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

[1robin]

Multiverses actually have some (preliminary) evidence, as I’ve JUST demonstrated.

NO THEY DO NOT. Did you not read the whole site. It must have said "if they" "then that" "if the other is true" " based on these assumptions" dozens of times etc.... Then it said even if those "bruises" actually turned out to be evidence it is the first evidence known. Unless that article was printed 30 years ago then we still have virtually nothing. You will grant anything except God desperate credit it does no merit and deny real evidence if it even points in the direction of God . It is as obvious as can be. Why? Even if Polio shots hurt and children may think them evil they are still the only solution available.

When you can come up with some empirical evidence for the specific god you believe in that amounts to more than personal experience, feel free to let me know.

Same with any of the science fiction arguments used against him. Once again why buck the odds to demolish the only solution available?

Yes, I know you at least skimmed over it. When I quote something, I like to try to give the source.

I read the whole thing and quoted from it. You apparently did not read all of it nor even the quotes I used from it or you would not have said what you did above. However I may not read anymore of these multiverse or abiogenesis links anymore. It has been one paper tiger after another saying nothing in the most possible words.

I suggest it is possible to determine what happened billions of years ago and SO DO YOU, as you readily and eagerly accept Big Bang (without considering any other options for some reason).

My faith is independent of the Big Bang or anything else. Scientific information to me is only confirmation not foundational. No I do not think anyone has much of an ideas at happened billions of years ago. I only think very general ideas can be guessed at. I can see the universe expanding and other actual things so I can go with the Big Bang as the best theory, however you seem to go whatever the opposite or inconsistent direction that God is in even in spite of the evidence, against the latest models, or without a scientific merit of any kind.

Uh, yes it is. Feeney and his colleagues hypothesized that if multiverses do in fact exist, we should be able to find inhomogeneities in the cosmic background radiation that would be produced as a result of bubble universes colliding with each other. They created an algorithm to search for these “bubble collisions” with specific properties, and found four circular patterns. If it’s not preliminary evidence, what would you call it?

I call it almost meaningless. If they still have not the slightest idea what gravity is or where 98% of the mass in the universe we actually have is I doubt their capacity concerning universes outside ours. Why have you spent thousands of words attempting to defend the almost infinitely less substantiated model of the universe? How do you know their assumptions were even close? How do you know the algorithms based on those assumptions were correct? How do you the measurements were accurate? How do you know there are not a billion other explanations for the measurements? Etc.. Is there any part of that theory that is not mostly based of faith and assumptions. Where are the independent corroborations, the independent lines of reasoning, and confirming tests? Why is any leap of faith justified unless it goes in the God direction? These double standards never cease to amaze me.

Gee, how did they manage to figure out what might have happened billions of years ago? And why do you accept it without even considering anything else? Is it because you think it fits with your preconceived ideas about your god?

I have no fixed theories on anything billions of years ago. All the reliable science is consistent with the Bible but I do not think anything is known. You remember that I have the faith position not you? Why are your claims intruding on the condemned faith realm even more than mine?

There is no empirical evidence for god. I think you have said there never can be. So there’s your answer.

I never said that. I said there is no proof for God thought a few things are as close as possible to get. We have a universe or even a bunch of them. Natural law can't create natural law, nor a universe, nor even explain this one alone. God or something like him is almost a certainty but I will not use the word proof because I have no need of it.

Consistent standard ARE maintained. You’re just upset they won’t consider your unverifiable god ideas.

NO THEY ARE NOT.

1. Multi-universe have virtually no evidence are 99.99999% faith and they are valid concepts for you.
2. A single finite universe is overwhelmingly evidenced yet not convincing or apparently convenient for you.
3. God has more evidence that both squared and it flat denied by you even as a concept.

There is nothing consistent about this, nor even rational and a hundred examples like this or worse exist in atheist argumentation.

What we know now is consistent with god? What are you talking about? What facts are you talking about????????

25,000 historical corroborations, 2500 detailed and accurate prophecies, the moral realm, the explanatory scope, philosophical truths, logical laws, etc...... I will make this short, there is not one reliable scientific, historical, or philosophical fact inconsistent with the Bible's claims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How many times do I have to state I rarely use good in connection with God. I use right.

Splitting hairs.

What standard do you use to determine that God is "right"?

 

[1robin]

Who is this known to? I'd say the worst thing that can be done to a child is to torture, beat or sexually assault them.

It is a sort of parenting Mantra. Are you claiming you never heard this before? I would think the modern US school system would be proof enough of it's validity.

