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

[Ivan-Michael]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

The suffering is not done by God.
It is the Lord you are upset with,
A simple mistaken identity.

 

[sunni56]

LOL Okay, so you virtually ignored what I initially asked you, which is what drew me into the thread in the first place, then decided to turn the tables on me instead and place the burden of proof in my corner? Nice try. You must really think you're something!

So you can't live up to your own standards? Don't throw stones in a glass house...

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you can't live up to your own standards? Don't throw stones in a glass house...

So you can't answer a simple question about your beliefs and instead have to thrust the burden of proof onto someone else. That speaks volumes about you, not me.

Buh-bye. :sleep:

 

[sunni56]

So you can't answer a simple question about your beliefs and instead have to thrust the burden of proof onto someone else. That speaks volumes about you, not me.

Buh-bye. :sleep:

It's interesting that you still can't live up to your own standards but rather choosing to keep deflecting.

 

[cottage]

Yes, can you answer it? It is a question not a proof statement. I did not say and therefor the Gospels are true. I could have said therefore the Gospels claims are not nonsense. I am getting very weary of arguing about argumentation. This discussion is circling the drain of irrelevance.

The “irrelevance” is the question you asked:
“who is qualified to disagree with Greenleaf and Lord Lyndurst?” To which you added: “Credentials do not get any higher.” You grandly presumed to dismiss any criticisms on the basis that there are none sufficiently qualified to question his arguments.
But:
1) You cannot possibly know that there are none who can challenge his argument.
2) No individual’s qualifications alone can ever guarantee the correctness of his or her findings.
3) Greenleaf makes unsupported assertions outside his brief, e.g. statements that are nothing to do with the rules of evidence (example further down the page).
In sum, you have made another fallacious plea - to be added to the numerous others.

I can. Greenleaf said X so X is a fact. An actuall appeal to authority that is also actually invalid, and that took all of 4 seconds.

In that case I concede the point to you, for that is actually what he did say. In his own words his case was built on a “trial of fact”. And he even goes beyond matters of fact, which can never be more than probable, to plea for extraordinary exceptions or even to make absolute assertions such as this: “the death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection are true and incapable of refutation”

Why should I value your conclusions above his?

Instead of making that deferential plea, the proper question to ask is: What arguments to you have in response to Simon Greenleaf’s paper?

How many law schools did you co-found or how many textbooks on evidence and testimony did you write?

Another blatant appeal to authority! I have to say I’ve never, ever come across anyone who has such a deferential and over-respectful opinion of authority, but that is not of course unknown in religions.

If you were in a jury and the question was could a .45 go through a wall and kill someone and two ballistics experts and three forensic coroners all answer with yes alone would you jump up and yell appeal to authority?

Can you really not see the difference? A .45 cal. round either will or will not pass through a wall of a certain thickness and material at a specific range. It is a matter that is subject to fact, to which the expert witness is able to refer, and for which there will be repeatable studies that confirm, or cast doubt upon, the probability. So it isn’t an appeal to authority but an appeal to fact. But you cannot expect to argue beyond what is factual by making a plea to authority; philosophical arguments of that ilk can only be tested by other arguments. And further more I am on a forum having a discussion with you, not with such-and-such, therefore I expect you to argue the point you are making.

Intellectual permissibility which has no objective criteria. It is a relative value. I will define it since I use it, to mean that sufficient evidence or reasonable arguments exist to convince greater than 25% of a random rational audience composed of 1 million plus sample size. If you agree to my standards then this petty semantically circus can finally end if not then offer a counter value.

That’s absolutely fine by me. So this 25% of a random, rational group numbering over one million is arguing …what?

By what formula is this objectively determined? Given your statement then on what basis do you declare anything posited by the Bible nonsense?

The answer is whether it is true in the case of the former, and whether there are contradictions in the case of the latter.
And I have the impression that you are using the term ‘nonsense’ in a fashion that is entirely removed from the sense in which I use it, that is to say where statements or arguments are shown to be contradictory or self-refuting. The problem of evil being one notable example, the triad of benevolence, omnipotence and evil are logically inconsistent.

I do not assume faith is intellectually sufficiently justified I proclaim it using the authority of people who are more than almost all others qualified to determine. This exact same procedure is used in every field of study on earth yet for some magical reason is out of bounds concerning God. I have had it with this over-technical, inconsistent, double standard, hyperbolic semantics. You are obscuring simple procedures and competent argumentation used in courtrooms in ever nation every day and class rooms in every college in every nation. What is the goal of this hyper-obscuration? In fact I am currently burned out. The wall won't give and my head hurts. You would make one heck of an ambulance chaser.

I’m sorry your head hurts, and I really don’t mean to cause you stress. But it has to be said that throughout this discussion you aren’t seeing the difference between opinion, fact, and metaphysical explanations, and instead you make pleas from authority to support your faith, which as you are already aware is a fallacious form of argumentation. By merely making a plea to others it tells me you have no argument of your own or that you have an uncritical and partisan approval of those that support your belief as faith, simply on the basis that they have academic status. And yet it seems lost on you that those authority figures, whatever their respective disciplines, will also disagree with one another on fundamental points. On the matter of essence is Anselm correct or does St Thomas Aquinas have the superior argument, and is Aquinas right to say there is no free will? Is Kant wrong to say a moral imperative is the only sound argument to God? And which of the theist philosophers is right in their explanation for evil (they cannot all be true but they can all be false)?

 

[cottage]

Nope. I must have seen hundreds of hours of debate from philosophers alone concerning God and never have I heard even a version of this argument used before. Sounds intelligent but contrived but until it makes sense I can't say. Let's say God exists. What is contradictory about his existence? Why is his existence more problematic then an aliens for instance? I am relieved many times to claim an argument is beyond my scope and refer a person to someone else but that requires I first can get some idea of what and why they are claiming what they are, and so far this one eludes me.

