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

[1robin]

You completely destroy your own argument when you make God an exception to the rule you use to evidence Gods existence.

Surely you can see that?

It is not my rule it is yours. My worldview includes the non-natural. Your doesn't. Not my problem. I have to debate you on common ground, that does not mean that ground bounds my world view as it does yours. Do you wish me to make two arguments from each perspective. I assumed mine was a given.

 

[1robin]

This was getting interesting but I am out of time. Have a good one, you two folks with your natural laws that bind the one positing the supernatural argumentation.

 

[McBell]

It is not my rule it is yours.

It isn't my rule.
I merely commented on Rapture Era's claim.

My worldview includes the non-natural. Your doesn't. Not my problem.

Says you.
Of course, it is much easier when you get to dictate to the other side what they do and do not believe/accept/etc.

I have to debate you on common ground, that does not mean that ground bounds my world view as it does yours. Do you wish me to make two arguments from each perspective. I assumed mine was a given.

What does your world view have to do with the fact that if you make god an exception to a rule used to evidence god that you completely destroy the original argument?

 

[McBell]

This was getting interesting but I am out of time. Have a good one, you two folks with your natural laws that bind the one positing the supernatural argumentation.

Since I was not the one who came up with nor even used the "life cannot come from non-life" claim....

Perhaps you jumped in without a clear picture of the conversation you were jumping into?

 

[johnhanks]

Really? Like who? Who said they created the universe, earth and all living things on it?

You must have noticed that Genesis is not written in the first person. It was written by people recording the long-held myth that an all-powerful humanoid in the sky had created everything. A good summary of other cultures' creations myths can be found here.

 

[CG Didymus]

You must have noticed that Genesis is not written in the first person. It was written by people recording the long-held myth that an all-powerful humanoid in the sky had created everything. A good summary of other cultures' creations myths can be found here.

God is too humble to write his own story, so he had his son write it. Or, Genesis is one of the many creation stories in the long list. How long is the list that tries to explain a benevolent God and the suffering and death of children? Why is the Christian view so special? Or, to be more precise, why is the fundy-Christian view so special? What do liberal Christians have to say on the topic? How about the Jews? The fundy-Christian way of explaining things is too harsh, like their God.

 

[1robin]

It isn't my rule.
I merely commented on Rapture Era's claim.

If you deny that any God exists then the natural is all you have left. Your world view is bounded by natural law. You must get life from non-life even though you must operate within the fact life has never been known to arise from non-life. I do not. At least go down with the ship you chose.

Says you.
Of course, it is much easier when you get to dictate to the other side what they do and do not believe/accept/etc.

Ok what beyond the natural do you think exists?

What does your world view have to do with the fact that if you make god an exception to a rule used to evidence god that you completely destroy the original argument?

This is nuts. That law covers biology. God is not subject to biology no more than someone in Islamabad is subject to the laws of Philadelphia. My view is wider than yours and so has answers your does not. You bind your self in the natural and so only accept part of reality. That is why your laws and methodology always turns back on its self and has paradoxical unresolvable problems. I did not pick that for you, you did, I am not therefor required to resolve the problems what you picked creates.

 

[1robin]

Since I was not the one who came up with nor even used the "life cannot come from non-life" claim....

Perhaps you jumped in without a clear picture of the conversation you were jumping into?

I do not care who mentioned it. It applies only to world views that have noting beyond the natural and only applies to organic life even in that narrow worldview. I am certain you understand this very well, but apparently the problems it causes you are so distasteful that it will never be acknowledged. I am not banging my head on your stubbornness and refusal to see the obvious. My world view is not bound by natural law, unless you have some bizarre hybrid worldview yours is. It is your problem not mine.

The argument goes like this.

Biological Life only comes from biological life.
We have biological life.
At one time no biological life is known to have existed.

Your done. You by virtue of only accepting part of reality have had your fragmentary worldview drive you in a corner that has no natural remedy.

However I can easily get out of this paradox because my views include all of reality.

God created life.

I can not justify unscrambling who worldview is what and what burdens that comes with further because I am sure you are more than intelligent enough to know but simply refuse to accept such an inconvenient state of affairs and reasons can't change that.

 

[1robin]

God is too humble to write his own story, so he had his son write it. Or, Genesis is one of the many creation stories in the long list. How long is the list that tries to explain a benevolent God and the suffering and death of children? Why is the Christian view so special? Or, to be more precise, why is the fundy-Christian view so special? What do liberal Christians have to say on the topic? How about the Jews? The fundy-Christian way of explaining things is too harsh, like their God.

