or something else. The reason I ask is that I know freewill is granted by most philosophers throughout history and can be established to an almost certainty through some thought experiments so I am reluctant to believe that you claim otherwise. Please clarify.

Have you had enough with your rhetoric by now?

This statement has no coherent purpose or relevance. It appears to be a typing or grammatical mistake but even if corrected still irrelevant. I debate issues and try and steer clear of personal commentary unless it is relevant. This wasn't.

 

[Koldo]

Which side was more persuasive.

Very few of these debates have any judging to them but they are my favorites. I have seen hundreds of professional theistic debates and maybe a half dozen have been judged. The theist has won every single one I have viewed, by not by the margins Craig won the one I mentioned. Some were close.

Persuasiveness is quite a subjective parameter.
And being more persuasive doesn't mean you are correct though.
Consider for instance the street swindlers. They can convince you of something that is not true.

Which part made you Giggle.

1. The accepted and constantly practice of using informed opinions in law, scholarship, and every day life by virtually everyone and every institution on earth?
2. Or was it the false idea that I was trying to hide anything. I make arguments from authority because they are valid in every circle of academia. I do not hide them.

Certainly you are aware of the nuances on using the informed opinion of scholars, right? You can substantiate your argument with a consensus from experts, but you can't use their opinions on the matter as if they were a fact. That is a fallacy.

You lost me. Are you denying freewill or the argument that follows? Do you hold to strict determinism or some kind of hybrid naturalism? What does the political term libertarian have to do with this?

Haven't you heard the term 'libertarian' being used to refer to free will before? Or did you merely misunderstand the connotation I used on that sentence?

Again I am a little confused. Are you saying you have a source that claims philosophers in general deny freewill, deny a certain type of freewill, or something else. The reason I ask is that I know freewill is granted by most philosophers throughout history and can be established to an almost certainty through some thought experiments so I am reluctant to believe that you claim otherwise. Please clarify.

This subject has certain nuances, particularly when it comes to compatibilism. But to put it simple, libertarian free will is the kind of free will that you think of when you say 'free will'. Compatibilism is the view that determinism and free will are compatible. On the surface level, it means that since your will is yours, even if it was caused by something else, as long as you are free from coercion you have free will. It defines 'free will' in a different manner.

So, what my source says is that according to the data it has collected, the majority of philosophers don't believe in free will as you would define it.

However, I must make a relevant observation: This is about western philosophers.

This statement has no coherent purpose or relevance. It appears to be a typing or grammatical mistake but even if corrected still irrelevant. I debate issues and try and steer clear of personal commentary unless it is relevant. This wasn't.

That was one huge commentary.

 

[Skwim]

Did you not read where I said secular philosophy has pronounced the issue invalid.

Well, to be correct you said that it was "pronounced dead by most of the philosophical community," not invalid. That said, believe it or not just because you say something doesn't make it true or convincing.

There is no contradiction, paradox, or inconsistency according to mainstream scholarship. In Christian circles it has never been much of an issue.

In Christian circles, of course not. Their participants have a stake in retaining its coherency. However, outside Christian circles it remains an unresolved and glaring inconsistency in Christian theology, and wishing it away---declaring that it is no longer an issue---is a fool's solution.

Our view is that God does not choose morality from an external source nor make it up by declaration. He does not choose morality, he is the locus of morality. His dictates are simply reflections of his nature. No problem there.

And I have no problem with your view; believe whatever you wish, just don't try to sell it to others as some kind of truth on par with facts.

The only frustration is that laymen atheists seem to be unwilling to allow this perfectly justifiable and reasonable conclusions to exist.

Then lower your expectations if you want to reduce your frustration level, because atheists are simply not predisposed to accepting beliefs on the say-so of others. Evidently this simple fact has eluded you.

Are you asking me if the purpose of the universe was for freewill and the choice of intelligent creatures to accept or deny him?

