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

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

These are several independent arguments different from mine.

1. I did not say fairness is always God's prime directive.
2. I did not say that fairness was always present. Especially in a world that has in large part chosen to be under the rule of a malevolent being.
3. What I said was that fairness is valid if God exists. Societies have a foundation to enable them to attempt to incorporate fair laws and rules. Without God the word fairness has no foundation, and without a foundation no legitimate application.
4. The same is true of rights, sanctity of life, dignity of man, etc...

Evolution is a term so expansive, so ambiguous and so elastic it has almost lost all meaning. Every evolutionist I speak to has a different definition. Some say morality was produced by evolution, others that all behavior was, others that it is only biological, etc... I believe it occurred but it is so little understood as to be hard to debate. I will only say that many of the greatest defenders of evolution (alone) on the professional debate circuit claim it produces behavior. However this does not matter. The fundamental reason for racism is the assertion that one race is genetically superior or that one is inferior. Evolution would produce exactly this fact. If you insist evolution only produced the brain then fine. It never produced two equal ones and the brain is where behavior and capacity come from. Unequal brains produce un-equal behavior and capacity. Instant justification for racism.

I think my point stands without this being necessary.

That is an interesting take on the issue but I think more advanced than I need to claim what I have. My point was mainly this. Almost everyone believes that actual objective right and wrong exist, that fairness is a real truth, that we have rights, human life has sanctity, etc.... and I agree. However none of that is true unless God exists so it is reasonable evidence that he does, though by its self is probably not convincing.

I would disagree, evolution as define is the change of the inherited characteristics over generations. Natural selection is how the pressures of an environment go on to produce those variations and changes. Natural selection is a part of evolution, and usually when evolution is being discussed that is what people are referring to as the prime mover of evolution, so it tends to be used interchangably.

Social Darwinism, is in no way shape or form an actual reflection of how actual evolution or natural selection works. Simply because it ignores too many factors and if you are a proponent of something such as free will or even rational choice, it also ignores that as well. The idea that races had inherent superiority, was a reflection of peoples assumptions about environments and social regards. Given how man has lived there is nothing to indicate that the idea of superiority of races were caused by nature but there is much to show that they were caused by society. Which is essentially what you are arguing, whether you agree or not, I suppose is up to you.

As for evolutionary development of morality, it's rises mostly from studying other animals, and their interactions. As such we see signs of mourning for instance in several species of animals, we see the possible origins of things like laughter, in others, things such as playfulness, all those that we see in animals that we thought were only human rationale.

I am however not well versed in that particular field and so I can't comment fully on the intracies of how our particular behavior patterns arose.

If fairness is not Gods prime directive, then what is? As an omnipotent being, regarded as all powerful, or just as an omni-max diety which yes includes Omnibenevolence, Gods directives must always be carried out to their absolute potential as not doing so would result in God being less of what is the best thing possible. Something which would not denote perfection. Fairness, is a result and part of of Benevolence, of Omniscience, of being Just, and of Mercy. Tacking on Omnipotence also makes it something that is executable.

If these attributes of an Omni-Max is given to God, then it would stand that all things that produce the best things possible are Gods Prime Directives.

However if we are to claim that we cannot possibly know, or that these omni capabilities can in some way be limited (yes even by logic), then essentially we can not assume either A or B about Gods character. Neither the positive or the Negative aspects. And we are simply left with "God" in which case it has no meaning.

However it can still stand that if you just remain on the axiom that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, would not mean that God provides to each man what they need, but only provides. But this is contradicted by the exclamations of "Ask and you shall recieve, and that a father will not give a son a scorpion when they ask for a fish"

As such The equal mentioned by God must also mean equity. As such God will provide to everyone not only what they need, but will make certain that it is fitted to their needs. So not only will you be given a shoe, but you'll be given a shoe that fits.

 

[1robin]

I would disagree, evolution as define is the change of the inherited characteristics over generations. Natural selection is how the pressures of an environment go on to produce those variations and changes. Natural selection is a part of evolution, and usually when evolution is being discussed that is what people are referring to as the prime mover of evolution, so it tends to be used interchangeably. Social Darwinism, is in no way shape or form an actual reflection of how actual evolution or natural selection works. Simply because it ignores too many factors and if you are a proponent of something such as free will or even rational choice, it also ignores that as well. The idea that races had inherent superiority, was a reflection of peoples assumptions about environments and social regards. Given how man has lived there is nothing to indicate that the idea of superiority of races were caused by nature but there is much to show that they were caused by society. Which is essentially what you are arguing, whether you agree or not, I suppose is up to you.

As for evolutionary development of morality, it's rises mostly from studying other animals, and their interactions. As such we see signs of mourning for instance in several species of animals, we see the possible origins of things like laughter, in others, things such as playfulness, all those that we see in animals that we thought were only human rationale.

I am however not well versed in that particular field and so I can't comment fully on the intracies of how our particular behavior patterns arose.

If fairness is not Gods prime directive, then what is? As an omnipotent being, regarded as all powerful, or just as an omni-max diety which yes includes Omnibenevolence, Gods directives must always be carried out to their absolute potential as not doing so would result in God being less of what is the best thing possible. Something which would not denote perfection. Fairness, is a result and part of of Benevolence, of Omniscience, of being Just, and of Mercy. Tacking on Omnipotence also makes it something that is executable.