 

[1robin]

Splitting hairs.

What standard do you use to determine that God is "right"?

The fact here is no possibility a God similar to the Bible can be wrong. There is no standard capable of judging any action he ever did was wrong. If you doubt this then give me the standard he violated. The only theoretical exception is for him to violate his own word or state something contrary to reality.

 

[1robin]

By any normal standard.

By what standard can God be shown to be good? If you can find one - a VALID one - then you can use it to judge God's evil actions to be evil.

It was your side's claim that God was evil or wrong. It is your burden. You will find few argument I ever made that use the he is good premise.

 

[1robin]

Well I think the current consensus is that there isn't much backing for the conquests that are recorded in the book of Joshua.

I back them but if God backs them they have no need for further support. I have read extensively secular books on OT warfare and I defy anyone to prove God did anything evil even by our standards much less the ones he is actually bound by.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fact here is no possibility a God similar to the Bible can be wrong.

That's a claim you're going to have to back up.

There is no standard capable of judging any action he ever did was wrong.

This wouldn't make his actions right; it would make the question of their rightness or wrongness unanswerable.

If you doubt this then give me the standard he violated.

Don't shift the burden of proof. When you call God "right", this implies that there's some standard that God upheld. What standard was it?

 

[1robin]

That's a claim you're going to have to back up.

How do you prove the absence of something? As an atheist I imagine you would be the expert. The claim stands until at least a theoretical standard is shown to exist. Your side is the one that began judging God. You require a sufficient standard to do so. Where is it?

This wouldn't make his actions right; it would make the question of their rightness or wrongness unanswerable.

I disagree but would accept that because the debate is boring and unnecessary.

Don't shift the burden of proof. When you call God "right", this implies that there's some standard that God upheld. What standard was it?

God's nature determines both what is right and what is done. His nature is the standard but your burden non the less.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I back them but if God backs them they have no need for further support. I have read extensively secular books on OT warfare and I defy anyone to prove God did anything evil even by our standards much less the ones he is actually bound by.

No, meaning that they didn't actually happen. The formation of the OT (or at least the 5 books), was not composed until either the Babylonian-Exile era/Persian Return. So likely those "laws" didn't occur.

Secular wise anyway.

 

[1robin]

No, meaning that they didn't actually happen. The formation of the OT (or at least the 5 books), was not composed until either the Babylonian-Exile era/Persian Return. So likely those "laws" didn't occur.

Secular wise anyway.

I found almost all the Jewish wars justifiable even by human standards but before anyone could condemn them they must have a standard capable of judging God. Even the laws meant to regulate fallible and finite man from God are not necessarily binding on God. It sounds convenient but there is little way to judge God.

 

[cottage]

25,000 historical corroborations, 2500 detailed and accurate prophecies, the moral realm, the explanatory scope, philosophical truths, logical laws, etc...... I will make this short, there is not one reliable scientific, historical, or philosophical fact inconsistent with the Bible's claims.

That is rather a scatter gun assertion. Might I ask you to identify the 'philosophical truths' and 'logical laws' you are referring to so that we can discuss them?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I found almost all the Jewish wars justifiable even by human standards but before anyone could condemn them they must have a standard capable of judging God. Even the laws meant to regulate fallible and finite man from God are not necessarily binding on God. It sounds convenient but there is little way to judge God.

I'm sure anyone can find any war justifiable, but something being justifiable has nothing to do with whether or not it was moral. Justice does not always serve morality.

However the point is, there does not to be records to defend the wars that occurred. That is not to say taht some acts of agression where not carried out, but that the wars recorded in the book of Joshua do not have the archealogical backing to support their occurrence. at least currently. Maybe in the future?

 

[1robin]

That is rather a scatter gun assertion. Might I ask you to identify the 'philosophical truths' and 'logical laws' you are referring to so that we can discuss them?

Of course it was. If I systematically listed all the evidence consistent with the Bible I would never get done. I just randomly posted some areas that contain most of them. Cause and effect, law of non-contradiction, sufficient causation, etc...

 

[cottage]

Of course it was. If I systematically listed all the evidence consistent with the Bible I would never get done. I just randomly posted some areas that contain most of them. Cause and effect, law of non-contradiction, sufficient causation, etc...

In what way is the principle of cause and effect a ‘logical truth’, and to what are you applying the law of non-contradiction?

 

[1robin]

I'm sure anyone can find any war justifiable, but something being justifiable has nothing to do with whether or not it was moral. Justice does not always serve morality.