Noooooooo. I'm asking you for the source , s  o  u  r  c  e, of your information. Please read my words more carefully. Thank you.

 

[1robin]

Persuasiveness is quite a subjective parameter.
And being more persuasive doesn't mean you are correct though.
Consider for instance the street swindlers. They can convince you of something that is not true.

Voting on anything is a subjective exercise. It simply means more people (by far more) thought the case for theism to be more persuasive than for atheism. It is not proof, nor was it purported to be anything but suggestive.

Certainly you are aware of the nuances on using the informed opinion of scholars, right? You can substantiate your argument with a consensus from experts, but you can't use their opinions on the matter as if they were a fact. That is a fallacy.

I agree with that 100% and do not remember violating the principle. What you responded to certainly did not even mention proof or certainty. History, theology, and much of life does not permit certainty. They are resolved by best fits, weight of evidence, philosophical consistency, intuition, and reason. I have the position of faith and readily admit it, so I doubt I made any proof by authority claims.

Haven't you heard the term 'libertarian' being used to refer to free will before? Or did you merely misunderstand the connotation I used on that sentence?

Yes, but in a political context not a philosophical one. If it is used in philosophy it must not by necessary because all the books I have read and debates I have seen did not use it. Let me pay you the compliment of being blunt (bet you cannot tell me what movie that line is from). Please simply define libertarian freewill as it would be used in a theological context.

This subject has certain nuances, particularly when it comes to compatibilism. But to put it simple, libertarian free will is the kind of free will that you think of when you say 'free will'. Compatibilism is the view that determinism and free will are compatible. On the surface level, it means that since your will is yours, even if it was caused by something else, as long as you are free from coercion you have free will. It defines 'free will' in a different manner.

I see you have defined it so disregard my request above.
I do not see that this issue requires either term. I define freewill as the bible illustrates it (and that is the most appropriate context) as the ultimate power of choice. I may be influenced, I may be tempted, I may be lied to, I may be ignorant but my decisions was always my choice. I could always have selected differently regardless of the consequences.

So, what my source says is that according to the data it has collected, the majority of philosophers don't believe in free will as you would define it.

I think either you over simplified or were mistaken about what I think concerning freewill. My views are closer to what you describe by compatabalism (which is apparently not actually a word) than Libertarianism. I think both determinism and freewill exist in reality but in two distinct arenas.

However, I must make a relevant observation: This is about western philosophers.

I think we might need to first make sure we agree what I talking about when I say God granted us freewill before we make arguments against or for it. Have I explained it sufficiently yet or not?

That was one huge commentary.

It was a commentary but not a personal one. It was about a statement not the motivation behind it (though on occasion I will add my opinion about the motivation). IOW lets just try and keep this short and personally neutral. I am low on time these days.

 

[1robin]

Well, to be correct you said that it was "pronounced dead by most of the philosophical community," not invalid. That said, believe it or not just because you say something doesn't make it true or convincing.

I guess common language use in the form of analogy is not allowable for some bizarre reason. I did not invent that. That is what Craig proved by quoting the most prominent philosophers in modern history including mostly atheistic philosophers.

In Christian circles, of course not. Their participants have a stake in retaining its coherency. However, outside Christian circles it remains an unresolved and glaring inconsistency in Christian theology, and wishing it away---declaring that it is no longer an issue---is a fool's solution.

It presents no problem in any circle. It falsely masquerades as a problem by those who desire the problem remain and are not among the majority professional philosophers but operate on the fringes of lay scholarship. I am sure there still exist steady state believers, flat earth believers, hollow earth believers, and Danikinites. That does not imply there ever was a good reason to believe any one of them. Especially when most of those with most of the knowledge have written them of as unsustainable. The fact of the matter is my theology leaves no room whatever for any contradiction in this context. As usual the only issue is if my theology is correct.

And I have no problem with your view; believe whatever you wish, just don't try to sell it to others as some kind of truth on par with facts.