If these attributes of an Omni-Max is given to God, then it would stand that all things that produce the best things possible are Gods Prime Directives.

However if we are to claim that we cannot possibly know, or that these omni capabilities can in some way be limited (yes even by logic), then essentially we can not assume either A or B about Gods character. Neither the positive or the Negative aspects. And we are simply left with "God" in which case it has no meaning.

However it can still stand that if you just remain on the axiom that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, would not mean that God provides to each man what they need, but only provides. But this is contradicted by the exclamations of "Ask and you shall recieve, and that a father will not give a son a scorpion when they ask for a fish"

As such The equal mentioned by God must also mean equity. As such God will provide to everyone not only what they need, but will make certain that it is fitted to their needs. So not only will you be given a shoe, but you'll be given a shoe that fits.

I think we are getting away from the original issue but let me make a few comments here.

It is a reasonable and very appropriate definition of evolution to say it consists of everything that it depends on or has a large role in producing. Getting tied up a clinical highly technical semantic definition serves little functional purpose.

1. Natural selection is a primary component of evolution.
2. So is abiogenesis but I would not insist on it.
3. So is chemical evolution.
4. Even fine tuning.

Tell you what instead of doing all that let me state in another perhaps more general way. If I could prove that no God existed then racism can be justified. If I can prove there exists the Biblical God it almost certainly could not be.

I have never understood the almost reverence that seems to motivate defenses of evolution. Everyone has a unique definition it seems and every one defends their definition like a Holy doctrine. Can you explain this?

God's prime directive is his purpose and what that demands. His great goal is to produce a group of people who freely chose to love him and admit the truth of our condition. Other than his nature and his promises every other consideration is subordinate to that purpose. Since humanity in general chose Satan rather than God. He temporarily gave us what we asked for. Separation from him and rule by a malevolent force. That means that fairness with by an objective truth but not always a subjective practice from us. I can't overstate the importance and impact God's hierarchy of goals and purposes is. Half the atheistic arguments I see are based on an ignorance of this. If kept in mind it clarifies countless facts of reality and paradoxes that trouble us.

God's omnipotence and Omni benevolence are aspects of quality and capacity. They do not dictate will or purpose. God like parents most of the time has no wish for us to suffer not make mistakes. However his granting of freewill means he will not take our capacity to fail and suffer for it. There is a hierarchy to puts things into effect based on purpose.

I think you are making a mistake called a false optimization fallacy. If you insist God must always act optimally and you really carry that to the end then all he could ever do is make redundant perfect God's like himself. God can passively or even actively allow less that optimal things to occur from our perspective. For example in a world with less evil and suffering it is easily see less people would choose him. Only a consequence that is seen is believed and acted on.

I am not sure what to do with your equally supplied point. I have never heard it before. However I would not think a human separated from God had any right to demand anything be provided and even for a saved person only what has been promised can be demanded. Do you have a link to that argument somewhere?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think we are getting away from the original issue but let me make a few comments here.

It is a reasonable and very appropriate definition of evolution to say it consists of everything that it depends on or has a large role in producing. Getting tied up a clinical highly technical semantic definition serves little functional purpose.

1. Natural selection is a primary component of evolution.
2. So is abiogenesis but I would not insist on it.
3. So is chemical evolution.
4. Even fine tuning.

Tell you what instead of doing all that let me state in another perhaps more general way. If I could prove that no God existed then racism can be justified. If I can prove there exists the Biblical God it almost certainly could not be.

I have never understood the almost reverence that seems to motivate defenses of evolution. Everyone has a unique definition it seems and every one defends their definition like a Holy doctrine. Can you explain this?

God's prime directive is his purpose and what that demands. His great goal is to produce a group of people who freely chose to love him and admit the truth of our condition. Other than his nature and his promises every other consideration is subordinate to that purpose. Since humanity in general chose Satan rather than God. He temporarily gave us what we asked for. Separation from him and rule by a malevolent force. That means that fairness with by an objective truth but not always a subjective practice from us. I can't overstate the importance and impact God's hierarchy of goals and purposes is. Half the atheistic arguments I see are based on an ignorance of this. If kept in mind it clarifies countless facts of reality and paradoxes that trouble us.

God's omnipotence and Omni benevolence are aspects of quality and capacity. They do not dictate will or purpose. God like parents most of the time has no wish for us to suffer not make mistakes. However his granting of freewill means he will not take our capacity to fail and suffer for it. There is a hierarchy to puts things into effect based on purpose.

I think you are making a mistake called a false optimization fallacy. If you insist God must always act optimally and you really carry that to the end then all he could ever do is make redundant perfect God's like himself. God can passively or even actively allow less that optimal things to occur from our perspective. For example in a world with less evil and suffering it is easily see less people would choose him. Only a consequence that is seen is believed and acted on.

I am not sure what to do with your equally supplied point. I have never heard it before. However I would not think a human separated from God had any right to demand anything be provided and even for a saved person only what has been promised can be demanded. Do you have a link to that argument somewhere?

