god or no god?

[Jtorsella]

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

Ohhhh I see what you're saying. Sacrificing a piece to save another, more important one. Again, this doesn't matter. A theistic God's duty is to serve every person individually, not society as a whole. Frauline Friesel will never be compensated. Her horror was not "well worth the going through". You're saying that in some obscure way, her torture and the death of innocent children prevented something worse elsewhere. If God's doctrine is backstabbing me to save two other people than I don't want to be a part of it, thanks.

 

[WilliamC]

You left out "He could keep his omniscience and use it to decide when or when not to intervene based on an ultimate outcome."

Then I disagree with god as to what I think the ultimate outcome should be.

Too bad for him.

 

[Jtorsella]

Then I disagree with god as to what I think the ultimate outcome should be.

Too bad for him.

^This

 

[erowe1]

A theistic God's duty is to serve every person individually, not society as a whole.

That's the problem with this moral argument for atheism. It presupposes a certain prescription for what God's goodness must entail, and then if someone suggests that there's another way God good be all-good without following that prescription, then the prescription is held back out again as a non-negotiable of what goodness must be.

But this undermines the whole argument. If there is a God, then who's to say that his goodness must be exactly like what someone wants it to be? And if there is not a God, then where does this prescription for goodness that says what a good God must be like come from?

 

[Jtorsella]

That's the problem with this moral argument for atheism. It presupposes a certain prescription for what God's goodness must entail, and then if someone suggests that there's another way God good be all-good without following that prescription, then the prescription is held back out again as a non-negotiable of what goodness must be.

But this undermines the whole argument. If there is a God, then who's to say that his goodness must be exactly like what someone wants it to be? And if there is not a God, then where does this prescription for goodness that says what a good God must be like come from?

How can Christianity proclaim to know more than me about God's purpose? Again I was debating this point on Christianity's view of God. I would be fine having a civilized discussion with a non denominational theist or deist because there are no preconceived notions about what God is or what his motives are

 

[erowe1]

How can Christianity proclaim to know more than me about God's purpose?

The problem is, in this case, it's not Christianity proclaiming to know more about God's purpose. It's the person claiming God doesn't exist who's claiming to know what his purpose is.

 

[Jtorsella]

The problem is, in this case, it's not Christianity proclaiming to know more about God's purpose. It's the person claiming God doesn't exist who's claiming to know what his purpose is.

Again, I'm basing my argument off the assumption that Christianity's view of God is true.
I should had put a preface "Christianity says:" before every statement of God's motive and nature. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[erowe1]

Again, I'm basing my argument off the assumption that Christianity's view of God is true.

Except you're doing the exact opposite. You're insisting that God must be something totally different than Christianity's view of God, some God who has some obligation never to let anything evil happen, and then claiming that, since that non-Christian definition of God doesn't exist, it therefore follows (somehow) that the Christian God doesn't exist.

 

[jmdrake]

Ohhhh I see what you're saying. Sacrificing a piece to save another, more important one. Again, this doesn't matter. A theistic God's duty is to serve every person individually, not society as a whole. Frauline Friesel will never be compensated. Her horror was not "well worth the going through". You're saying that in some obscure way, her torture and the death of innocent children prevented something worse elsewhere. If God's doctrine is backstabbing me to save two other people than I don't want to be a part of it, thanks.

Except God didn't do the backstabbing. When playing chess there are two opponents. In the great controversy there are two primary opponents, God and Satan. Now I don't know about Frauline Friesel so I'll take your word that she was a horrible person. Can we also agree that the trans-African slave trade was a horrible thing? And so was the enslavement of the native Americans? I sometimes wish I could go back in time and undue those things. But as a descendant of African slaves and (at least one) native American slave if I undid that I would no longer exist. Now I don't know how important my existence is in the grand scheme of things. (It's certainly pretty important to me). I can say that I've seen enough of God's providence in my own life to believe that God exists and that He intervenes in a way that makes things turn out ultimately to the good. Frauline Friesel was a Nazi right? And the Nazi's aren't in power right? As has been said my many, believer or non believer, the universe tends towards justice.

