god or no god?

[erowe1]

Well, I don't have 4 statements, I only have 3.



And I truly don't understand how they can all be true at the same time, and you appear to be unwilling to explain it to me. Oh well...

From what you wrote in post #56 it looks to me like you do understand how they can all be true at the same time.

If you wanted to present a valid proof, you could do that by adding a fourth statement, such as I suggested in post #55. But if you don't, then what you're left with is your invalid one.

 

[Liberty4life]

Mathematically it makes sense to believe in God because it's the only path to #winning!:

God/Believe = #winning
God/No Believe = #fail
No God/Believe = #dead
No God/No Believe = #dead

Here's my take on it.

God/Believe = Graduate to higher levels of reality.
God/No Believe = Fail, rebirth to same level.
No God/Believe = Maybe something will happen.
No God/No Believe = Nothing happens.


In the days when the bible was written they believed that you could be reborn. This has been scrubbed out of modern religion to make people desperate to get their freak on. Churches make you think you only get one chance to get it right, but this concept is counter to mercy. What about groups of people who never heard about Christ? What about people who were born before He came?

So I believe the modern bible is full of planted falsehoods, but also it contains the truth, but you have to find it. Here I'll tell you some of it.
God is Love anything that is counter to love is not of God, God is light, therefore God is a love-light radiation. This radiation emanates from God in heaven. God himself is a spirit that radiates love. Satan has twisted the minds of men and they do evil in the world for him, they have twisted his word and it has resulted in a confusing version of truth, only the indwelling spirit can discern what is true within it, this spirit you are born with, but is infused with the Holy Spirit after reception of Christ. Remember back before there were ten commandments, men did hat was right in their own hearts, God wrote his laws on the table of our hearts. We know his word already, it's inside us.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I'll answer your question, but could you answer mine as well?

Was it moral for God to allow Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery even though He (God) could have prevented it?

No, in the same way it is not Moral for a father to allow his sons to sell their sister into slavery, since the father could've prevented it.

What was the ultimate outcome?

I do not know that story. Enlighten me.

 

[ClayTrainor]

From what you wrote in post #56 it looks to me like you do understand how they can all be true at the same time.

Hmmm... okay, well here's a quote of that post...

Is it moral to allow child rape to occur, if you have the power to prevent it?

If it is, than God can be both all good and all powerful.

If it is not, than God cannot be both all good and all powerful.

Are you saying that is your position?

 

[erowe1]

Are you saying that is your position?

Yes. How many times have I said that now?

In order for your argument to be valid, you would have to add the fourth claim that "it is not possible for an all-good and all-powerful god to allow evil to happen."

That unstated premise is what you've been assuming all along in your insistence that the argument you presented was valid.

 

[Liberty4life]

I'll answer your question, but could you answer mine as well?



No, in the same way it is not Moral for a father to allow his sons to sell their sister into slavery, since the father could've prevented it.



I do not know that story. Enlighten me.

In the end Joseph became the Pharaoh's right hand man. Whatever He recommended to do that is what they did, he saved Egypt from a seven year famine and saved his own family, yes they eventually did come to get some grain because of drought. Its a very interesting story.
Read the Book of Jasher version it tells a lot more of what happened.

 

[Voluntary Man]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

www.rationalchristianity.net/skeptics.html

 

[ClayTrainor]

Yes. How many times have I said that now?

Well, I apologize, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. :o

Okay, so to be clear... you're saying that...

It is not immoral to let a child get raped, if you have the power to prevent it, therefore God can be all good and all powerful. (correct me if I'm wrong)

If that's accurate, than How can you claim that rape is objectively immoral, if it is not immoral to willingly allow it to occur?

 

[Liberty4life]

What your failing to consider is individuals need to understand why they fail to rebirth to a higher dimension.

So they are reborn directly into a life that will show them the error of their previous life.

It sounds harsh, but God does not do evil, men do evil.

 

[jmdrake]

I'll answer your question, but could you answer mine as well?

I already did, but you didn't respond to my answer.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?318652-god-or-no-god&p=3597242&viewfull=1#post3597242

No, in the same way it is not Moral for a father to allow his sons to sell their sister into slavery, since the father could've prevented it.

So a non-interventionist wanting an extreme interventionist god? Anyway the difference is that a father can't see the end from the beginning. As a father there are times I allow minor things to happen to my children so that they can grow from the experience. Case in point last summer when I dropped my kids off at a mostly white VBS. One of the kids said something mean, though not racist. ("Here comes boring one and boring two"). I thought about saying something to the group leader, who was right there and didn't say or do anything, but I decided not to. In the end the whole experience was positive. Some of the leaders told me my kids were the best behaved of the bunch and knew their Bible better than anyone else.

I do not know that story. Enlighten me.

Cliff notes version: Joseph was sold rich Egyptian and then began running the house. The Egyptian's wife falsely accused Joseph of attempted rape and he was sent to prison. He began running the prison. Eventually Pharaoh had bad dreams about the future and one of the ex-prisoners remembered Joseph could interpret dreams. Joseph was then running Egypt. A famine hit the land that caused people to come from far away to buy grain that Joseph had wisely stored up. Some of these people were his brothers. They were scared when they found out it was Joseph. Joseph said "Don't be scared. You sold me into slavery for evil, but God meant it for good so I could be here to save your lives."

 

[erowe1]

It is not immoral to let a child get raped, if you have the power to prevent it, therefore God can be all good and all powerful. (correct me if I'm wrong)

I'm saying that it's not always immoral. There may be circumstances where it is immoral. But as long as it remains the case that it is not always, by definition, immoral, to allow the child to get raped, then your argument is not valid.