What does that mean? What facts are on par with my theological beliefs? How do you know? What is the objective test you used to determine it? On what basis are you denying the freedom of speech to me that I defended for you in uniform during two wars?

Then lower your expectations if you want to reduce your frustration level, because atheists are simply not predisposed to accepting beliefs on the say-so of others. Evidently this simple fact has eluded you.

My expectations are at a minimum level already but no matter how low they drop claims from the opposite side slide under the bar.

Noooooooo. I'm asking you for the source , s  o  u  r  c  e, of your information. Please read my words more carefully. Thank you.

An emoticon can't make a point you could not articulate. I should use one in return but I consider them immature. What information is it you want sources for? I have made many points.

 

[Koldo]

Voting on anything is a subjective exercise. It simply means more people (by far more) thought the case for theism to be more persuasive than for atheism. It is not proof, nor was it purported to be anything but suggestive.

Alright.

I agree with that 100% and do not remember violating the principle. What you responded to certainly did not even mention proof or certainty. History, theology, and much of life does not permit certainty. They are resolved by best fits, weight of evidence, philosophical consistency, intuition, and reason. I have the position of faith and readily admit it, so I doubt I made any proof by authority claims.

Alright. No problem. I felt differently considering how much empashis you gave to philosophers, but since you have clarified your position I see no need to further talk about this point.

I see you have defined it so disregard my request above.
I do not see that this issue requires either term. I define freewill as the bible illustrates it (and that is the most appropriate context) as the ultimate power of choice. I may be influenced, I may be tempted, I may be lied to, I may be ignorant but my decisions was always my choice. I could always have selected differently regardless of the consequences.

I think either you over simplified or were mistaken about what I think concerning freewill. My views are closer to what you describe by compatabalism (which is apparently not actually a word) than Libertarianism. I think both determinism and freewill exist in reality but in two distinct arenas.

I think we might need to first make sure we agree what I talking about when I say God granted us freewill before we make arguments against or for it. Have I explained it sufficiently yet or not?

Actually, the word is compatibilism, not compatabalism.
You see, the ability to do otherwise under the same circumstances is characteristic of libertarian free will.

A compatibilist would say that it is possible to do otherwise if the will was different. But as Arthur Schopenhauer puts it : "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.".

If you believe that you are ultimate source of your choices, that they are not random nor caused by some past events ( even thought past events can influence them ), then you believe in the libertarian free will.

Free will to a compatibilist is the ability to do as one wills, not the ability to choose everything that one wills to do.

 

[Skwim]

I guess common language use in the form of analogy is not allowable for some bizarre reason. I did not invent that.

Use all the analogies you like. Just make sure they're apt.

It presents no problem in any circle.

Well in philosophical "circles" it sure is. Take a look at what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has to say. It starts out with:

"The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable for anyone to believe in the existence of God."
source
​

and goes into a very detailed discussion of the problem. Which in-of-itself denotes its importance.

It falsely masquerades as a problem by those who desire the problem remain and are not among the majority professional philosophers but operate on the fringes of lay scholarship.

And, of course you have evidence to back up this statement. Not that I expect you to present any. 'Tis far safer to ignore my request than confront it---ain't it.

The fact of the matter is my theology leaves no room whatever for any contradiction in this context. As usual the only issue is if my theology is correct.

Then I assume "your" theology is unlike that of Christianity, wherein good and evil are presented as conflicting characteristics of god.

 VS. 

​

Simply put: This "all good god" :162: created evil.:fork:

What does that mean? What facts are on par with my theological beliefs? How do you know? What is the objective test you used to determine it? On what basis are you denying the freedom of speech to me that I defended for you in uniform during two wars?

Arrrg! so many questions for such a simple request. I suggest you go back and reread the thread of conversation that led up to my remark.

My expectations are at a minimum level already but no matter how low they drop claims from the opposite side slide under the bar.

Yet you remain frustrated. My condolences.