I’ve explained this many times and in so many different ways. But no matter, we’ll persevere and try a different tack. Aliens, like humans and worldly objects, might exist or not exist. But God must necessarily exist for otherwise he is not the Supreme Being. The concept of God, then, is that he is a being for which there is no possibility of his non-existence. Now if God’s existence is true then his existence is both logically and factually certain, but nothing factual can be demonstrated a priori, and to describe the deity as necessarily existent is not to say that anything at all necessarily corresponds with that concept, for anything we can distinctly conceive as existent we can conceive to be non-existent; there is, therefore, no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction. But now skip back to the second clause in my third sentence. You are asking me to accept that we can infer the existence of this non-being from a worldly object that need not exist.

What?

You said “What?” in response to the passage where I wrote: “It is also blindingly obvious that beings that didn’t previously exist cannot derive a benefit or gain from God’s love and goodness.” So are you saying non-existent thing can be improved or benefit in some way from being brought into existence? <chuckles

Ok, now you’re dealing with an issue that I not only am familiar with but makes sense to me. The problem of evil is easily shown false by actual existing facts.

Actually the Problem of Evil exists because of the facts:
Now if we were to hypothesise that there is a creator God then of course it/he must have the power to bring worlds into being, and it follows that as we continue to exist it can also be said that such a Being conserves and sustains the world. Given the hypothesis, neither of those premises is self-contradictory. We can even say the Being is omnipotent; and while this assertion cannot be inferred from the fact of our existence, as the Being need only be sufficiently powerful to create our existence, there is no contradiction in our supposing it. But what happens when we say ‘God is love’, or ‘God is perfectly good and moral’? Here we have contradicted ourselves; for we know that evil is factually evident?
If everything that God created was good, then nothing created by God was evil.

So if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil!

Therefore, as some existent things are evil then not every existent thing created by God was good.

And thus it is demonstrated that God the Creator is not a wholly good and moral being.

T

his is getting a little tiresome. For the third and final time. Your statement was this If an idea is nonsense then faith in it is necessarily nonsense as well and you and I both know that is what your statement says. If you wish to back out of that now by any means necessary then do not mention it again and neither will I.

Faith is not nonsense per se, since people find comfort in it. However, particular statements are nonsense, where they run to an evident contradiction or absurdity, such as those I have identified. Take note I am not anti-faith and I am on record as never ridiculing people for their beliefs. You are perfectly entitled to believe in a thing that is otherwise logically nonsensical. But if you are unable to distinguish between the conclusions that are derived from premises and virulent emotional or ad hominem attacks then it is clear that you see yourself as a victim and you shouldn’t engage in debates of this kind. You must learn to differentiate between attacks on posts, for which I make no apology, and attacks upon the person, which I deplore.

Now that was incoherent. All x's are Ok as long as they are certain Xs and you are the judge of that. You have skipped actual authority and simply appointed yourself as such. There is not enough Latin available to illustrate how incorrect that is.

I sorry but I can’t make sense of any of that. I’m saying all that is required of any argument is that it is coherent and free from fallacies. That in essence is the fundamental criteria. Subsequently the argument will stand or fall on whether it is true, false, believable, or compelling. And if an argument is at fault or in error then that will be the case, the credentials of authority figures notwithstanding. In academia students are actively encouraged to be critical and challenge their tutors. I’ve no experience of this unquestioning deference and over respectful attitude that assumes there are authorities on subjects who are untouchable.

That is false. Let's say that Newton, Einstein, Sandage, and Hubble said the Big Bang was true.

1. If the question is "Is the Big Bang a true fact" then yes you need the arguments and probably a lot more.

2. If the question is "Is the posting of the Big Bang nonsense you do not need their arguments given their impeccable credentials.

Non sequitur! The BBE isn’t nonsense even it is subsequently disproved or modified beyond the existing thesis. And more to the point no theory is nonsense unless it is contradictory or logically absurd in some way. Secondly if it were the case that theories were able to stand merely on the back of their author’s credentials, putting them beyond challenge, then that wouldn’t be consistent with the scientific method. (I feel I shouldn’t need to have to explain this stuff to you).

I

n fact an expert witness in a life and death case is not even usually asked anything beyond his opinion. Again why is what is valid for life and death issues not valid for God? And why do people try and think simple things into intellectual oblivion.

So which expert witness are we to call to give factual evidence for the existence of a supernatural being?

 

[jeager106]

This is a ridiculous dicussion. The facts are simply that Sata was cast out of heaven and in Scripture is sya:'woe to the in habinants of earth for (satan, deveil, the evil one, the deceiver, take your choice) walks among you.
People and babies, die because they get sick, hit by a car, get caught in a war zone, and a miriad of other nasty things that befall us. It's a matter of time and an unfortunate incident.
God ain't got crap to do with it.
Read you Bible with an open mind and you will see that.
The only one in control of the earth and it's inhabitants is Satan. I'm terrible at remembering and quoting verses so you'll have to do your own homework.
Time and an unforseen occurance. Could happen to the most righteous person that walks.

 

[Yahyaa Waahid]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad are His Messengers.

As-Salaam Alaikum/Shalom Aleichem/Peace be unto you.

First, may I just say that my religion is Sabianism...my above greeting to you might sound like I am Muslim, but I am not.

Now to your subject, why does Allah (God) allow evil? The Holy Qur'an says in Surah (Chapter) 2, verse 30 that Allah (God) would place an evil ("mischief-making, bloodshedding") ruler in the earth for reasons that His angels did not know but He knew. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, who is represented to the world today by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, teaches us that that evil ruler in Surah 2:30 called "Adam" is the White or Adamic race. They have ruled the earth for the last 6,000 years with a rule of MISCHIEF-MAKING & BLOODSHEDDING...

The Bible says in Romans 5 that Adam (the White race (Gen. 5:2)) caused "death" (suffering, loss, and evil) to pass upon all men because the White race reigned with a reign of transgression against Allah (God.) Romans 5:12, 17, 19:

"(12)Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...(17) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)...(19)For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

They (the White race) were given this time to perform evil I believe to purify the non-White people of the earth from impurities within us, similar to the way that fire (which is what the home of transgressors against Allah (God) is likened to) purifies metal. If the non-White people were made transgressors against Allah (God) then they would suffer a fire (hell) that would purify them of the evil within.