Pretending for a minute that a God who promises to resolve things in the end is more harsh that things that are never explained, have no purpose, and are never resolved without him. Is the level of harshness the arbiter of all truth? Is truth that is not liked or convenient no longer true?

 

[McBell]

I do not care who mentioned it. It applies only to world views that have noting beyond the natural and only applies to organic life even in that narrow worldview. I am certain you understand this very well, but apparently the problems it causes you are so distasteful that it will never be acknowledged. I am not banging my head on your stubbornness and refusal to see the obvious. My world view is not bound by natural law, unless you have some bizarre hybrid worldview yours is. It is your problem not mine.

And here once again you off into left field stroking your ego thinking it helps you.

Interesting how you are much more interested in preaching sermons than having discussion.

The argument goes like this.

Biological Life only comes from biological life.
We have biological life.
At one time no biological life is known to have existed.

Your done. You by virtue of only accepting part of reality have had your fragmentary worldview drive you in a corner that has no natural remedy.

whose argument is that?
Certainly not mine.
And not even the one I replied to.

Care to actually pay enough attention to what is actually being discussed to prevent making an even bigger fool of yourself?

However I can easily get out of this paradox because my views include all of reality.

:biglaugh:
not to mention all the imaginary bull **** you use to fill in the gaps....

God created life.

Unsubstantiated claim.

I can not justify unscrambling who worldview is what and what burdens that comes with further because I am sure you are more than intelligent enough to know but simply refuse to accept such an inconvenient state of affairs and reasons can't change that.

Again you go on and on about worldviews when world views are irrelevant to discussion.

One wonders if you are honestly that ignorant or if you deserve an Academy Award.

 

[1robin]

And here once again you off into left field stroking your ego thinking it helps you.

I have not the slightest idea what your talking about. There is nothing personally flattering in my whole post. Are you ok?

Interesting how you are much more interested in preaching sermons than having discussion

Says the great sarcastic commentator whose argumentation was so futile I had to ignore it and still do unless I am very bored. Making personal commentary to denounce personal commentary is self destructive.

whose argument is that?
Certainly not mine.
And not even the one I replied to.

That is the argument as it has existed in scholarship for many years. I never said it was your argument. It is one you should wish to resolve however.

Care to actually pay enough attention to what is actually being discussed to prevent making an even bigger fool of yourself?

Yeah I am the conceded one surviving on personal remarks. I do not see a relevant claim here at all so I am going to have to reinstate my prior policy and ignore it. Maybe some emoticons can comfort you.

 

[adi2d]

Just curious. In your worldview is God life or non life?

 

[SkepticThinker]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

There are two arguments so absurd they have been ridiculed even in children's Sunday school classes. Or at least the one you made is. The other is Dawkin's central argument. Dawkin's has enough trouble with what he says alone, so I will only speak on yours. God as a concept has no need of life or anything else to come from. Organic life only comes from organic life. That is not the Bible's law or rule. It is biology's and has no known exception. Let me give you a tip never ever ask what created God or the even worse form you stated it in if you wish your statement to be taken seriously. It is a law or rule of biology, evolution is under biological laws God made them and is under no law it contains. The very idea that what is true of biology must be true of a disembodied mind is just silly.

You know what's an absurd argument? The assertion that there are disembodied minds. Where do we see any example of disembodied minds anywhere? What possible reason do we have for thinking they exist, apart from the fact that you need your god argument to work?

Any series of cause and effect can't possibly be endless. There must be a first cause that is it's self uncaused. Philosophy and theology and even science indirectly indicate that whatever that first cause was it must have characteristics very similar to what ignorant man gave God 5000 years ago. God is not a certainty but an uncaused first cause is. We have a universe something that did not have a cause produced it. If we had to keep going back in infinity with no end tracking causes and effect we would never get a universe.

Maybe the universe is the uncaused cause itself, and you’re just calling it god. If you guys want to argue on top of this that specified complexity doesn’t come about on its own, then you’re still left having to explain where your god comes from, as a result of your very own claim! I mean, how specifically complex does would your god have to be? I’d say more complex than anything else in the universe, given that “he’s” supposed to have existed for eternity, is omnipotent and omniscient, etc. But you want to believe that in this instance, specified complexity can come into existence on its own.

