You obviously have a weird understanding of what "test" means. Testing does not have to be limited to unforeseen results. As I've said before, God is testing His creatures to show them the nature of their faith. He already knows the end. They do not. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you.
The word test is defined as:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/test
"test 1 (tst)
n.
1. A procedure for critical evaluation; a
means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.
2. A series of questions, problems, or physical responses
designed to determine knowledge, intelligence, or ability.
3. A
basis for evaluation or judgment: "A test of democratic government is how Congress and the president work together" Haynes Johnson.
4. Chemistry
a. A physical or chemical change by which a substance may be detected or its properties ascertained.
b. A reagent used to cause or promote such a change.
c. A positive result obtained.
5. A cupel."
The word test is misleading in the way it was originally phrased,
you simply could have said "God created a test for his creatures" or "God wants his creatures to realise..."
Now as to the part of your claim that God is engaged in showing his creatures the
nature of their faith.
Well if that is true, the lesson learned by a reasonable human being is that God is evil because God puts you in a situation where he is guaranteed to end up punishing you. You learn that because it is said that he is all knowing.
Now as a consequence (and I have stated as much earlier) the nature of your faith would be eternal worry, lest you do something that will 'piss' God off (particularly when its quite feasible based on past precedent that he is in the business of setting you up to fail from the get go).
It isn't something that I feel I would enjoy being a part of. I don't want to stress
daily whether some super-being has something nasty planned for me before I even get anywhere near doing anything he might not like.
You haven't understood my argument. I'm not saying that "atheists" can't utilize laws, morals, and logic, nor is my argument that "atheists" don't use those things.
I'm simply saying that given the precepts of the "atheist" worldview, "atheists" cannot account for what it is they are doing.
Why not?
I do what I do because I want to do it or because I have to.
As to the background of what morals, laws are in use, I could tell you depending on what the situation was.
In the "atheist" worldview, there are no immaterial realities (like God) which are outside of tangible nature observed by our five senses.
Immaterial realities, interesting.
So is there an invisible immaterial purple teapot orbiting Saturn or not Theo?
You can't taste morals. You can't smell laws. You can't feel logic. Yet, the "atheist" believes there are these immaterial entities like laws, morals, and logic when his worldview rejects those things in the first place!
Why would my worldview reject morals, laws and logic, when I use/abide/analyse/improve/learn these things constantly and am very much aware of doing it?
As I've said before, when the "atheist" appeals to such concepts and uses them, he is not acting consistent with the assumptions and tenets of the "atheist" worldview which states that only material things can exist.
Process of Logic is a certain combination of certain neuro-chemical processes that take place in your brain (these processes can in fact be captured with modern scientific equipment ie. probes and scans of various kinds) sourced from sense inputs and capable of producing mental and physical outputs.
In addition, the actual Learning and Application of Logic can effect the real world
in a measurable physical way.
Same applies to laws and morals.
Furthermore and
this is key these things are testable and where possible controllable in the real world.
On the other hand, to test for the existence of God, is akin to testing for the existence of an invisible purple teapot orbiting Saturn or an immaterial blue dot jumping up and down on the moon.
Instead, he is secretly behaving as a Christian theist who has the worldview that since God is immaterial, then immaterial concepts like laws, morals, and logic can indeed exist, as well.
This does not logically follow for me, since I have already disproven the assumption that is requisite for your conclusion above.
In passing, I would say the reason why "atheists" appeal to morals and logic is because God has programmed us with the capacity to use those things to understand Him and the world we live in. This is why the Scripture says in Romans 1:19, 20:
In my case, those attributes of logic and morals lead me to form an understanding of God (assuming he exists), that demonstrates him to be a despicable character that I wouldn't want to believe in, even if I was inclined to believe in invisible deities.
I back up my arguments with logic and morals and clear explanations, rather than circular reasoning *hint* *hint*.
That's why I say "atheists" are not really atheists. They may claim there is no God, but they can't live and reason that way.
This is turning into wishful thinking Theo.
(which when you think about is religion itself)
Their consciences testify there is a moral law and a moral Lawgiver by which morality is universal and can be made sense of in a general way. Yet, like Epicurus, they want to complain against their Creator, rather than submit to Him.
There are several sets of Ethical/Moral Theories (just look around at all the different
types of cultures out there and how they handle these issues eg. crime and punishment).
Morality is far from universal and saying it is so doesn't make it so.
For example:
(and this list is far from exhaustive)
* Subjective Relativism
* Cultural Relativism
* Divine Command Theory (I wonder who fits here hehe)
* Kantianism
* Act Utilitarianism
* Rule Utilitarianism
* Social Contract Theory
I hate to break it to you, but your views are deeply self-centred and do not capture the whole complexity of the subject at hand.