One other thing about providence. You or someone else in this thread talked about deism. Well many of the founding fathers were deists (although the claim that most were seems to be overblown), but people who latch on to this seem ignorant of the fact that deists believed in providence! That's the same "God is ultimately guiding this thing though circumstances" belief that Christians have.

Edit: I Googled Frauline Friesel. Apparently she's some poster child atheists use to attack God. I'm not sure why she's singled out from the billions who suffer because of sin's curse (quadrillions over the eons). I challenge any atheist to read the book of Job and then come back and try to debate this after having a true understanding of the Christian view of suffering and of the great controversy between God and Satan.

 

[jmdrake]

Then I disagree with god as to what I think the ultimate outcome should be.

And considering that you are a being with a life expectancy of < 100 years and lacking the ability to see the future you can't even know the ultimate outcome, let alone make any intelligent choice about what it should be.

Too bad for him.

Why exactly is that "too bad for Him"? What difference does your acceptance or lack thereof His decisions make?

 

[Original_Intent]

Here's a concept; we all lived with God and have existed forever. God did not create us ex nihilo; we became His children by accepting His leadership, and He taught us.

Eventually, we learned allt hat could be learned in an environment where the truth was always in front of us. God said, OK the next step is you are going to have to leave me. We will see what you are truly made of with your own ability to discern and choose between good and evil. I will give you instructions on how to live a happy, productive, life - and if universally followed (not by coersion but by each individual's free choice) these rules will create a heaven condition on earth. To the degree that they are not followed, condtiions will worsen. To the degree that one person tries to dominate or control another thru force ore deception, this will be in opposition to the correct way. Oh and by the way, everyone is going to screw up, and since unclean thinks cannot abide my presence, I will provide a savior, who being both perfectly clean and also by taking all of the suffering associated with every sin ever committed - by those who will accept Him all may return to my presence.

Then another being said he had a better idea that would allow all to return to God's presence. We would just have to sacrifice some freedom, but all would share the same outcome (outcome based education?) - this plan should sound familiar and shows the roots of socialist ideas - they appear to be compassionate but of NECESSITY require that freedom be sacrificed. There was a pretty big argument about which plan was better, and eventually 1/3 of everybody went with the latter plan and sought to take the leadership position. They thus failed the first test, and lost the opportunity to further progress. Becoming an enemy to God, he also provided the opposition so that a choice other than God would exist.

For those that say that God cannot be both omnipotent, good, and for bad things to happen - that is just lack of understanding of God's plan, it is like with broken window theory where Bastiat talks about the seen and the unseen. Those who feel that war helps the economy, fall into this fallacy. In the eternal perspective, those who say there cannot be a God really mean "Because if I were God, and I were omnipotent, I would do things differently!" This is because they focus on the seen, but do not understand or comprehend the unseen. None of us do, fully, if we did it would be no more of a second trial than if we had remained in His presence.

Now of course, this raises countless questions, such as "What about people who never even heard of this?" What was the point of their lives? What about the horrors of mass starvation, or the millions killed by tyranny, etc?" To the latter I would say that largely, part of our test is to see what WE will do about it, not for us to complain that God does nothing about it. Much of the suffering is completely due to disobedience to the rules of happiness. That is other thing - those who consider only the seen tend to think of the rule book as coersive, loss of freedom, because if they follow the rules they can no longer "do what they want". Which is hogwash - of course there is not a single thing that I cannot do that a non-believer can. I can have all the sex I want with anyone I want - asumming I can entice them or have the physical strength to force them. What constrains me is the same thing that constrains a car owner from pouring sugar in his gas tank - the rules aren't there for the sake of restriction, they are a guide to true happiness and not the counterfeit happiness which is offered by the enemy. Certainly I would not suggest that the countereit doesn;t "feel good" even exhilerating, fun, enjoyable. Much as a diet of soda, ice cream, candy, fast food, etc. provides a pleasurable "sugar rush", and are even acceptable and good within proper bounds, there is harm when indulged in beyond the proper bounds. And while a child might prefer a meal of cotton candy, cake, ice cream, etc. an adult properly enjoys a good steak, salad, and also knows the long term benefit of eating properly.