Simply stating god is the “uncaused cause” is just a word game. You can insert anything into that statement and it would make about as much sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not my rule it is yours. My worldview includes the non-natural. Your doesn't. Not my problem. I have to debate you on common ground, that does not mean that ground bounds my world view as it does yours. Do you wish me to make two arguments from each perspective. I assumed mine was a given.

Please provide a demonstration for the existence of the supernatural.

As far as I can tell, you're just making things up in order to make your claims make any kind of sense. How on earth can you make any assertions whatsoever about the supernatural world when there is no evidence for it and no demonstrable explanation as to how it operates?

I mean, it's one thing to assert that yeti exists. It's a whole other thing to go on describing their social relationships, their appearance, their mating habits, or whatever without a scrap of evidence to back up such claims.

 

[1robin]

Please provide a demonstration for the existence of the supernatural.

Are you suggesting that unless I can prove something it does not exist and can not be included by faith into a world view. I do not see that I have this burden.

As far as I can tell, you're just making things up in order to make your claims make any kind of sense. How on earth can you make any assertions whatsoever about the supernatural world when there is no evidence for it and no demonstrable explanation as to how it operates?

I have posted reams of evidence of the supernatural. No person could ever reach the end of such evidence. You may not agree that it is evidence or how strong it but what does that have to do with me. Pretty much everything thought to be true beyond "I think and therefore am" incorporates faith at some level. Why do you grant yourself this prerogative but deny it to me?

I mean, it's one thing to assert that yeti exists. It's a whole other thing to go on describing their social relationships, their appearance, their mating habits, or whatever without a scrap of evidence to back up such claims.

If a yeti appeared in history and many witnesses (regarded as reliable by those most capable of knowing) why would his existence by any more reliable than Ceaser's existence. If his actions were also described and were also reliable we could know at least at a level where faith is rational some of the other random things you asked about the same way we know about Alexander the great. However there are additional ways that God can be ascertained that the others can't. It looks like you have ignored or dismissed everything we have discussed and have gone back to square one. Why should this not indicate to me that you either will simply deny, ignore, or consider worth ignoring everything else I may post. You asked questions I have answered to the satisfaction of billions over again just as if I hadn't. What's up with that?

 

[1robin]

You know what's an absurd argument? The assertion that there are disembodied minds. Where do we see any example of disembodied minds anywhere? What possible reason do we have for thinking they exist, apart from the fact that you need your god argument to work?

How many black holes have we ever seen, yet we believe what can never be seen exists. How many atoms has anyone ever seen? Why do you grant science faith, but deny faith to faith? If there was one thing your side does that frustrates and confounds me the most it is double standards and inconsistency.

Maybe the universe is the uncaused cause itself, and you’re just calling it god

. Come on this is philosophy 101 and your better than this. Only that which begins to exist needs a cause. It is almost certain today that the universe began to exist. There is almost no hope left that the universe has always been. God did not begin and so is a perfect first cause concept, the universe did not and can't be.

If you guys want to argue on top of this that specified complexity doesn’t come about on its own, then you’re still left having to explain where your god comes from, as a result of your very own claim! I mean, how specifically complex does would your god have to be? I’d say more complex than anything else in the universe, given that “he’s” supposed to have existed for eternity, is omnipotent and omniscient, etc. But you want to believe that in this instance, specified complexity can come into existence on its own.

All sudden this bizarre claims seems to have infected your side. I expected it from the other two but not from you. The concept of complexity needing mind only applies to the natural. I am not restricted to only a portion of reality so am not restricted to a mindless past. My past has a mind at the beginning who is not bound by natural law but created it. Natural law can't bring anything into being, not even its self. Explaining natural law by natural law is a paradox you have to solve not me. Do not bind me by the rules the partial reality your views are bound under.

Simply stating god is the “uncaused cause” is just a word game. You can insert anything into that statement and it would make about as much sense.

But I did not invent God to solve the problem. People knew of the problem and found God already described in a way by people who were not aware of the problem that already placed him there. I did not put him there I called attention to the fact he was already there. Again double standards. You posit multiverses and the like at times yet no evidence whatever exists nor ever will for them and they were not described long ago by men who had no idea what problems to invent a solution for nor did they send a witness to them here. Why are you denying faith for faith claims yet adopt faith for scientific claims?

 

[SkepticThinker]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Are you suggesting that unless I can prove something it does not exist and can not be included by faith into a world view. I do not see that I have this burden.