The Christ is the only way out of this death that Whites have made pass upon all men, but we must believe in the True Christ and not the made up "Christ" that the Europeans went all over the earth subjugating non-White peoples in the name of...The True Christ is in the world today, believe it or not, and his name is Elijah Muhammad. Minister Louis Farrakhan is the National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and whether you believe right now that Elijah Muhammad is the Christ or not, I would think that it would certainly be worth at least giving an ear to Louis Farrakhan if he claims to represent the Messiah. I can't post any links right now but I could tell you more about the Honorable Elijah Muhammad by email if you like.

Peace & Blessings.
Yahyaa Waahid

 

[1robin]

The “irrelevance” is the question you asked:

“who is qualified to disagree with Greenleaf and Lord Lyndurst?” To which you added: “Credentials do not get any higher.” You grandly presumed to dismiss any criticisms on the basis that there are none sufficiently qualified to question his arguments.
But:
1) You cannot possibly know that there are none who can challenge his argument.
2) No individual’s qualifications alone can ever guarantee the correctness of his or her findings.
3) Greenleaf makes unsupported assertions outside his brief, e.g. statements that are nothing to do with the rules of evidence (example further down the page).
In sum, you have made another fallacious plea - to be added to the numerous others.

I was being rhetorical but my statement is indicative of the quality of scholarship these two men had attained. You are arguing with technical details in a rhetorical statement meant to give an impression not an official assessment. However a question can't be wrong and their credentials are not excelled. The point being in a choice between a guy in a forum and two of the most distinguished experts on testimony and evidence in human history I am sure you know who any logic person must go with. It is like saying Newton and Einstein believe Boolean differential Calculus can solve state theory in processors and someone on a post says "no way man" and does not indicate in any way why they know what they claim. I find the assertion that the man who wrote the textbook on the rules of evidence is wholesale ignoring them. With the information I currently have absolutely no reason to think you are right and they are wrong. When you found the most prestigious law school on Earth or occupy every high court office in the greatest empire in human history then your opinions might carry weight. BTW I can keep adding the conclusions of these top scholars in all the relevant fields but if these two giants are hand waived away what difference would it make? Facts are powerless against preference.

In that case I concede the point to you, for that is actually what he did say. In his own words his case was built on a “trial of fact”. And he even goes beyond matters of fact, which can never be more than probable, to plea for extraordinary exceptions or even to make absolute assertions such as this: “the death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection are true and incapable of refutation”

Why is it that when I mention these two guys atheists make weak attempts to undermine Greenleaf without sufficient merit and never touch Lyndhurst? You are making a very common mistake. You are confusing what Greenleaf wrote as a preamble and a context under which he stresses the importance of the issue. He says that he believes certain things and is therefore not going to contend them; they are no part of any proof. It is context only. He even gives two (among several) examples of very old documents being submitted as evidence that are not half as reliable. This armchair quarter backing will never change the fact the Gospels meet requirements like:

1. Principle of embarrassment.
2. Sufficient evidence of sincerity.
3. Early and prolific transmission.
4. Independent uncontrolled transmission.
5. Consistent historical markers.
6. Documents found in appropriate places.
7. Historical corroboration. 25,000 of them for the whole Bible.
8. No textual terminators (Uthman).
9. Accurate Chronology.
10. Extra biblical textual corroboration.
11. The majority of NT scholars on both sides agree the core issue in the Gospels are reliable.

I could provide some of the world’s best historians, medical examiners, philosophers, and textual scholars that all conclude the Gospels are reliable. If your preference has predetermined that you will dismiss them all then what is the purpose of discussing the issue to begin with?

Instead of making that deferential plea, the proper question to ask is: What arguments to you have in response to Simon Greenleaf’s paper?

No, anyone can dream up something stupid and call it an argument and declare it cancels out the conclusions of a master Barrister. I am not interested in getting that in response to a query and so did not type what you suggest. I wanted to know on what basis a novice can expect anyone else to believe they are right and the co-founder of Harvard wrong. You are basically saying you know more than the man who wrote the book on testimony and evidence.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Another blatant appeal to authority! I have to say I&#8217;ve never, ever come across anyone who has such a deferential and over-respectful opinion of authority, but that is not of course unknown in religions.

In every courtroom every day expert witnesses are used to decide matters of life and death. On what ground are they invalid in a theological discussion? The absurd claims that the very same methods used to establish truth in all areas of academics suddenly do not apply to theology is ridiculous. Atheists over use fallacies like a crutch or a punt. The conclusions of experts matter, the conclusions of the very preeminent among scholars matters even more, claims they don't do not matter. That is why degreed pilots fly, engineers build towers, economists advise presidents and we only ruminate in forums.

Can you really not see the difference? A .45 cal. round either will or will not pass through a wall of a certain thickness and material at a specific range. It is a matter that is subject to fact, to which the expert witness is able to refer, and for which there will be repeatable studies that confirm, or cast doubt upon, the probability. So it isn&#8217;t an appeal to authority but an appeal to fact. But you cannot expect to argue beyond what is factual by making a plea to authority; philosophical arguments of that ilk can only be tested by other arguments. And further more I am on a forum having a discussion with you, not with such-and-such, therefore I expect you to argue the point you are making.

That is identical to the methods used to establish reliability in historical documents. I did not say Greenleaf verified that God exists, that Christ was the messiah, or that his death forgives sin. I said he compared the Gospels to the same tests used in law for documentation reliability and they passed every test. You may argue that that does not prove God exists but you may not expect anyone to believe you know more about testimony and evidence than the scholars I mentioned. You may also not unpass the tests they passed. I was not saying the conclusion from the Gospels are true because of what Greenleaf says. I said they pass the reliability tests used in modern law.

That&#8217;s absolutely fine by me. So this 25% of a random, rational group numbering over one million is arguing &#8230;what?

What they claim is unique in comparison to any other religion. They claim to have experienced God. They also claim to have examined the evidence and found sufficient merit in it to wager their eternal soul on its accuracy. Please do not make the argument that the other 75% did not. A large portion of the other 75% did not study the material in any meaningful way or do believe in a God of some kind which uses much of the same evidence in its conclusion. My burden is only to show that Biblical faith is reasonable.