Furthermore, why would I willingly submit to a creator that I deduce to be evil (assuming I was inclined to believe in invisible deities in the first place and had sufficient masochistic tendencies to facilitate submission)?
Should I pretend that I have no logic (assuming for argument's sake that God gave me this gift) and just love him despite internal revulsion at what he does?
Ridiculous Theo.
Sure, I don't deny that "atheists" seek to derive their morals from non-Christian sources. That is one way which they harden their hearts against God.
Yes, subscribe to our moral code, this is the only way you can be closer to our God, end of story.
The trouble is, you have some ugly moral contradictions which you haven't even attempted to explain away, and you have had plenty of opportunities to do so.
However, those things are not sufficient reasons for establishing what is good and what is evil.
They are all arbitrary, subjective, and contradictory, on the grounds that they assume man is the final authority for morality.
Are you implying that the Christian moral source does not have these attributes?
That's wrong and easily proven so.
There are a number of sites which point to numerous locations where the Bible contradicts itself, is that not a contradiction then?
Your own words form your own subjective interpretation of the Christian Moral Code unless you claim to have installed a "phone line to God".
(Actually I don't doubt that you would claim that LOL)
That only leaves each man to decide for himself what is moral, and if that is the case, an Adolf Hitler can be just
as moral as a Congressman Paul because they each have their own moral standards by which they judge something as good or evil.
So who decides for you if you are moral or not?
If you don't actually decide, then you have no free will.
Isn't free will something that Christians believe in?
Adolf Hitler was moral in his own code of morality, with which I disagree strongly.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
In its first, descriptive usage,
morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An
example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time."
And if we take it even further, then so does God. So, you can't complain against anyone for being good or evil because evil is in the eye of the beholder, and there, it means nothing in a universal and necessary way.
Morals may be necessary, they are definitely NOT universal.
Complaining against evil is useful for survival and well being purposes.
Yes, I do believe that "atheists" appeal to morality from Christianity, for Christianity gives the correct basis for morality.
Sorry it doesn't for all atheists, frankly that's quite arrogant.
You have a tendency to claim things as your own without any proof.
Here are some early thinkers on this topic, before Christianity.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character/#SomAncGreVie
"Socrates (469–399 BCE)
In Plato's Protagoras,
Socrates seems to identify happiness with pleasure and to explain the various virtues as instrumental means to pleasure. On this view (later revived by Epicurus, 341–271 BCE), having a virtuous character is purely a matter of being knowledgeable of what brings us more pleasure rather than less. In the Protagoras, Socrates recognizes that most people object to this view.
Plato (428–347 BCE)
The "many"'s worry about the inadequacy of knowledge to ensure virtuous action suggests that virtuous character includes not only a cognitive element, but also some affective element. Both
Plato and Aristotle argue that virtuous character requires a distinctive combination of cognitive and affective elements. In the Republic, Plato divides the soul into three parts and gives to each a different kind of desire (rational, appetitive, or spirited). As types of non-rational desire, appetitive and spirited desires can conflict with our rational desires about what contributes to our overall good, and they will sometimes move us to act in ways we recognize to be against our greater good. When that happens, we are incontinent.
To be virtuous, then, we must both understand what contributes to our overall good and have our spirited and appetitive desires educated properly, so that they agree with the guidance provided by the rational part of the soul."
In fact, I would put it to you, that ever since man started to walk the earth, the question of morals would have crossed his mind in one way or another, perhaps not nearly as sophisticated, but that would be no fault of his own, moral theories to some extent evolve and require a certain amount of thought.
By the way, Christianity didn't start in 30 A.D., for there were many saints living in the B.C. era of history who believed in the Messiah, and they were justified as righteous and inheritors of eternal life by that faith. Abel, Noah, Abraham, and David are just a few well known examples. Even the Israelites partook of Christ in the Old Testament, as we're told in 1 Corinthians 10. That needs to be cleared up before I go further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
"Early Christianity is commonly defined as the Christianity of the three centuries between the Crucifixion of Jesus (c. 30) and the First Council of Nicaea (325). During the first century, early Christianity is described by the Acts of the Apostles."
Human suffering is a very real thing, yes. God allows suffering for a number of reasons, but I'll just lay out one which I think gets to the heart of your argument. When men rebel against God by sinning against Him, the natural result is that suffering will occur.
How do you sin against God?
By hurting his ego? You certainly can't hurt him physically.
Besides he made you to sin, did he not, by giving you a sinful nature, so any pain at the hands of fellow man, can be traced to God anyhow.