I would argue against the whole "Satan" issue that you brought up, but I know that wouldn't matter much to you as that would be going into what is historically know versus what is being taught theologically.

Evolutions definition hasn't changed (fine-tuning is subjective btw, as it would be fine tuned for this environment), what has happened is that in an attempt to make the public understand the concept the more technical parts are cut out.

Given the definition of Evolution as it is known: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

Then it has nothing to do with abiogenesis which describes how life has come to be. Evolution is about how the traits are passed on. It's an important difference to note....

However God must be Optimal because the moment you ascribe any omni trait to a being you are speaking of an optimal being. Further defended by goign on and accepting the claim that "God is the best thing possible" Or even "God is perfect"

If God is to act in anyway but perfect, then that is not perfection. OF course you could argue that perfection=/=Good or the best for you, but given the trait of Omnibenevolence is also given to God, it stands that they are not all picking and choosing which Omni trait is active but they are direct characteristics of God. Just as Morality isnt a creation of God it is a characteristic of God. Now if you are saying God is like a parent you are comparing apples to oranges. I would say any parent who had the capacity to keep their children from doing harm or befalling, would do so in a heart beat, regardless what rationale maybe given for learning the "hard lessons" of life. God's omnipotence means that God is capable of allowing us free will without stopping it. Because Free will does not denote action. Me taking the choice to murder someone, does not mean I will carry it out, nor that I have the capacity to carry it out. God has the capacity and capability to not worry about something as trivial as free will.

However based off your statements that we can neither, judge or understand why God does what God does, then even on that matter you cannot argue for either point. Because you are not privy to that information.

At the end we have to argue based on the characteristics that we attribute too God.

So I suppose to make this discussion meaningful, I would need to know how you define God, or what characteristics do you attribute to God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know what is even stranger. The fact that me and every Christian I know who uses moral ontological arguments know very well that atheists do not understand the term apparently and so go way out of our way to state we are not making a moral epistemological claim. That both the atheist and Christian can apprehend murder is wrong, etc... but that only the Christian has the bases for claiming it is actually wrong.

Even if we grant the premise of God's existence, God is abjectly useless as a moral foundation. Merely issuing commandments doesn't automatically make those commandments moral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dang it, I have enough time for sound bites and you want essays. I will get to this as soon as I can get enough time. Your nothing if not prolific. If you and Agnsitic75 got together you might create a worm hole or something from just the friction of the keyboard alone.

I don't have much time for essays right now either. And yet here I am writing them. I can't stop!

 

[1robin]

Even if we grant the premise of God's existence, God is abjectly useless as a moral foundation. Merely issuing commandments doesn't automatically make those commandments moral.

The commands are issued because they are true. They are not true because they were issued. You got a little chicken and egg thing going on. Whatever fault you wish to invent for God they only get drastically worse for opinion based morality which is the best it gets without him.

 

[1robin]

I don't have much time for essays right now either. And yet here I am writing them. I can't stop!

I thought I went back and provided those essay responses. Did you look for them and not find them?

 

[1robin]

I would argue against the whole "Satan" issue that you brought up, but I know that wouldn't matter much to you as that would be going into what is historically know versus what is being taught theologically.

Me or you do not know Satan's status. There is no probability argument possible. I however followed the Gospels and met Christ just as they claimed I would and they speak of Satan. If they are astronomically historically accurate and if you will take my word for it accurate about the good side of the spiritual coin, why would they go so drastically insane about Satan. Even taking my claims out and it is still a sound argument used in courts everyday. The accuracy of the verified and there is plenty is indicative of unverifiable.

Evolutions definition hasn't changed (fine-tuning is subjective btw, as it would be fine tuned for this environment), what has happened is that in an attempt to make the public understand the concept the more technical parts are cut out.

I have a math degree and know this to be not quite accurate. The chances of getting a non-life permitting universe are virtually infinite than in getting a life permitting one especially since consecutive improbabilities must all occur. The life permitting universe is not a single act or parameter. There are almost uncountable independent things plus thing that have no natural explanation possible like expansion rates, and the speed of light. There is no necessity for them. They are brute facts and there are many of them and none were determined in the big bang that can be shown to be anyway. The definition and aspects of evolution have evolved more than what they described. It has been a tree, a bush, a forest, it maybe a algae by now. It may be a nebula full of all possible vegetation types before it's done.

Given the definition of Evolution as it is known: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

How is what those changes produced inside evolution but what those changes produce not. For example if there were only tow being on Earth a primitive one with a brain like a pea and one with a brain like a watermelon. Could not watermelon head tell pea that since the big brain makes for sophisticated social complexity, morality, capacity, and apprehension that the pea head should do as told. How would that not be caused by evolution or justified by it?

Then it has nothing to do with abiogenesis which describes how life has come to be. Evolution is about how the traits are passed on. It's an important difference to note....

But the whole system is dependent on the former. I have read many books on evolution and almost tore my eyes out. They are boring. I debate theology. There are three positions.

1. Evolution alone which necessitates abiogenesis.
2. Theistic evolution. Which does not and is probably close to the truth.
3. Strict creation. Probably not true.