The answer is whether it is true in the case of the former

How have you done this?

and whether there are contradictions in the case of the latter.

Even if some contradiction existed (I do not claim there is) that would not mean the entire scope of Biblical truth was wrong. It would at best mean one of the contradictions was incorrect. More likely it means you missed something.

And I have the impression that you are using the term &#8216;nonsense&#8217; in a fashion that is entirely removed from the sense in which I use it, that is to say where statements or arguments are shown to be contradictory or self-refuting. The problem of evil being one notable example, the triad of benevolence, omnipotence and evil are logically inconsistent.

The problems of evil indicates no contradiction and is one of the easiest defended contentions in existence. If you wish I will elaborate.

I&#8217;m sorry your head hurts, and I really don&#8217;t mean to cause you stress. But it has to be said that throughout this discussion you aren&#8217;t seeing the difference between opinion, fact, and metaphysical explanations, and instead you make pleas from authority to support your faith, which as you are already aware is a fallacious form of argumentation. By merely making a plea to others it tells me you have no argument of your own or that you have an uncritical and partisan approval of those that support your belief as faith, simply on the basis that they have academic status. And yet it seems lost on you that those authority figures, whatever their respective disciplines, will also disagree with one another on fundamental points. On the matter of essence is Anselm correct or does St Thomas Aquinas have the superior argument, and is Aquinas right to say there is no free will? Is Kant wrong to say a moral imperative is the only sound argument to God? And which of the theist philosophers is right in their explanation for evil (they cannot all be true but they can all be false)?

1. The conclusions of competent men is of great value in any subject discussed. Theology is no different.
2. I almost always begin by making sound arguments, when that is denied based on preference I usual go to history, when that is denied based on preference I go to philosophy, what that is denied based on preference I go to authority. All are valid and all are dismissed without cause and once done virtually no method to establish truth is left.
3. There is no actual (philosophical) problem with evil and as I said I will explain if necessary. There is an emotional problem which is not an actual problem based in logic and whish has no answer but there is actual contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God and it easily shown.
You are confusing the context of the objection to free-will with Aquinas's answer to it. Here was his answer:

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel"; and the gloss adds: "That is of his free-will." I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm#article1

I suggest you pick your best argument; the problem of evil, textual reliability, supposed contradictions, or a philisophic concept and we resolve it. You are arguing more with argumentaional procedure that anything that affects the Bible.

 

[1robin]

Aliens, like humans and worldly objects, might exist or not exist. But God must necessarily exist for otherwise he is not the Supreme Being. The concept of God, then, is that he is a being for which there is no possibility of his non-existence. Now if God&#8217;s existence is true then his existence is both logically and factually certain, but nothing factual can be demonstrated a priori, and to describe the deity as necessarily existent is not to say that anything at all necessarily corresponds with that concept, for anything we can distinctly conceive as existent we can conceive to be non-existent; there is, therefore, no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction. But now skip back to the second clause in my third sentence. You are asking me to accept that we can infer the existence of this non-being from a worldly object that need not exist.

Modal being is not my strong suite but I think you are making an error here. A necessary being is not one that must exist. A necessary being is one that if it does exist is not contingent. To say that God is a necessary being is not to say he must exist, but that his existence is not contingent. Academics in many areas has gotten to the point it is meaningless and capricious. As you have said brilliant men say we have no free will and others say we do. One of these two groups is composed of scholars who are brilliant and completely wrong and everything they use in their claims is wrong (even if it sounds intelligent). I think (but do not know) what follows in your contradiction analysis is white noise and incorrect. These days we literally think ourselves into imbecility.

&#8220;It is also blindingly obvious that beings that didn&#8217;t previously exist cannot derive a benefit or gain from God&#8217;s love and goodness.&#8221; So are you saying non-existent thing can be improved or benefit in some way from being brought into existence?

Yes, if subjective values are taken as fact. I would rather live in a heaven in complete contentment than to not exist. Of course I would rather not exist than live apart from God and in fact that is what I believe hell to be. I do not follow your logic. If you get out of the rarified and many times meaningless rhetorical world of the philosopher and simply ask a person that is on their way to heaven whether they agree that they have no benefited by their existence I think that answer obvious. In fact almost all will fight with everything they have to maintain what you claim is of no worth. Thinking that says reality is not real is a waste of time and actual evil even if it comes dressed in big words.

Actually the Problem of Evil exists because of the facts:

No, it exists because of emotions. There is no philosophical contradiction but here is a resentment when a child dies.

Now if we were to hypothesize that there is a creator God then of course it/he must have the power to bring worlds into being, and it follows that as we continue to exist it can also be said that such a Being conserves and sustains the world.

Here we go. Finite minds either incapable of constructing an accurate view of God or one consistent with the Bible make for bad argumentation. God comes with context. That context includes facts that do not agree with yours.
1. God can only create worlds consistent with his purpose. He would not create a world with human automatons for example.
2. He sustained the Earth perfectly until man sinned and were separated from him. Creation broke. He does still intervene and indirectly sustain the universe but natural law in all its precociousness is the primary force in operation.
You can't repackage God into some form that allows you to use your philosophical white noise on. He either does not exist or comes within the context he gave.

Given the hypothesis, of omnipotent; as the Being need only be sufficiently powerful to create our existence, there is no contradiction in our supposing it.

Omnipotence is not a quality upon which anything rides. He is demonstrably unimaginably powerful and that is about all that is necessary to know. I have no need to argue for omnipotence unless discussing potential beyond necessity.

But what happens when we say &#8216;God is love&#8217;, or &#8216;God is perfectly good and moral&#8217;? Here we have contradicted ourselves; for we know that evil is factually evident?

No, first we do not determine what God means by claiming he is love. We must define him as love as he indicated it to be. Love does not mean creating happiness or goodness necessarily. We act in love by putting creatures out of misery quickly and doctors stab us with needles to help us. Within any context limited by purpose many good things come with negative consequence. Free will is good but it produces evil. Love is good but it's loss is devastating. You are assuming an optimality that one you invented, two excludes purpose, and three God does not have. Within the context of revelation evil serves a purpose in a broken world. It is evidence of what our rebellion results in and an incentive to find a solution. This is a demonstrable fact that in tragedy faith is increased. The no &#8220;atheists in foxholes&#8221; is a good example. There is also an infinitely greater good that anything that can be realized on earth that is the prime directive. God's goal is for us to come to a knowledge (learn) of him, the same way we allow a child to suffer his own mistakes so he comes to the knowledge of right and wrong. This means we love not hate the child. This entire thing is an argument from a false optimality.