An emoticon can't make a point you could not articulate. I should use one in return but I consider them immature. What information is it you want sources for? I have made many points.

The point I specifically asked a source for. It's in post 3363. To reiterate:

God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny.

Obviously you would never make up such a thing---the thoughts of god---so I have to ask you the source for this rather personal piece of information. So . . . . what is your source? And being specific will go a long way in helping your credibility.

 

[CG Didymus]

Simply put: This "all good god" :162: created evil.:fork:


Arrrg!

That's it. That's the problem. There is a cosmic battle going on between good and evil. The "good" creator of the universe on one side, and the evil being, that God created, on the other. And they are fighting for the souls of men that the good creator God created perfect, but that choose to disobey him, and since he can't interfere with their freewill choice, he does the right thing, the just thing, and gives them one lifetime, unless interrupted by catastrophe or disease that he, God, created, to choose between believing in his Son Jesus or the way of the world, which is really the way of the devil. If they choose wrong, they will go to an eternal lake of fire with the devil and his evil angels that the good God created but that, even though they were angels, they fell away. All I can say is Arrrg!

 

[JM2C]

Incorrect. Religions started to emerge during the Paleolithic era around 30,000 years ago, indicated by the figurines found from that era that represent the different gods and goddesses that they worshiped (particularly female goddesses) along with evidence of human sacrifices. They also buried their dead with their possessions, which implies that they could have possibly held a belief in an afterlife of sorts.

These are nothing but theories you read in wikipedia. You think you can debate from wikipedia? You should read about carbon 14 dating if they are reliable to give accurate dates at all.

 

[JM2C]

Everything in the Bible is also hearsay as well... unless you were alive 6,000 or so years ago to witness it all... which I'm assuming you're not.

“unless you were alive 6,000 or so years ago to witness it all”

Really?

So, you only believe what you see in front of you.

 

[JM2C]

Also hearsay... you weren't there.

Another classic argument.

Yeah, you have to be there to believe it.

 

[JM2C]

Jews: The Torah
Muslims: The Quran
Hindus: The Bhagavad Gita
Mormons: The Book of Mormon
Zoroastrians: The Avesta
Egyptian Polytheism: The Book of the Dead.

Jews: The Torah was pointing to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ

Muslims: The Quran is Post-Christianity

Hindus: The Bhagavad Gita is Post-Torah and Christianity

Mormons: The Book of Mormon is Post-Christianity

Zoroastrians: The Avesta is Post-Torah and Christianity

Egyptian Polytheism: The Book of the Dead is Post-Torah. Remember Egypt is or was Mizraim.

All these religions were invented by the human minds after the Torah. The Torah was pointing to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the reason why the Lord Jesus Christ said this,

Jn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Before all religions existed the Lord Jesus Christ was there already, even before the Torah.

See, or rather read and understand the Midrash interpretation of the O.T.

 

[JM2C]

There's no evidence whatsoever of hardly anything that happened in the bible.

There is no evidence of a mass exodus of the Jews, or a talking snake, or a global flood, or frogs falling from the sky, or water turning to blood, or that flaming bushes can speak, or that the Ten Commandments came from God's finger reaching out from outer space.

None...zero... zip.

Evidence compare to what?

“To the Paleolithic era around 30,000 years ago?”

“To the figurines found from that era that represent the different gods and goddesses that they worshiped (particularly female goddesses) along with evidence of human sacrifices?”

“To the buried dead with their possessions?”

You know these evidences were not conclusive especially the human bones base on c-14 dating, right?

Now, if they claimed that these figurines and ceramics were from 30,000 BP and the human bones together with these artifacts were from a later or a much later dates than these artifacts -30,000BP, then one should follow the human bones dating instead, and that is, right after the flood.

Read and understand Genesis before and after the flood and Abraham.

 

[JM2C]

Except that I wasn't thinking that. Let's not go around "bearing false witnesses" now.

You meant lying?

Lied about what?