I have no need to debate 2 or 3 as they are consistent with my position. Yet 1 is used as an argument against God and it requires abiogenesis to be such. If you have chosen 2 or 3 then we have no area of contention and abiogenesis is not important. The context necessitates abiogenesis even if some technical definition made by man did not. Evolution requires abiogenesis in reality it might not in a book.

However God must be Optimal because the moment you ascribe any omni trait to a being you are speaking of an optimal being. Further defended by goign on and accepting the claim that "God is the best thing possible" Or even "God is perfect"

I was not speaking of God but of Earth. A perfect being may create what is not perfect and what is apparently not perfect to a very fallible and finite being. Capacity does not determine will or purpose.

If God is to act in anyway but perfect, then that is not perfection. OF course you could argue that perfection=/=Good or the best for you, but given the trait of Omnibenevolence is also given to God, it stands that they are not all picking and choosing which Omni trait is active but they are direct characteristics of God. Just as Morality isnt a creation of God it is a characteristic of God. Now if you are saying God is like a parent you are comparing apples to oranges. I would say any parent who had the capacity to keep their children from doing harm or befalling, would do so in a heart beat, regardless what rationale maybe given for learning the "hard lessons" of life. God's omnipotence means that God is capable of allowing us free will without stopping it. Because Free will does not denote action. Me taking the choice to murder someone, does not mean I will carry it out, nor that I have the capacity to carry it out. God has the capacity and capability to not worry about something as trivial as free will.

If God's purpose is free willed people that can freely chose to accept or deny him this is a possible optimal way of accomplishing this. If your car being torn to pieces is perfect and my purpose then it would not appear perfect to you even though it was according to me. Purpose defines suitability not capacity. Freewill does denote action if that is part of the purpose. If we chose wrong and it did not result in any negative effect how would I know it was wrong? Morality and aspects of quality require standards do have either a standard capable of judging God's morality or his actions apart from his word. What is perfect to one is not perfect to another.

However based off your statements that we can neither, judge or understand why God does what God does, then even on that matter you cannot argue for either point. Because you are not privy to that information.

I usually do not spend much time proving God is good or perfect because that can't be examined to a certainty. There is a very good book by Craig on both and if anyone could resolve it, it would be him or Ravi.

At the end we have to argue based on the characteristics that we attribute too God.

Actually our apprehensions of what those characteristics mean. IN most areas positive evidence for God is possible in these two the best I can acquire is nothing inherently inconsistent to my understanding. Sometimes it requires God to evaluate God. Only those that have been born again have spiritual proof he exists. Nothing is as frustrating as having to pretend a question has not been answered that has but the proof is personal and not open to scrutiny so I have no choice. The other way is you have to believe that we are all given a common conscience (or most of us) and that is capable of judging accurately. Weird dichotomy at times I admit. However most arguments are relatively objective. If one objective moral truth exists then God does, etc...

So I suppose to make this discussion meaningful, I would need to know how you define God, or what characteristics do you attribute to God?

I do not think we disagree what those are (I take anything in the Bible not known to be scribal error on faith). I think we only disagree with what they meant or dictate. Do you believe anything is actually morally wrong? On what basis?

 

[CG Didymus]

I would argue against the whole "Satan" issue that you brought up...

When we're talking about good vs. evil, God to the Christian is totally good and Satan completely evil. Yet, God created him? I wonder if it was a mistake? Or, maybe we're a mistake. Or, maybe God isn't so perfect? But, stranger still, is how God and Satan are defined very differently in Judaism than in Christianity. It seems religious beliefs are very relative. But somehow, some Christians still think they have all the right answers? No matter what, they are always right. How can you argue with that? Anyway, I don't know if you've made a dent in any of the Christian's brains, but your posts have taught me a lot. Thanks.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Me or you do not know Satan's status. There is no probability argument possible. I however followed the Gospels and met Christ just as they claimed I would and they speak of Satan. If they are astronomically historically accurate and if you will take my word for it accurate about the good side of the spiritual coin, why would they go so drastically insane about Satan. Even taking my claims out and it is still a sound argument used in courts everyday. The accuracy of the verified and there is plenty is indicative of unverifiable.

I have a math degree and know this to be not quite accurate. The chances of getting a non-life permitting universe are virtually infinite than in getting a life permitting one especially since consecutive improbabilities must all occur. The life permitting universe is not a single act or parameter. There are almost uncountable independent things plus thing that have no natural explanation possible like expansion rates, and the speed of light. There is no necessity for them. They are brute facts and there are many of them and none were determined in the big bang that can be shown to be anyway. The definition and aspects of evolution have evolved more than what they described. It has been a tree, a bush, a forest, it maybe a algae by now. It may be a nebula full of all possible vegetation types before it's done.

How is what those changes produced inside evolution but what those changes produce not. For example if there were only tow being on Earth a primitive one with a brain like a pea and one with a brain like a watermelon. Could not watermelon head tell pea that since the big brain makes for sophisticated social complexity, morality, capacity, and apprehension that the pea head should do as told. How would that not be caused by evolution or justified by it?

But the whole system is dependent on the former. I have read many books on evolution and almost tore my eyes out. They are boring. I debate theology. There are three positions.

1. Evolution alone which necessitates abiogenesis.
2. Theistic evolution. Which does not and is probably close to the truth.
3. Strict creation. Probably not true.