No ill will for the atheists/agnostics. One of the greatest theologians of modern times was one, and fought tooth and nail against being converted to Christianity. For the poster who said that if God would allow such things he would "rape God when he sees him...." you will repent of that when your eyes have been opened. And they will be, in this life or the next, you will see. Of course, it will be far to your benefit if you choose to see sooner rather than later.

 

[Jtorsella]

Except you're doing the exact opposite. You're insisting that God must be something totally different than Christianity's view of God, some God who has some obligation never to let anything evil happen, and then claiming that, since that non-Christian definition of God doesn't exist, it therefore follows (somehow) that the Christian God doesn't exist.

No, what i'm asserting is that the basic assumptions of Christianity: Personal God, Perfect, Omnipotent, lead to the conclusion that to fulfill all of those characteristics He must protect equally his people. Let's try not to get too heated, we both love Ron Paul .

Except God didn't do the backstabbing. When playing chess there are two opponents. In the great controversy there are two primary opponents, God and Satan. Now I don't know about Frauline Friesel so I'll take your word that she was a horrible person. Can we also agree that the trans-African slave trade was a horrible thing? And so was the enslavement of the native Americans? I sometimes wish I could go back in time and undue those things. But as a descendant of African slaves and (at least one) native American slave if I undid that I would no longer exist. Now I don't know how important my existence is in the grand scheme of things. (It's certainly pretty important to me). I can say that I've seen enough of God's providence in my own life to believe that God exists and that He intervenes in a way that makes things turn out ultimately to the good. Frauline Friesel was a Nazi right? And the Nazi's aren't in power right? As has been said my many, believer or non believer, the universe tends towards justice.

Listen I completely understand your argument and it is valid, but we have to think of all the hundreds of thousands who died. Again, all i'm saying is that an omnipotent, personal God's would not let horrible things happen to one person in exchange for better things for generations to come. For the record, I am an Agnostic, and very much respect religious people. Let's please not get angry at each other as this is a very controversial topic and we are all united in our love of liberty.

 

[erowe1]

No, what i'm asserting is that the basic assumptions of Christianity: Personal God, Perfect, Omnipotent, lead to the conclusion that to fulfill all of those characteristics He must protect equally his people.

But they don't lead to that conclusion. The only way to make them lead to it is by adding in some extra premise that does not comport with Christianity, such as the premise, "a personal, perfect, omnipotent god must protect equally his people."

 

[Jtorsella]

But they don't lead to that conclusion. The only way to make them lead to it is by adding in some extra premise that does not comport with Christianity, such as the premise, "a personal, perfect, omnipotent god must protect equally his people."

Listen, neither of us are going to get anywhere, and we both will just continue to rehash old statements. Let's just end this and get on to electing RP President. Agree?

 

[AFPVet]

convince me as to why there is or isnt a god? especially the KJV god and jesus. i am on the fence.

discuss

This is something that you are going to have to find yourself. Ask for God to come into your life and show you. Sometimes, this will manifest by people who come into contact with you. One of the greatest pieces of evidence is the people who come into your life when you need them the most... and of course, there are miraculous phenomenon.

 

[TER]

How can it be that an all All-loving God would allow His children to fall away from Him and choose death over life? Is He not omnipotent? Couldn't He if He wished have everyone saved and avoid us altogether the unnecessary experiences of sufferings and difficulties and sadness? The Orthodox answer is that He could have, as there is no limit to God and He transcendes all human understanding.

But perhaps our misunderstanding lies in assuming that such sufferings are indeed unnecessary. Was Christ's death on the cross unnecesarry? We have been revealed the King on a donkey riding into Jerusalem. We have been revealed a crucified savior as the Way to everlasting life. If we are to call ourselves disciples of Christ, than we must believe Him when He tells us that satan is the prince of this world and that in this world we will be persecuted and ridiculed and mocked. Who have been persecuted and have endured throughout the ages, holding fast to the teachings of Christ? Where is His Church which is His Body within this world? Lets clear up misunderstandings lest we follow the masses and wander down the broad gates which leads to perdition.