If that's accurate, than How can you claim that rape is objectively immoral, if it is not immoral to willingly allow it to occur?

Because for it to be immoral to perform some act does not imply that it is also immoral to allow it to occur.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, I apologize, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. :o

Okay, so to be clear... you're saying that...

It is not immoral to let a child get raped, if you have the power to prevent it, therefore God can be all good and all powerful. (correct me if I'm wrong)

If that's accurate, than How can you claim that rape is objectively immoral, if it is not immoral to willingly allow it to occur?

Using that logic, is the war in Libya justified just because of reports that Khaddafi's men were raping people?

 

[robert68]

Using that logic, is the war in Libya justified just because of reports that Khaddafi's men were raping people?

The difference with war is that it has unintended consequences.

 

[WilliamC]

As someone who is an agnostic/atheist I find it strange to be apologizing for god but since no one else seems to be I'll give it a go.

He's always free to step in and correct me of course

When god gave sentient beings free will he had to deliberately blind himself or reduce his omniscience since otherwise the exact contradiction that Clay is presenting would occur.

God cannot simultaneously be all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent, otherwise man has no free-will and god is responsible for all the evil in the world and that invalidates the all-good part.

Now if I'm god (just stay with me a minute) the way I'd go about this conundrum is to use take a part of my omniscience and put that into the free-will I give to my sentient creations. Therefore they get to do things that I can't rightly forsee, since if I know in advance what they will do under any and all circumstances, and I control those circumstances, then they're screwed and don't know it. Of course I could limit my omnipotence and give my creations some of that, but stupid Eve had to eat of the tree of knowledge before she took the apple from the tree of imortality, so she sorta ruined that for all us guys and gals that followed.

Of course the religious folk among us will tell you that I'm full of it (and they are right but not for the reasons they might think) and we simple dumb humans simply can't comprehend the mind of god or some such supernatural nonsense, and who knows they may be right.

But if so I'll take it up with god when I die, 'cause otherwise he sure needs some advice on how to run a righteous Universe.

I actually have a poem that will fit in nice here but I can't put my hands on the final version and I'm gonna have to re-write it when I get a chance, so if I can do so soon I'll post it on this thread just to amuse or annoy you, your choice.

 

[WilliamC]

I'm saying that it's not always immoral. There may be circumstances where it is immoral. But as long as it remains the case that it is not always, by definition, immoral, to allow the child to get raped, then your argument is not valid.

Then god can kiss my ass, and I'll rape him next time I have a chance and he can see how much he likes it.

Epic fail.

Actually I don't know if I'm physically capable of rape, since the idea repulses me, and leads to epic fail on my part, so I'll just give him a good beat down instead.

 

[jmdrake]

The difference with war is that it has unintended consequences.

Yes. That's my point. We as human beings never know the full unintended consequences of our actions. Let's say if you could see all of the possible future outcomes of every possible short term action "good" or "bad". If, based on that knowledge, you allowed some short term things to happen that were "bad" would that make you "bad" yourself?

 

[jmdrake]

As someone who is an agnostic/atheist I find it strange to be apologizing for god but since no one else seems to be I'll give it a go.

He's always free to step in and correct me of course

When god gave sentient beings free will he had to deliberately blind himself or reduce his omniscience since otherwise the exact contradiction that Clay is presenting would occur.

You left out "He could keep his omniscience and use it to decide when or when not to intervene based on an ultimate outcome." The Joseph in Egypt story illustrates this perfectly. God could have intervened and prevented Joseph being sold into slavery. But that event ultimately ended up saving Joseph's entire family including his initially hateful brothers. Now some of Joseph's brothers wanted to kill Joseph instead. God intervened by making sure Reuben was their and pricking his conscience. But Reuben was gone when the slaver traders came by. Killing Joseph wouldn't have served any ultimate good purpose, but Joseph being sold into slavery did.

 

[Jtorsella]

I'm saying that it's not always immoral. There may be circumstances where it is immoral. But as long as it remains the case that it is not always, by definition, immoral, to allow the child to get raped, then your argument is not valid.


Because for it to be immoral to perform some act does not imply that it is also immoral to allow it to occur.

You would be right if you believed in deism. Because Christianity asserts that God is a Theistic and controlling God, they always say that "this is part of a plan". Either you agree with this or not. If you agree with it than god can be held responsible for everything bad that has happened because the "plan" includes all of these things. If you do not then there are many other arguments to disprove deism.

For example: Frauline Friesel. She was a Austrian woman who was kept in a basement and sodomised many nights for years. Christopher Hitchens best conveys the point made by this event.

@5:20
If god has a plan, is theistic, then it is his duty to stop this, and that he doesn't is either proof of his imperfection, non omnipotence, or nonexistence. If he doesn't have a plan, is deistic, then Christianity is wrong. Take your pick.

 

[jmdrake]

You would be right if you believed in deism. Because Christianity asserts that God is a Theistic and controlling God, they always say that "this is part of a plan". Either you agree with this or not. If you agree with it than god can be held responsible for everything bad that has happened because the "plan" includes all of these things. If you do not then there are many other arguments to disprove deism.

For example: Frauline Friesel. She was a Austrian woman who was kept in a basement and sodomised many nights for years. Christopher Hitchens best conveys the point made by this event.

@5:20
If god has a plan, is theistic, then it is his duty to stop this, and that he doesn't is either proof of his imperfection, non omnipotence, or nonexistence. If he doesn't have a plan, is deistic, then Christianity is wrong. Take your pick.

Do you know how to play chess? If you do then you should know automatically what's wrong with your argument.

 

[Jtorsella]

Do you know how to play chess? If you do then you should know automatically what's wrong with your argument.

I know how to play chess, but I would like you to explain. I'm open .