I have no need to debate 2 or 3 as they are consistent with my position. Yet 1 is used as an argument against God and it requires abiogenesis to be such. If you have chosen 2 or 3 then we have no area of contention and abiogenesis is not important. The context necessitates abiogenesis even if some technical definition made by man did not. Evolution requires abiogenesis in reality it might not in a book.


I was not speaking of God but of Earth. A perfect being may create what is not perfect and what is apparently not perfect to a very fallible and finite being. Capacity does not determine will or purpose.

If God's purpose is free willed people that can freely chose to accept or deny him this is a possible optimal way of accomplishing this. If your car being torn to pieces is perfect and my purpose then it would not appear perfect to you even though it was according to me. Purpose defines suitability not capacity. Freewill does denote action if that is part of the purpose. If we chose wrong and it did not result in any negative effect how would I know it was wrong? Morality and aspects of quality require standards do have either a standard capable of judging God's morality or his actions apart from his word. What is perfect to one is not perfect to another.

I usually do not spend much time proving God is good or perfect because that can't be examined to a certainty. There is a very good book by Craig on both and if anyone could resolve it, it would be him or Ravi.

Actually our apprehensions of what those characteristics mean. IN most areas positive evidence for God is possible in these two the best I can acquire is nothing inherently inconsistent to my understanding. Sometimes it requires God to evaluate God. Only those that have been born again have spiritual proof he exists. Nothing is as frustrating as having to pretend a question has not been answered that has but the proof is personal and not open to scrutiny so I have no choice. The other way is you have to believe that we are all given a common conscience (or most of us) and that is capable of judging accurately. Weird dichotomy at times I admit. However most arguments are relatively objective. If one objective moral truth exists then God does, etc...

I do not think we disagree what those are (I take anything in the Bible not known to be scribal error on faith). I think we only disagree with what they meant or dictate. Do you believe anything is actually morally wrong? On what basis?

Satan is mentioned 2 times by Jesus, the first time is when he is in the desert and is tempted (which fits the role of Satan the opposer/accuser), the second time is in reference to Peter. Which again fits as Satan has been used plenty of times to describe again someone who opposes/or accuses. I see no reason from what was recorded as the words of Jesus for their to be a malevolent entity separate from God who opposes God. Now if you follow the bible to accept that you would need to accept that those who mention it are drawing from the book of Enoch, as it is from there that the idea of Satan would hold water and even there I believe that we have mention of a divine messiah. So I suppose you must take the books of enoch as canon?

There is a watermelon brain and a pea brain? That doesn't make much sense as it's not the size of the brain alone that constitutes intelligence, but the foldings and the ratio. The sperm well for instance has a larger brain than our own. Yet I doubt you would survive long in the water without some sort of breathing apparatus, it's not your environment. Not to mention that evolution in the case of natural selection is on the genes passed on upon a population, within an environment.

If you are talking about humans being able to compare morality then you are looking at society, and if you want to equate it to some form of evolution, in that case you are looking at artificial selection (but even that is a stretch at best). There is nothing natural about it. Natural selection will dictate that an organism within an environment is considered most successful when it passes along its genes. The environment though is constantly changing, so what is successful now, doesn't mean it will be successful later. Humans have been successful for a short period of time in evolutionary history, countless organisms before us have gone extinct and we have even lost some of our fellow Genus members. There is no foundation to claim superiority by evolution when how well you are suited for an environment relies on the environment remaining stagnant which it won't.

Would you claim Ebola is superior to humans? When it strikes it has a mortality rate of 90%.

A perfect being cannot create something that is not perfect. It is against it's very nature. The idea of perfect means without flaw, that denotes action. You are perfect is a judgement of your actions as well as your existence. Now if you want to argue that the definitions of perfection are different then fine that works.

However if you are going along with the claim that God is the source of morality then it would stand even if our morality is twisted from Gods original source (which again brings perfection into question), it still stems from God and we would be judging God using the same merit that God gave us. As well if it is indeed a source from God it would be ingrained with our very being that our nature alone would be able to determine for us what is right or wrong.

Now the argument of morality that is objective, to me doesn't hold much water. Moralities have changed throughout the history of mankind. To say that truth is a singular objective, I suppose is possible, but if I were to say 1+1=2 is true that does not mean that 3-1=2 is also not true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The commands are issued because they are true. They are not true because they were issued.

... therefore God is not required as a moral foundation, so your "there's no reality without God" argument is nothing more than a red herring.

You got a little chicken and egg thing going on. Whatever fault you wish to invent for God they only get drastically worse for opinion based morality which is the best it gets without him.

Actually, I think it's your position that has the problems. The only defense you've come up with just doesn't work because:

- morality doesn't require God.
- even if morality was only a matter of opinion, it wouldn't change the answer to the question of whether God is evil. "'Evil' is only opinion" doesn't actually do anything to counter the argument that God is evil; all it would do if it worked would imply that God's evilness is unimportant.