The Church is the salt of the earth as He taught on the Sermon on the Mount. Like tiny grains of salt which when applied to food serves to preserve it and protect it from the forces of corruption all around. And though in numbers much less in amount and weight compared to the food it is applied to, it will act to protect the entire body of food it is in contact with.

Similarly, the saints, though less in numbers, preserve His Body (which is the Church). Through their prayers and intercessions, the Church endures by the Grace of God.

Unfortunately, as the salt becomes less and less available and in smaller and smaller amounts, then corruption begins to gain ground and putrefaction occurs. And while the early undivided Church flourished in those centuries of martyrs and holy men and women, it has since been rejected and torn asunder and the number of saints have decreased. St. John tells us that the Final Day of Judgment will come after the great falling away (apostasy) at which time the corruptible forces of satan would be just about to overcome the gates of hell and threaten to destroy all of creation. I speculate that at that time, the Church in terms of numbers will be in its least relative amount in all history, less than 10% if we choose that number.

 

[AFPVet]

How can it be that an all All-loving God would allow His children to fall away from Him and choose death over life? Is He not omnipotent? Couldn't He if He wished have everyone saved and avoid us altogether the unnecessary experiences of sufferings and difficulties and sadness? The Orthodox answer is that He could have, as there is no limit to God and He transcends all human understanding.

But perhaps our misunderstanding lies in assuming that such sufferings are indeed unnecessary. Was Christ's death on the cross unnecessary? We have been revealed the King on a donkey riding into Jerusalem. We have been revealed a crucified savior as the Way to everlasting life. If we are to call ourselves disciples of Christ, than we must believe Him when He tells us that satan is the prince of this world and that in this world we will be persecuted and ridiculed and mocked. Who have been persecuted and have endured throughout the ages, holding fast to the teachings of Christ? Where is His Church which is His Body within this world? Lets clear up misunderstandings lest we follow the masses and wander down the broad gates which leads to perdition.

The Church is the salt of the earth as He taught on the Sermon on the Mount. Like tiny grains of salt which when applied to food serves to preserve it and protect it from the forces of corruption all around. And though in numbers much less in amount and weight compared to the food it is applied to, it will act to protect the entire body of food it is in contact with.

Similarly, the saints, though less in numbers, preserve His Body (which is the Church). Through their prayers and intercessions, the Church endures by the Grace of God.

Unfortunately, as the salt becomes less and less available and in smaller and smaller amounts, then corruption begins to gain ground and putrefaction occurs. And while the early undivided Church flourished in those centuries of martyrs and holy men and women, it has since been rejected and torn asunder and the number of saints have decreased. St. John tells us that the Final Day of Judgment will come after the great falling away (apostasy) at which time the corruptible forces of satan would be just about to overcome the gates of hell and threaten to destroy all of creation. I speculate that at that time, the Church in terms of numbers will be in its least relative amount in all history, less than 10% if we choose that number.

God truly is the ultimate Libertarian. God allowed us "free will" to make decisions.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You're absolutely right, and I don't really care about this debate as it wouldn't affect my politics either way, but a rebuttal to that statement can be found in my signature.

That statement is false. If you're talking about the beginning of the universe, you have no fallback position, and no neutral answer. Therefore, the assertion that there is no god requires just as much proof as the assertion that there is one. There is no expected or natural state of things concerning the beginning of the universe which you can assume until proven otherwise. Both statements are just as valid until the evidence is viewed. So saying there is no evidence that there's a god is just avoiding the question, but doesn't logically allow you to dismiss the possibility.

 

[robert68]

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?

I largely had in mind the killing and injuring of innocent life and the destruction of property of innocents. If possibly preventing one wrong can justify committing 1, 5, 10, 100 or more other wrongs, then the concept of “wrong” is meaningless. Some people aren’t moral relativists and consider certain acts to always be wrong.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes.

Of course this is not the same thing as preventing it, unless you mean to add in another premise saying that it is, which would have to be accepted for the syllogism to be valid.

Erowe, you beat around the bush too much. You know how to explain it to him, so why don't you? Point out the flaws in his logic, or else he won't understand because he is incapable.