If everything that God created was good, then nothing created by God was evil.

He created freewill, freewill caused rebellion, rebellion caused God to withdraw, withdrawal caused misery, misery has a purpose, rebellion ceases with consequence (or should), God's purpose is achieved, perfect goodness for eternity results.

So if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil!

Most existent things are neutral. Bad things are mostly neutral things perverted in their use by rebellion.

Therefore, as some existent things are evil then not every existent thing created by God was good.

They are if they have a good purpose. By the way how do you know what is evil or good. The terms themselves mean absolutely nothing objective without God to begin with.

And thus it is demonstrated that God the Creator is not a wholly good and moral being.

Thus a philosophic contention is misapplied, context and purpose excluded to attain desired results.

Faith is not nonsense per se, since people find comfort in it. However, particular statements are nonsense, where they run to an evident contradiction or absurdity, such as those I have identified.

Nonsense means nonsensical. Devoid of sense or reason. It was your argument above that meets that criteria not faith. That is why so many of the most logical, rigorous, intelligent, curious, and rational people in history have dismissed the terrible logic in that argument and came to faith. The evidence being so strong that they have even done so under threat of death, something many atheists cannot claim.

I reject your argument on the grounds of a false optimality and the exclusion of context and purpose. I can construct the counter argument for consistency while including them if desired.

So which expert witness are we to call to give factual evidence for the existence of a supernatural being?

I never used an expert in an attempt of this type. I used them where they belong. I used them to show the gospels meet every test of reliability we commonly use in law. I knew this is what you would turn what I have claimed into.

 

[cottage]

Modal being is not my strong suite but I think you are making an error here. A necessary being is not one that must exist. A necessary being is one that if it does exist is not contingent. To say that God is a necessary being is not to say he must exist, but that his existence is not contingent.

The term ‘necessity’ applies as necessary and contingent statements, necessary and sufficient conditions or necessary and contingent existence. It may be epistemic, logical, metaphysical or nomic. But the argument is that while contingent existence, the world in this case, might or might not exist, God is the Supreme Being who exists necessarily – for if his existence were only possible then he would be a contingent being and therefore not God. Even the most vociferous atheist understands the simple logic in that proposition.

Academics in many areas has gotten to the point it is meaningless and capricious. As you have said brilliant men say we have no free will and others say we do. One of these two groups is composed of scholars who are brilliant and completely wrong and everything they use in their claims is wrong (even if it sounds intelligent). I think (but do not know) what follows in your contradiction analysis is white noise and incorrect. These days we literally think ourselves into imbecility.

There’s a misunderstanding here, and it has nothing whatever to do with the brilliance of scholars. The problem of free will v determinism is not one that can be settled by logic or syllogisms. The determinists claim, for example, that there is overwhelming evidence for their case, but neither concept is self-evident or true, ie where it cannot logically be false. And the same applies to every other metaphysical theory, quite regardless of who propounds it. Only logic-based analytical propositions or tautologies can be demonstrably true, such as: ‘If God the Creator is morally good and benevolent then he cannot cause or allow the existence of evil.’

Yes, if subjective values are taken as fact. I would rather live in a heaven in complete contentment than to not exist. Of course I would rather not exist than live apart from God and in fact that is what I believe hell to be. I do not follow your logic. If you get out of the rarified and many times meaningless rhetorical world of the philosopher and simply ask a person that is on their way to heaven whether they agree that they have no benefited by their existence I think that answer obvious. In fact almost all will fight with everything they have to maintain what you claim is of no worth. Thinking that says reality is not real is a waste of time and actual evil even if it comes dressed in big words.

Now you’re arguing backwards: ‘I would rather live in a heaven in complete contentment than to not exist.’ As you acknowledge, one can only derive a benefit if one already has existence. But if you didn’t previously exist then your non-existent self clearly cannot gain from being brought into existence. So, my original argument from sufficient reason, and the question it posed, still stands: Why were we brought into being by a Supreme Being who is, and already has, everything by definition?

No, it exists because of emotions. There is no philosophical contradiction but here is a resentment when a child dies.

Several years ago in the UK a baby was slowly scalded to death by a dripping central heating pipe as it lay in its cot in an upstairs room. The parents, downstairs watching TV were completely unaware. The infant suffered unimaginable pain – it is almost too distressing to discuss. The parents were hysterical and now must live with the way their child suffered and died for the rest of their lives. Emotional suffering, a fact of life, is arguably the greatest evil of all. But forget the parents and their grief for a moment to ask: Where was the benevolent God in that child’s time of need? Are you really saying to me with a straight face that the child, who died in agony, was resentful of God’s non-appearance?

Here we go. Finite minds either incapable of constructing an accurate view of God or one consistent with the Bible make for bad argumentation. God comes with context. That context includes facts that do not agree with yours.

1. God can only create worlds consistent with his purpose. He would not create a world with human automatons for example.
2. He sustained the Earth perfectly until man sinned and were separated from him. Creation broke. He does still intervene and indirectly sustain the universe but natural law in all its precociousness is the primary force in operation.
. God's goal is for us to come to a knowledge (learn) of him, the same way we allow a child to suffer his own mistakes so he comes to the knowledge of right and wrong. This means we love not hate the child.