 

[Ingledsva]

Satan is mentioned 2 times by Jesus, the first time is when he is in the desert and is tempted (which fits the role of Satan the opposer/accuser), the second time is in reference to Peter. Which again fits as Satan has been used plenty of times to describe again someone who opposes/or accuses. I see no reason from what was recorded as the words of Jesus for their to be a malevolent entity separate from God who opposes God. Now if you follow the bible to accept that you would need to accept that those who mention it are drawing from the book of Enoch, as it is from there that the idea of Satan would hold water and even there I believe that we have mention of a divine messiah. So I suppose you must take the books of enoch as canon?....

It also fits the Tester - sent to test, roll, to see if Jesus is ready to do what he has to do.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness (peirazo) to be tested by the devil.
peirazo is - to TEST, TRY, PROVE, in this case by tempting.

*

 

[1robin]

350?

Tell are 351 prophecies concerning Christ alone, Is that what you your asking?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have not read most of this, it is only to indicate many studies exist and methods utilized.
Mind brain debate

This guy's “empirical evidence” is that he communicates with the dead. I need something better than that.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Mental/product-reviews/0060393556"]Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force

This is not evidence that the mind and brain are separate, given that his research shows that mind and brain are connected and it certainly isn't evidence for the existence of disembodied minds. It's evidence for neuroplasticity, which itself is fascinating, but has nothing to do with disembodied minds.

There are countless books on NDE's when all brain function had ceased. One I remember was a lady who had here brain drained of all blood and was completely dead yet know things she had no access to, it is quite famous. Forget her name but the library and internet are full of these events.

The last person who cited this example to me (assuming it's the same one) ended up having to concede, after further research that the woman was not actually brain dead during the time period she had claimed to have left her body. Furthermore, there's no evidence that she saw anything she couldn't have known about before the surgery, or surmised afterward. It turned out to be rather unremarkable, as all of these supposed NDE's turn out to be once you research all the details.

What characteristics would whatever created the universe have by necessity? Plus about a thousand just like that one that the Biblical description matches identically.

The Bible doesn't match a great deal of what we know about the world perfectly, despite the fact that you keep claiming it does. It's wrong on cosmology, for instance.

That is not what people of faith do. They make a reasoned decision based on what ever evidence is known at the time they live.

And if a reasoned decision can't be made for lack of evidence, then what? “The Bible exists” is not evidence, in my opinion, but that's the “evidence” for a great many people.

No you did not. No one has or ever could.

I actually did. You have no way of knowing what I did or did not do.

Many people care about us yet we do not marry them all.

Huh? Of course we don't marry everyone we care about. Who said we did?

I find it interesting that the greatest test to determine the love another being has for us is self sacrifice. God provided the ultimate example of this. You will never know if their faking it or not.

I'd say the greatest test to determine if someone loves you or not is the way they treat you. Of course, that's only my opinion.

You will never know if someone is faking their love for you or not? Gee, I'd say if someone spends 60 years of their life with you, they might just love you. Could you spend that long with someone you don't care about? I highly doubt it. So yeah, there are ways to tell if someone is faking or not. I already gave an example prior to this one as well (half of it seems to have disappeared in your response though).

What exactly did your god sacrifice again? I don't see that “he” sacrificed anything.

I followed the Biblical plan of salvation and met Christ spiritually. That could not happen unless Islam is wrong and Christianity is right. I can only say that once that experience is experienced there is no doubt of what it was. I know you will not agree because you can't but I am the one that had it.

It could happen for a great number of reasons, your being right about it is far from the only one.
We know that people of many different religions and faiths have had many different experiences that they claim came from their deity, and therefore could say the exact same thing you did above and claim that makes YOUR religion wrong. Which of course, still gets us nowhere. We're still in the same place we were before where I was asking you why I should take YOUR experience as evidence for YOUR deity, when so many people have so many different experiences, all claiming it derives from their deity which is not the one you worship.

That's not evidence to me.

Prophecy, ESP, out of body experiences, knowledge without access, the universe, many constants, religious spiritual experiences, miracles, tell you what look into the testing criteria for modern Catholic spiritual warfare investigations.

None of which are empirically demonstrable. At least, so far.

Like I say, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen the chupacabra, banshees, you name it.

Catholics are very very skeptical and reluctant to grant miracle status or saint status to anything or anyone. (liability reasons etc.....) They are usually more skeptical than secular people involved with the issues yet they have approved many genuine supernatural events. Start there.

Please. They have never proven a single genuine supernatural event. No one has.

Their “miracle” claims are laughable in many cases. Things like, their was special lighting around Mother Teresa when someone took her picture once, is supposed to be some kind of miracle. Couldn't be the camera or anything, noooo, god must have intervened with the camera or the room lighting. I see no reason to take such claims seriously.

That is what must be done to claim any knowledge on the subject.

That's what James Randi wants to do, so he can give away a million dollar prize. He issued the challenge 40 years ago. So far … nothing.

Like I said search modern Catholic investigations into the demonic, miraculous or sainthood or NDEs.

I have.

Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck?

I tell you what we don't do is assume they all have mundane explanations without sufficient evidence to know that is the case.

Maybe you should start doing that instead.

The chance someone is deluding themselves corresponds to how much evidence there is. They may not be deluding themselves but the chances are astronomically higher the Yeti people are than the 1/3 of the Earth that believes in Christ. I reject over 90% of claims to the miraculous but have also experienced it and find even within the 8% that is left far more events than could ever be denied.