If he is not happy that you hurt other people, he shouldn't have given you the capability and the tendency.
(Maybe he indulges in a fair bit of suffering/disappointment of his own.
Although come to think of it, how could a superbeing even experience such things, when he knows ahead of time how everything turns out.
Ponder that Theo.)
God is the one who sinned when you think about it.
He should be apologising to you, not the other way around.
(That's actually also humorous LOL).
Because men act in accordance with their own will, it leads to the suffering of others. God uses this suffering for the benefit of His people, and He uses to the detriment of those who oppose Him. That is not to say that God is not merciful to His enemies at times, nor does it mean that every time suffering occurs to Christians it means God is angry with them. All I'm saying is that God uses suffering for different reasons.
Ok, if you say so. I don't expect any proof.
But on the "atheist" worldview, where there is no God, what is suffering?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suffering
suf·fer·ing (sfr-ng, sfrng)
n.
1. The condition of one who suffers; the bearing of pain or distress.
2. An instance of pain or distress.
It's nothing more than nature in process, rooting out the strongest by natural selection, right? The starvation of children in third world countries is just natural selection at its best, rooting out the weak. Hitler killing the Jews was not suffering; it was an act of natural selection to kill off lesser species (the electrochemical processes in Hitler's brain compelled him to enact the process). Harlequin babies are just nature at its course in weeding out weaker species. That is what you're left with on the "atheist" worldview, and so, suffering is necessary to the survival and evolution of the greater species. So, suffering is not evil; it is necessary.
I'm not sure whether talking about natural selection serves any point here.
I will point out that I am sad for kids who are dying of starvation and the people killed during wars like I imagine most people to be.
But even if didn't experience that emotion that wouldn't necessarily mean I am a "bad" person.
Nature sure can be "cruel". In my view it's just the way it is and isn't right or wrong.
Earthquakes are not right or wrong for example, they just are (but that's cause I do not believe any being is intentionally causing them).
On the subject of suffering, sure it is sometimes necessary, for example when you are defending yourself, you may find it necessary to make the attacker suffer so he stops.
Are you saying that Hitler did what was necessary? That would be messed up.
Or are you saying that I think that? That would be false.
Without beating a dead horse, I'll just repeat what I said above that morality can only be made sense of on the Christian worldview.
Nope, people before Christianity emerged were making sense of morality and even during the time of Christianity there were many parallel schools of thought.
Since we're all descendants of Adam and Eve,
That's a claim you cannot prove Theo. Well, you could point to the bible, but the bible also claimed that the earth was flat and didn't move,
something that the Church later (not all that long ago actually) had to admit was false, in fact the Church went further and essentially
admitted the bible is not an accurate guide to physical realities.
http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-3360/galileo-to-be-honored-after-four-centuries.html
"In 1992, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that that the
church make a mistake when it condemned Galileo for maintaining that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary.
He also said that theologians should keep informed on scientific advances to determine if there was cause for “introducing changes in their teaching.” "
While we are at it, Pope apologised for the terrible suffering at the hand of Christianity:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html
"The pope's "Day of Pardon" mass was designed, in the Vatican's words, to ask forgiveness for the past and present sins of the Church. Pope John Paul wants Catholics to reexamine their consciences in the new millennium. His homily did not single out specific periods or groups in history but
a plea to forgive the use of violence in the service of truth was a subtle reference to the brutal excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition. "
If your religion can drive people into mass barbaric madness (historical fact), it's not very appealing.
morality is part of our natures, and we have a general knowledge of what good and evil are. However, because of our sinful natures, we cannot perform that which is good on our own in the way which God intended us.
If an Atheist helps an old lady cross the road, is he doing a deed that brings him closer to heaven or hell?
LOL
That's why there are so many books and false religions where people desperately try to grasp what is morally true. This leads to much confusion in the world, and it illustrates how much we have fallen away from our Creator and His laws on what is moral and just and true.
Indeed Theo, if you say so.
Even the book you've linked is a vain attempt by man to find out where morals originate from.
This is just a personal attack, much like most of your "logic".
Why should we be compelled to accept what that book says as truth for what is good and evil, anyway?
Is the Bible a book?
Why should Epicurus be the standard for judging what is good and evil?
Who said he has to be.
Man's vanity in exploring moral truth by beginning with himself only leads to more immorality and more irrationality. It can do no other.
Right Theo. Atheists examining morals without God's involvement all end up psychotic mass murderers.
Hate to break it to you (again), but concern for fellow human beings (which is a fundamental requirement in most moral codes, at least I would hope so)
can be had without a super being.