Now it cannot be the case that God must create a world with suffering, for that runs to a contradiction. And as we can conceive of the world not existing, since there is nothing contradictory in the notion, we can confidently make the assertion that the world need not exist. And this conception is supported by theists themselves, who argue that the world is contingent upon God, ie one whose existence is necessary, the cause of all things, which cannot exist of themselves. So it must follow that if our world need not exist, then the same applies to the suffering that is contained in our world. Now, we might want to argue that this particular world, as it is, cannot exist without suffering. But that would just be question begging, and making a special plea for this world and the suffering it contains. If ‘God exists’ is true then suffering exists because it is his will, and not because of any logical necessity. Therefore the argument finds that there is no compassionate God; either that or he it is impotent in this respect.
In the matter of God creating a world without suffering there are several points to be made, logical and practical. The first is that the world has no necessary existence, it simply doesn’t have to exist, and if it doesn’t have to exist at all then it follows that it doesn’t have to exist as it is. So if God was under no logical compunction to create the world (or us) it certainly can’t be said that he had to create a world containing evil, for there is no logical absurdity in conceiving a world without evil. We can conceive of a world devoid of evil, where the inhabitants co-exist in a harmonious way. And doesn’t that fit the notion of heaven, as believed or envisioned by many theists?
The typical response is generally this: ‘There would be no point in God creating a world of automatons’, who always did exactly as programmed, and so he created a world of free agents with the power to make choices’. There are two major things wrong with that. firstly it assumes that evil must be available as a possible choice - an exquisite example of begging the question, since evil exists only because it is God’s will, but if he didn’t will it then it wouldn’t exist! And secondly it restates and confirms the problem of evil by demonstrating the deity's lack of compassion and benevolence, for it is telling us that the deity considers free will to be of greater moral worth than the alleviation of pain and suffering.

God is either all good, or he is not all good (law of excluded middle).
1) God and evil
2) God and no evil.
Since #1 is true (assume God exists), #2 must be false.

 

[cottage]

I was being rhetorical but my statement is indicative of the quality of scholarship these two men had attained. You are arguing with technical details in a rhetorical statement meant to give an impression not an official assessment. However a question can't be wrong and their credentials are not excelled. The point being in a choice between a guy in a forum and two of the most distinguished experts on testimony and evidence in human history I am sure you know who any logic person must go with. It is like saying Newton and Einstein believe Boolean differential Calculus can solve state theory in processors and someone on a post says "no way man" and does not indicate in any way why they know what they claim. I find the assertion that the man who wrote the textbook on the rules of evidence is wholesale ignoring them. With the information I currently have absolutely no reason to think you are right and they are wrong. When you found the most prestigious law school on Earth or occupy every high court office in the greatest empire in human history then your opinions might carry weight. BTW I can keep adding the conclusions of these top scholars in all the relevant fields but if these two giants are hand waived away what difference would it make? Facts are powerless against preference.

This is what you said:
“who is qualified to disagree with Greenleaf and Lord Lyndurst?” To which you added: “Credentials do not get any higher.”
I explained in my reply to that sweeping statement that it cannot possibly be known that there are none who can challenge his argument, and that no individual’s qualifications alone can ever guarantee the correctness of his or her findings. I believe it is fair to say no reasonable person disagrees with those two points.
In response you say you were only making a ‘rhetorical statement’, which was meant to ‘give an impression’, and yet in the very next breath you go full-on into another fallacious plea to authority! So once again we have a facile and misleading response instead of a proper argument. And this isn’t about ‘a guy on a forum’ who questions supernatural claims, but a question of whether arguments or assertions can be rendered immune to criticism merely by their authors being highly esteemed; that is a closed-shop position that goes against the scientific method and more generally against the wider principle of rigorous academic enquiry that is at the heart of all learning and knowledge.
It isn’t a person’s esteem that makes their work sound but on the contrary it is the soundness of the work that makes the person esteemed. So it is upon their work that people are to be judged and not as you seem to believe upon their reputations. You are constantly using an appeal to authority to make your case, to say it is more reasonable to believe that "brilliant scholar" X is correct in what he says, but not because of what X says but because X is 'brilliant." Anyone and I do mean anyone, can challenge another’s work without a by-your-leave from the author, or anyone else for that matter, and their critique either will or will not pass muster. But in all cases whether a ‘brilliant scholar, to use your term, or first year students exploring their ideas, no arguments are unassailable or preserved for all time but are there to be tested – quite regardless of a person’s qualifications or experience in either case.

 

[cottage]

In every courtroom every day expert witnesses are used to decide matters of life and death. On what ground are they invalid in a theological discussion? The absurd claims that the very same methods used to establish truth in all areas of academics suddenly do not apply to theology is ridiculous. Atheists over use fallacies like a crutch or a punt. The conclusions of experts matter, the conclusions of the very preeminent among scholars matters even more, claims they don't do not matter. That is why degreed pilots fly, engineers build towers, economists advise presidents and we only ruminate in forums.

I’m very surprised, firstly, that you still seem unable to see the difference between metaphysics and facts, and secondly that you think it acceptable to argue fallaciously from authority. Courts of law do not rule on metaphysical or speculative issues, but make their deliberations on matters of fact, that is to say on what is known or knowable in experience. And similarly, pilots and engineers deal with events in the empirical world, as do economists who give advice to governments on fiscal matters, propositions concerning quantity and number that have real-world effects. The third point, which is really an extension of the second point, is that without any knowledge of those you are debating you assume they and their arguments are beneath those who you obsequiously defer to. Incidentally, there isn’t one religious or metaphysical proposition that is indubitable. And fallacy identification isn’t the preserve of atheists, btw, but applies to theists and sceptics alike.

That is identical to the methods used to establish reliability in historical documents. I did not say Greenleaf verified that God exists, that Christ was the messiah, or that his death forgives sin. I said he compared the Gospels to the same tests used in law for documentation reliability and they passed every test. You may argue that that does not prove God exists but you may not expect anyone to believe you know more about testimony and evidence than the scholars I mentioned. You may also not unpass the tests they passed. I was not saying the conclusion from the Gospels are true because of what Greenleaf says. I said they pass the reliability tests used in modern law.

Not so! You are attempting to dilute what Greenleaf claimed. The Testimony of the Evangelists isn’t merely the authentication of historical documents and it would be disingenuous to imply that as being the case. Greenleaf argues that the documents are reliable and, ipso facto, the Gospels are true. (I’ve just begun a brief critique on his paper, which I will post as a separate thread, in this section, as soon I’ve completed it.)