No they aren't. How do you come to that conclusion? Just because there are more of them? So what?

That was the editorial we not me. Though many claim to have seen Christ including a Hindu priest in the top of a Ziggurat off the coast of India. You ought to see his before and after pictures. Witch doctor to straight laced Christian in a day. I have reliably accounts of God in human form and that combined with my experiences and a million other lines of evidence is far more than enough to justify faith. I wish you spent more time on the issues than trying to technically win a word fight.

Lots of people have seen David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. I guess that means it happened.

There is no aspect between the two that is equal.

Why? Because you say so?

We're talking about the existence of something versus the non-existence of something. Whether it be god(s), dinosaurs, leprechauns or banshees.

Then we have to personally investigate the claims. Just a few examples.

1. Bible - 2500 detailed prophecies Quran - at best one pathetic example.
2. Bible - exploded while being persecuted Quran - languished while being mildly persecuted and exploded when they began persecuting.
3. Bible - hundreds of miracles Quran - maybe 2 or 3 that can be shown false. Muhammad refused to do any when asked. Said he was only a messenger.
4.Bible has over 40 authors and written over 1800 years. Quran - 1 very suspicious author written over 30 years or so.

1.Well if we accept predictions like the Tyre example you like to throw around where you have to deny that something that still exists (Tyre) doesn't actually exist and was destroyed forever, then yeah, they work. Otherwise, the details don't actually add up. Also, you have to flat out ignore the predictions that didn't turn out at all like the one about the Nile drying up.

I don't know as much about the Quran as I do about the Bible, but I just quickly googled it and counted at least 15 prophecies from the Quran that some Muslims believe have been fulfilled.

2.What does that have to do with the veracity of their claims?

3. We have no way of verifying that any of them actually happened. How come nobody else bothered writing about a bunch of zombie saints that rose from the grave and roamed the streets when Christ's resurrection? You'd think that would be a noteworthy event. (I noticed you ignored this point the last time I brought it up which was my last post.)

I'm pretty sure at least some Muslims think there are miracles contained within the Quran.

4. The Bible's authors aren't suspicious … why?

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

It just keeps getting worse.

For all of them.

The by far greatest book on Caesar is the Gallic wars. It was written by him for self promotional reasons and the oldest copy is 900 years after the original and there is only a few. The Bible has 5700 very early copies. Alexander grew so tired of inaccurate accounts (oldest copies hundreds of years later in existence and few of them) he threw one in the sea and threaten another's life. Yet we teach both those men as factual. Jesus is more textual attested by far (I mean far) than any character in ancient history.

What did Jesus author? Does he appear on any coins? Are there any statues or busts of Jesus that were made during his lifetime or by someone who had known him? These are pieces of evidence that make the difference to me.

And just out of curiosity, why don't you think your god saw fit to make sure at least one original copy survived over all this time?

What does this have to do with anything?

It has to do with the veracity of religious claims.

They are not equivalent to Christianity in any way other than being theological concepts.

Instead of just saying they're not equivalent, would you mind explaining why you think they are not?
Because I don't see it that way.

Those people believed in their gods as much as you believe in yours.

I only suggest the same standards be used. You think multiverses are legitimate concepts but claim the infinitely more evidenced Bible is not. Why? I think you view is more accurately stated that you demand proof be given before and theological issue is even considered but any other concept may be valid just on the basis it is not impossible.

Because there is at least some empirical evidence for multiverses, that's why. You want me to do things with the Bible that I don't have to do if I consider a multiverse hypothesis to be at least plausible. I have to believe in things that are not demonstrable in any way and according to Christians, can never be demonstrable.

I'm not accepting and clinging to an hypothesis for the origin of the universe at this point because I don't think there's enough evidence and I just have to live with that. I think it's really interesting, and there are a lot of models out there that have at least a bit of evidence that could support them. I just read a new one where a scientist claims to have evidence that our universe sprung from a black hole that formed in a larger “bulk” universe (or something like that). He described the Big Bang as a “mirage.” That sounds about as plausible as anything else and equally as interesting.

I guess I'm not forced to have to come to a conclusion, as you seem to be.

No they are not in totality. At least anymore so than theology. Every issue beyond "I think and am" is part faith and part evidence. I am exhausted, get to the rest later.

Obviously I disagree.

 

[johnhanks]

Tell are 351 prophecies concerning Christ alone, Is that what you your asking?

Would you like to quote one that refers explicitly to a man named Jesus who will be born to a virgin in Bethlehem, live as a carpenter in Nazareth, hit the road as an itinerant preacher about age 30 and soon afterward be executed for sedition by the Romans? Please note the word 'explicitly': once you admit metaphor and allegory you can retro-fit any piece of nonsense into prophecy.

 

[psychoslice]

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?....its simple, he is your god, and you allow all the crap that you believe your god is.

 

[Ingledsva]

350?

Tell are 351 prophecies concerning Christ alone, Is that what you your asking?

What are they?

And please don't spam us with a huge page, - just list the book and verse.

*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tell are 351 prophecies concerning Christ alone, Is that what you your asking?

Going back a while here.