I’m suggesting it’s a made up thing used when you need an explanation for something that isn’t readily available.

To me, all you’re doing is saying, “I don’t see how this fits into the natural order of things so I’ll make up this other realm in which anything I can imagine is possible.” It’s another version of “god of the gaps.”

I have posted reams of evidence of the supernatural. No person could ever reach the end of such evidence. You may not agree that it is evidence or how strong it but what does that have to do with me. Pretty much everything thought to be true beyond "I think and therefore am" incorporates faith at some level. Why do you grant yourself this prerogative but deny it to me?

Demonstrable evidence?

If a yeti appeared in history and many witnesses (regarded as reliable by those most capable of knowing) why would his existence by any more reliable than Ceaser's existence. If his actions were also described and were also reliable we could know at least at a level where faith is rational some of the other random things you asked about the same way we know about Alexander the great. However there are additional ways that God can be ascertained that the others can't. It looks like you have ignored or dismissed everything we have discussed and have gone back to square one. Why should this not indicate to me that you either will simply deny, ignore, or consider worth ignoring everything else I may post. You asked questions I have answered to the satisfaction of billions over again just as if I hadn't. What's up with that?

And what if we have no eyewitness accounts of yeti? Does someone still get to believe in yeti, and attribute characteristics to the yeti whose existence hasn’t even been demonstrated? How could that possibly be done? Would you believe them? It’s one thing to say yeti exists, but it’s a different thing to say, “yeti exists, his name is Tom, he has really big feet, he lives in Antarctica, feeds on penguins, builds igloos and pyramids and eats his young.”

There is a lot more evidence for the existence of Alexander and Caesar than there is for yeti.

People will believe just about anything, that’s pretty obvious. They believe they’ve been abducted by aliens, they believe in leprechauns, they believe ghosts talk to them, they believe they can commit suicide and wake up on a planet behind the moon, etc., etc., etc. So your argument from popularity isn’t going to cut it for me. Have all the faith you want, but from my perspective, you’re basically just making things up, which is why I made an example out of yeti.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many black holes have we ever seen, yet we believe what can never be seen exists. How many atoms has anyone ever seen? Why do you grant science faith, but deny faith to faith? If there was one thing your side does that frustrates and confounds me the most it is double standards and inconsistency.

Black holes can be inferred by observing their gravitational interactions with their surroundings. MIT scientists are currently working with something called an Event Horizon Telescope where they’re trying to observe the event horizon of a black hole directly. They didn’t just pull this stuff out of thin air and expect us all to just believe it.
Ask these guys about atoms:
The First Image Ever of a Hydrogen Atom's Orbital Structure
A Snapshot of the Inside of an Atom | Science/AAAS | News
Where is the faith?

.Come on this is philosophy 101 and your better than this. Only that which begins to exist needs a cause. It is almost certain today that the universe began to exist. There is almost no hope left that the universe has always been. God did not begin and so is a perfect first cause concept, the universe did not and can't be.

So you just say “god doesn’t need to begin to exist” and you think you’ve solved it. Basically, you’ve just made it up, because you don’t actually know that.

All sudden this bizarre claims seems to have infected your side. I expected it from the other two but not from you. The concept of complexity needing mind only applies to the natural. I am not restricted to only a portion of reality so am not restricted to a mindless past. My past has a mind at the beginning who is not bound by natural law but created it. Natural law can't bring anything into being, not even its self. Explaining natural law by natural law is a paradox you have to solve not me. Do not bind me by the rules the partial reality your views are bound under.

Why is it bizarre? You guys want to go on about specified complexity without having to acknowledge how complex your god has to be. And when we point it out, you just make something else up to make your argument jibe, like “god exists outside of time and space” without ever having to demonstrate it. I need evidence to believe something. I’m not comfortable with answers that don’t actually answer anything.

But I did not invent God to solve the problem. People knew of the problem and found God already described in a way by people who were not aware of the problem that already placed him there. I did not put him there I called attention to the fact he was already there. Again double standards. You posit multiverses and the like at times yet no evidence whatever exists nor ever will for them and they were not described long ago by men who had no idea what problems to invent a solution for nor did they send a witness to them here. Why are you denying faith for faith claims yet adopt faith for scientific claims?