What they claim is unique in comparison to any other religion. They claim to have experienced God. They also claim to have examined the evidence and found sufficient merit in it to wager their eternal soul on its accuracy. Please do not make the argument that the other 75% did not. A large portion of the other 75% did not study the material in any meaningful way or do believe in a God of some kind which uses much of the same evidence in its conclusion. My burden is only to show that Biblical faith is reasonable.

Ahem! Excuse me but you are not merely claiming that biblical faith is reasonable; you’ve been making full-on pleas to authority, Greenleaf for example. But in any case 25% is a very small number and you cannot possibly presume to speak for every individual and say all have experienced God and all believe in the eternity of the soul. Indeed, these forums are an exemplar of the variations and diversity in religious faith. And an argument to reasonableness is saying nothing at all, because the term ‘reasonable’ is a two-way street. It is equally reasonable to disbelieve in gods as to believe in them.

How have you done this?

Let’s just recap. We were discussing your pleas to authority and I gave an example of Descartes’ mind body dualism, remarking on the question of its truth. But you answered this with yet another plea:

“If Given a few dozen Descartes’s it would be the end of the matter as far as intellectual justification for belief is concerned.”

No it would not! According to you, the correctness of the argument is settled not by establishing its truth but by putting up a number of similarly convinced advocates - which is not a justified true belief (Plato’s definition of knowledge).

And when I said the question is whether his argument justifies the claim, you replied:

“By what formula is this objectively determined?”

That was my question to you! So you now accept that instead of pleading to authority, Descartes’ mind body theory needs to be objectively demonstrated?

 

[cottage]

Even if some contradiction existed (I do not claim there is) that would not mean the entire scope of Biblical truth was wrong. It would at best mean one of the contradictions was incorrect. More likely it means you missed something.

Seed time and harvest were never to cease​

Gen 8:22​

Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years​

Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6​

God is just and impartial​

Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25​

God is unjust and partial​

Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12​

God is to be found by those who seek him​

Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17​

God is not to be found by those who seek him​

Prov 1:28​

God accepts human sacrifices​

2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39​

God forbids human sacrifice​

Deut 12:30,31 ​

Because of man's wickedness God destroys him​

Gen 6:5,7​

Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him​

Gen 8:21​

Killing commanded​

Ex 32:27​

Killing forbidden​

Ex 20:13​

Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced​

Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17​

Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union​

Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16​

God is satisfied with his works​

Gen 1:31​

God is dissatisfied with his works. ​

Gen 6:6​

God is tired and rests​

Ex 31:17​

God is never tired and never rests​

Is 40:28​

The problems of evil indicates no contradiction and is one of the easiest defended contentions in existence. If you wish I will elaborate.

Yes please. I’ll look forward to it.

You are confusing the context of the objection to free-will with Aquinas's answer to it. Here was his answer: On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel"; and the gloss adds: "That is of his free-will." I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge

Aquinas on Divine Determinism:

“Just as God not only gave being to things when they first began but is also, as in the conserving cause of being, the cause of their being as long as they last…so he not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore of anything is traced back to him as its cause.” Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 67
Aquinas was never able to satisfactorily reconcile predestination and fee will, but ultimately settled with a soft determinism – as of course you will have seen by reading his further explications in that link that you posted. Additional point: Aquinas adopted Aristotle, whose logic you apparently eschew!

 

[CG Didymus]

Even if some contradiction existed (I do not claim there is) that would not mean the entire scope of Biblical truth was wrong. It would at best mean one of the contradictions was incorrect. More likely it means you missed something.

Seed time and harvest were never to cease​

Gen 8:22​

Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years​

Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6​

God is just and impartial​

Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25​

God is unjust and partial​

Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12​

God is to be found by those who seek him​

Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17​

God is not to be found by those who seek him​

Prov 1:28​

God accepts human sacrifices​

2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39​

God forbids human sacrifice​

Deut 12:30,31 ​

Because of man's wickedness God destroys him​

Gen 6:5,7​

Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him​

Gen 8:21​

Killing commanded​

Ex 32:27​

Killing forbidden​

Ex 20:13​

Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced​

Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17​

Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union​

Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16​

God is satisfied with his works​

Gen 1:31​

God is dissatisfied with his works. ​

Gen 6:6​

God is tired and rests​

Ex 31:17​

God is never tired and never rests​

Is 40:28​

More likely it means you missed something? Cottage now think--What is it that you must have missed, because it couldn't be the Bible that's wrong.

 

[cottage]

More likely it means you missed something? Cottage now think--What is it that you must have missed, because it couldn't be the Bible that's wrong.

Ah! Yes! <smacks head> You are correct of course. After all the Bible is the inerrant word of God - and we know that to be true because it says so in the Bible.

 

[CG Didymus]

For those of you that maintain that your definition of God is not evil, how do you explain the events in Oklahoma? Does God control the weather and other "natural" disasters? The Bible seems to indicate he does. It seems like weather and tsunami's and earthquakes just happen--they are things of nature. They occur because of heat and pressure and other things. Do you really think God is in control of them? And, if so why does he use them to kill innocent children? I know all things work out for the good. They show us his sovereignty etc. etc. But, to the non-religious these things just happen. Nature works in cycles. Why does it have to be God doing it?

 

[1robin]

For those of you that maintain that your definition of God is not evil, how do you explain the events in Oklahoma?

I did not realize anyone still thought like this. Just this morning two SECULAR dj's on the radio cracked up to the point they could not talk because someone called in and made this same lame argument. This type of argument has been annihilated by so many for so long it is a wonder it still exists. I recommend "the problem of evil" by William Craig, but it is so simple that I will give a short explanation of the irrationality of this concept.

1. You are assuming an optimality requirement God does not have. You do this even though he is the only source that does promise and could deliver a future restitution to which he was not obligated to provide either. Talk about cutting off your nose for spite.
2. Its logical and inescapable conclusion is that unless maximal "goodness" as you would define it exists God can't.
3. The end result of this is that if God is not creating other God's exactly like himself and perfect environments (by what standards eludes reality) he does not exist.
4. In fact God predicted all the Oklahoma's, gave the explanation for them, and provides the only basis by which they can even be called evil to begin with. What is evil about nature destroying biological anomalies with no objective value or worth, without God?

Does God control the weather and other "natural" disasters?

For the most part, not directly.