Yes, you claimed that there are more than 350 for Christ. I asked you to give us the best one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I imply that because they have said they have done that and I have even posted a few of their statements. The only thing unresolved is how many or how much they do it.

The “statement” you provided was a line from a Wiki article that was not a quotation or statement from anyone.

Then black holes, multiverses, oscillation verses, macro evolution, abiogenesis, strings, and M theory are all false because you can't see them or measure them yet many of them you have argued are valid concepts.

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution. There is no blind faith required to accept it.

As I keep saying about multiverses, abiogenesis, etc. is that they are plausible and there is at least some preliminary evidence supporting all of them. Notice how I don’t choose to believe in any specific concept at this point and will keep pointing that out.

The same can be said for every historical event that occurred before your time.

Some yes, some no. But my acceptance of historical events doesn’t hinge on believing anything greater than the basic event or person as your belief in the life of Jesus seems to. I can accept that maybe some guy named Caesar existed without having to believe every extraordinary story about him in existence. On the other hand, your belief that a divine Jesus Christ existed comes with a ton of baggage that could never be verified. Not only are we to believe that Jesus actually existed but we have to further believe that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles and such and was resurrected from the grave and now lives eternally in heaven with god and if we only have faith in all of this we get to join him there.

There is a difference. The latter comes with an unverifiable religious worldview while the former doesn’t require anything like it.

I do not care what you adopt just adopt it consistently. You can see the effects of the spirit in miracles, the continuous self sacrifice made by those who claimed faith was their motivation for 2000 years, the Church its self or at least some aspects of it, and you could experience it directly if you would allow your self. Believe whatever you wish just do so consistently. What other culture or faith has even a fraction the number of willing martyrs as Christianity and Judaism?

You can see the effects of the spirit in miracles? Why has this never been documented then, if what you say is true?

There are people in history and present day whom are not religious and yet perform acts of self-sacrifice that put the rest of us to shame. So if that’s going to be your line of reasoning, you have to acknowledge that this occurs without belief in your god all the time. Therefore, it’s not really evidence for the veracity of your specific religious claims any more than having some kind of religious experience is evidence for a specific religion because people from all religions have these kinds of experiences and they all claim it’s a result of THEIR religion being the right one.

What other culture or faith has even a fraction of the number of willing martyrs as Christianity and Judaism? How about Islam.

Not at all. I never said everything that can't be seen must be believed in. I said that not seeing something is not evidenced it isn't true.

But you also said that we can verify the existence of something via personal experience. Many people claim to have seen ghosts or demons or fairies or aliens or whatever, so following your line of reasoning, these experiences constitute evidence for the existence of such things.

You are kind of saying that we have to accept all truth claims until they are disproven.

No they did not ask the same questions we do in many ways. The level of detail for instance that philosophy and science have indicated the cause of the universe must have were not even guessed at 5000 years ago.

But you keep saying that the Israelites knew things thousands of years before the rest of us verified them scientifically. If they weren’t asking the same questions, how did this happen?

And I’m pretty sure you are aware that the ancient Greeks pretty much invented philosophy. They were asking much the same questions we are today, only they didn’t have the same means to investigate as we do now.

I left natural rules exactly where they belong, in nature and binding on nature. You are the one that are attempting to apply laws where they do not apply, not me. You have more evidence than you will ever be able to get to. What you actually want is proof and then only to consider not commit IMO. I have given you lists of things that have no natural explanation, the Bible is 750,000 words full of evidence, the internet is full of supernatural claims. Until you prove them all wrong you may not claim there is no evidence. Good luck.

You’ve given me a generic list of things for which the person experiencing them can find no explanation. Which of course doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If I can’t explain where lightning comes from, can I just chalk it up to a miracle?

The Bible is not evidence of anything other than the Bible. It’s not evidence for the divine, by any stretch of the imagination.

The internet is filled with millions and millions of stories and unverified claims. To take them all seriously would be folly of the worst kind.

Shifting the burden of proof isn’t going to get you anywhere. You made the claim, you provide evidence that the thing you experienced is supernatural in origin. It’s not on the rest of us to disprove your claims; it doesn’t work that way. People can claim anything they want and for some reason you think the burden falls upon the person that doesn’t just accept it to prove that it’s wrong? Come on.

1000s, but less than 3 that meet the requirements I mentioned. I have already answered the other questions at least twice.

Requirements for what? The people who believed in all those gods believed in them as much as you believe in yours, and I’m sure claimed to have experiences with them as you do.

I agree that occurred but you have no way of knowing if the Biblical writers did it themselves. Every indication is they did not but even if they did you have no way to know it.

Ancient peoples in general did such things. People living today do such things.

There is no other text or concept in human history more universally claimed to have answered these questions than the Bible.

You’re always making grand claims like this from the perspective of a person already believes them.

I don’t think it answers the questions and a lot of other people don’t either. So where does that leave us?

That does not account for why their description matches up with what modern thinking has posited to answer questions they were unaware of 5000 years ago.

Their descriptions don’t match up with modern thinking or with modern science.

Do you think they knew that whatever created time must be independent of time long before even cause and effect was an issue?

I’m pretty sure ancient thinkers at least discussed such things.

Continued ...