Somebody else invented god to solve the problem. God has been used to “explain” so many things that have been misunderstood by ourselves, that is, until science was able to come up with demonstrable naturalistic answers to such questions.
There is actually some evidence for multiverses; whether they exist or not remains to be seen, and it’s not me positing their existence, it is people who study cosmology for a living. Notice how I keep saying we have to just say “I don’t know” at this point in time? And for some reason you think that means I’m exercising some kind of faith?

 

[1robin]

Just curious. In your worldview is God life or non life?

It would not matter because the laws that govern life only apply to the natural not the supernatural. I have made claims about abiogenesis many times. Why all of a sudden for the first time every non-theist is trying to insist what is true of biology must bind a being that potentially created the very laws themselves escapes me. I thought I had seen them all by now. I do not think God can be meaningfully described by our descriptions of what constitutes life. I think it as meaningless to try and define God by what we have attempted to describe organic systems by as it is for us to use the morality we do not even live up to or desire to declare him evil. It is just a waste of time. Whatever God is there is not a single reason to suggest the laws of biology have any effect on him. They govern your materialistic world not my far larger world view.

 

[1robin]

I’m suggesting it’s a made up thing used when you need an explanation for something that isn’t readily available.

You may suggest until your heart is content. It will not do anything to lessen the reasons or evidence that such a thing does exist. As I have said the concept existed prior to the question so it is not a contrived explanation invented to meet that need. We had the idea of a disembodied mind before we had the question to invent it to satisfy.

To me, all you’re doing is saying, “I don’t see how this fits into the natural order of things so I’ll make up this other realm in which anything I can imagine is possible.” It’s another version of “god of the gaps.”

No I have two competing explanations for events that pre-existed any questions the events put forward. Natural does not satisfy them even theoretically and the other pre-existing concept meets them perfectly. We have our life span to resolve issues. It would do no one any good alive today to wait until all the evidence is in because we will be dead. Just as anyone who waits until all the evidence is in to determine if their romantic interest is the right one will never be married so to those who wait until God comes back or we die will be saved, especially since if there is no God we in our omniscience will probably kill ourselves off before too much longer. I must decide based on what we reliably know.

Demonstrable evidence?

There are many things claimed to have been experienced or that have occurred (millions of them) that have no even potentiality for a natural explanation. If it were any other subject even the most rigid scientists would claim it was demonstrated evidence of the supernatural as they do anyway even without it for other things. That is unless you can show all those millions of things are false.


And what if we have no eyewitness accounts of yeti? Does someone still get to believe in yeti, and attribute characteristics to the yeti whose existence hasn’t even been demonstrated?

Sure they could. We do so concerning dinosaurs and birds, multiverses, and even yeti's already. Maybe unconvincing but since we have seen God in human form also irrelevant.

How could that possibly be done? Would you believe them? It’s one thing to say yeti exists, but it’s a different thing to say, “yeti exists, his name is Tom, he has really big feet, he lives in Antarctica, feeds on penguins, builds igloos and pyramids and eats his young.”

Again equating things that are not even remotely equal is a meaningless exercise. Yeti's as far as I know do not have the most scrutinized book in human history written (containing mountains of evidence) about the most influential being in human history as evidence. I answered these objections previously.

There is a lot more evidence for the existence of Alexander and Caesar than there is for yeti.

But not Christ. Christ is the most textually attested figure of any kind in ancient history. Even what we have about Alexander is thought to not be accurate. He famously threw one famous account in the sea. Yet he is as real as anything to most folks and most of what he did, but then again he is not inconvenient.

People will believe just about anything, that’s pretty obvious.

Now that I agree with. However this becomes less a factor when the numbers that believe are in the billions and believe because of a direct experience with what they claim exists. I believe cognitive dissonance the most powerful force in human history. No matter what the truth most of us are wrong.

They believe they’ve been abducted by aliens, they believe in leprechauns, they believe ghosts talk to them, they believe they can commit suicide and wake up on a planet behind the moon, etc., etc., etc. So your argument from popularity isn’t going to cut it for me. Have all the faith you want, but from my perspective, you’re basically just making things up, which is why I made an example out of yeti.

I see so some things people have claimed were true you think were not and so nothing ever claimed can be true. Strange philosophy. I did not make any argument from popularity in my previous post, I did make a comment concerning it in this one. However popularity, authority, and many other supposed fallacies are allowed in science, law, and history but why not in theology I wonder. Back when I denied evolution in totality I had 6 atheists who claimed I should believe it solely because of who and how many scientists claimed it was true. Inconsistent.