The Bible seems to indicate he does.

No it does not, in fact it indicates the exact opposite in general. This may be a good example of what is wrong with your argumentation, Biblical ignorance.

It seems like weather and tsunami's and earthquakes just happen--they are things of nature.

They are thing produced by natural law. Natural is no longer upheld for maximal human flourishing since we told God we "Got this".

They occur because of heat and pressure and other things. Do you really think God is in control of them?

Apparently you mistakenly think we do and do so yourself if it is useful against God.

And, if so why does he use them to kill innocent children?

The children are dead either way. With God they are in heaven, with God the explanation of nature's chaos is given to meet our intuitive instinct that things "shouldn't be this way", and with God a final restoration is promised. Without God there is no satisfactory explanation, only annihilation possible for the children, and no restitution from an indifferent meaningless and purposeless universe. Yet this is termed progress and preferable. First you might want to prove he did do what you claim?

I know all things work out for the good.

Not only without God is that impossible, but without God the term has no ultimate meaning.

They show us his sovereignty etc. etc. But, to the non-religious these things just happen.

That is not what the Bi9ble claims. The Bible claims nature in it's unpredictable furry is a result of man's preferring to live in a nature devoid of God's constant input and direction. Welcome to what rebellion produces. It was also to serve as an indication of out futility to live without God, the fragile nature and finite duration of life, and our lack of mastery over virtually anything and our need of one who is and promises to one take calm the storms.

Nature works in cycles. Why does it have to be God doing it?

You’re the one claiming he is doing so and so it is your burden. The Bible, I, nor any Christian I know of believers God directly causes 99% of what we experience. His direct involvement is the exception since we rebelled not the norm.
If your mother put a coffee table in your living room and told you not to run in the house, then you ignored her and did so striking your head on the table is your conclusion therefore:

1. Your Mother created evil or is evil.
2. Your Mother does not exist because she would not allow anything to exist that would hurt you if in her power, and even if you ignored her.
3. That no woodworking shop exists and nature conjured the table together on its own.
4. That you have no responsibility in the entire issue.
5. That the fact that you can survive "maybe" the incident is reason to reject the need of the Mother without who's existence yours would have never occurred.

God took his perfect supervision and control from natural law because we desired to live apart from him. He said it will rain on the righteous and unrighteous alike and the purpose to indicate the need to be one of the righteous. You might as well have said you do not like stuff so God does not exist. Imposing a requirement he not only does not have but even indicated specifically why he doesn't and what that mean, and even added a promise to rectify when our rebellion is spent.

New International Version (©2011)
how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

And I would add so obviously necessary.

If you read the refernce material I named you will soon discover this argumentation is a philsisophic, theologic, and rational absurdity even in theory.

 

[1robin]

Seed time and harvest were never to cease​

Gen 8:22​

Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years​

Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6 ​

I was unaware of these posts for some reason. ​

Gen 8:22
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6
All these say the same thing. A local famine occurred.

Gen 8:22 is a symbolic statement concerning the ceaseless cycles of things until the end times in general. It has nothing what so ever to do with a literal statement concerning every foot of Earth and every seed ever planted. That is absurd. Are you actually claiming Moses wrote that God claimed that on every square centimeter and for every attempt a crops every seed will grow? In the sea, on top of Everest, everywhere, every second? Since the obvious (non contradictory, common sense) reading would be so inconvenient for you that you with out much effort you never will allow it to stand, let see what the experts say.

But God graciously declared he never would drown the world again. While the earth remains, and man upon it, there shall be summer and winter. It is plain that this earth is not to remain always. It, and all the works in it, must shortly be burned up; and we look for new heavens and a new earth, when all these things shall be dissolved. But as long as it does remain, God's providence will cause the course of times and seasons to go on, and makes each to know its place. And on this word we depend, that thus it shall be.
Matthew Henry&#8217;s Concise Commentary

The other verses about a local and temporary loss of a specific and very limited scope Harvest have no contradiction what so ever with the former one. I have searched and defended entire lists of contradictions and no one has ever used this one. Who did you get this from and why are the just randomly assigning hyperbolic literals and meanings to things that do not fit with any commentary or interpretation I could find anywhere? Actually I know very well why. Pure desperation and preference. If you distort the Bible into a unrecognizable and irrational form of what use is that? BTW the harvest season occurred in Egypt, it just sucked.
​

God is to be found by those who seek him​

Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17​

God is not to be found by those who seek him​

Prov 1:28​

I am choosing which to answer based on brevity and it's challenge, BTW. This one is not as obviously wrong as the above. ​

Those that seek me early shall find me. - Proverbs 8:17
Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not find me. - Proverbs 1:28

We are told that these contradict one another, but these verses are talking about two entirely different groups of people: Those who want wisdom, and those who don't (note the conditional word "then" that appears in verse 1:28). The arguments involved are a progressive proof that leads to a conclusion; rather like Paul's statements in Romans, first that the righteous shall be justified by deeds of the law, followed by his proof that no one is righteous.
The chapter 8 verse is indeed a counter-point to the chapter 1 verse, but in the sense of comparison, not in the sense of correction. This is a form of progressive dialogue argument typical of ANE literature -- for more on this genre, see here.
-JPH
http://www.tektonics.org/af/findwisdom.html

It is far too long to post but if you notice the words used for those and they here are referring to specific groups. Not to humanity in general. As the above points out the Biblical writings are meant to be viewed in context, are to augment each other, and be consistent with the overall context when interpreting.

Mathew clears up the issue by expanding on the concept being revealed here.

New Living Translation (©2007)
And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.

He expands on who the word "those" as in reference to as those who "diligently" seek him.

The context of the "they" in those proverbs are those who like Cain only do what they are forced to and with an unwilling heart. The mistake is to assume that the Bible is suggesting that the mere outward appearance of seeking him will always be rewarded. It never says that. Which brings up another issue. When researching these "contradictions" I noticed that not a single hostile or critical site ever even attempted to put any context what so ever with these verses. They stripped them of context and then declared a convenient context existed without even attempting to demonstrate it. I will however agree that without research and context these do in isolation have a surface contradiction but it instantly evaporates with any study.

Continued:​