I do not know if they are equalities but in general justice is the basis for morality.

However the point is, there does not to be records to defend the wars that occurred. That is not to say taht some acts of agression where not carried out, but that the wars recorded in the book of Joshua do not have the archealogical backing to support their occurrence. at least currently. Maybe in the future?

Every secular book I have read on them is consistent with the Bible in general but in that date range it is hard to get any two records that are consistent. Since the issue began as a condemnation of God for those wars any inaccuracy of the historical record would weaken that case not mine. The Bible is a primary archeological resource for even secular scholars and has a vast track record of embarrassing it's critics so I would not take any position that required me to contradict unless the evidence was clear. There are entire museums dedicated to cultures the Bible said existed and scholars denied. Have a good one I am out of here.

 

[1robin]

In what way is the principle of cause and effect a ‘logical truth’, and to what are you applying the law of non-contradiction?

Is anything that has no known exception either not logical or not true? Let me clarify a bit to save time. I did not mean that all those areas are evidence for God's existence directly. Many have to do with the consistency of testimony, explanatory scope or power, etc..... If God contradicted himself he would no longer qualify as God, as he is described. This would take a while to hash out and I am out of time. Have a good one and I will check back as soon as I can.

 

[cottage]

Is anything that has no known exception either not logical or not true? Let me clarify a bit to save time. I did not mean that all those areas are evidence for God's existence directly. Many have to do with the consistency of testimony, explanatory scope or power, etc..... If God contradicted himself he would no longer qualify as God, as he is described. This would take a while to hash out and I am out of time. Have a good one and I will check back as soon as I can.

The title of the thread is asking if God is evil. You have said to another poster that ‘God is consistent with facts’. And indeed he is, if he exists, in one particular respect at least. The Bible explicitly informs us that God brings about suffering, and indeed that he creates evil, and since the apologists cannot without contradicting themselves state that God is compelled to cause suffering it follows that the existence of suffering is indefensible. Therefore any argument from morality is incoherent and cannot justify suffering since it is demonstrably unnecessary and arbitrary. And hence the Bible self-evidently cannot be used to propound or defend the moral argument to (or from) God.

 

[ZenMonkey]

The title of the thread is asking if God is evil. You have said to another poster that ‘God is consistent with facts’. And indeed he is, if he exists, in one particular respect at least. The Bible explicitly informs us that God brings about suffering, and indeed that he creates evil, and since the apologists cannot without contradicting themselves state that God is compelled to cause suffering it follows that the existence of suffering is indefensible. Therefore any argument from morality is incoherent and cannot justify suffering since it is demonstrably unnecessary and arbitrary. And hence the Bible self-evidently cannot be used to propound or defend the moral argument to (or from) God.

Here's the gist of it. God has a plan for his creation. Humanity chose to pursue evil, and by doing so we fell from paradise (heaven). I believe God created Satan (sin nature), knowing full well that mankind would honor our sin nature and fall.


The wisdom in this, I think, is that God likewise knew we would one day rise in triumph over our sin nature through love. I believe that God created us with a sin nature so that we would slowly mature and grow wiser through the many trials and tribulations that it thrusts upon us, and all the pain and suffering our sins lead to (evil).


I think it had to be this way. Otherwise, there is no true freedom to be who and what WE want to be. We have a choice to sin or not to sin, to pursue evil or righteousness. We are free agents and as free agents we get to choose. However, life is a great teacher, and although it is sometimes painful, life enables us to mature, to build character, to further develop as individuals and as a people.


We are free to sin to our hearts desire, but there are consequences for our sins. God's plan entails universal reconciliation of all things. One day humanity will grow tired of sin, and will seek after righteousness. One day all things in heaven and on earth will be united through love. One day all things will be reconciled in love. God is love.


The 'plan' involves trial, tribulation, sin, pain, sorrow, and suffering. All of which leads us to want for something better. Love leads us to comfort and joy. One day I believe that humanity is going to wise up, and come to desire love above sin. Sin leads to pain, suffering, and death. Love leads to comfort, joy, and life.


ZM

 

[McBell]

I will make this short, there is not one reliable scientific, historical, or philosophical fact inconsistent with the Bible's claims.

Not short enough.
The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed.
Bats are NOT birds.
Rabbits do NOT chew a cud.


So you are at best just plain flat out wrong, at worse a bold faced liar.

 

[Awoon]

Lady B (the thread maker) hasn't posted since August. Did she ever find out about her God?