I see a lot of Christian haters on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

91, you're relying on the very nitpicky distinction between a logical contradiction and a more general disproof.

It doesn't disprove the existence of god - just the existence of a nice one with any reasonable power.

And you have to realize that he's never actually committed to the idea that God's non-existence is 100% shown as true. Instead, you've pigeon-holed him into that because there is something defective in how your brain handles opposing ideas.

91, the confabulations you put up are absurd.

God's will necessarily must ALWAYS be done, so this means our free will can only be free when it agrees with God's. We cannot go against God's will, and thus we don't really have free will.

There is no such thing as a general disproof in relation to logic, you making up terms now. There are two arguments from evil; the logical and the evidential. Thom_Fuleri did not distinguish between the two, hence my statement that he was unaware of the discourse. When discussing the problem of evil, it is first worth discovering which one they are talking about.

As soon as you start talking about disproving things, you need to use more than the evidential argument; otherwise the language must be kept to strict probability statements. This is a mistake AG that you have repeatedly made also.

They don't have to be any like probable, this is the logical form of the argument, I just showed a way they could logically work together, that is enough to end the argument.

Do you really want to go there... I seriously doubt that you have read up enough on Molinism, Arminianism or even Open Theism to really justify such a comment.

Empirical disproofs are possible. Even further, most people are not going to consider the distinction practically useful. I mean, MAYBE God is logically incompatible with certain fact, but he is certainly unlikely given certain facts. An incompatibility claim is just a very very high degree of probability.

The term "disproof" in general discourse allows for empirical arguments and a high probability of incompatibility.

Umm....... the issue is that he's not committing to either. Knocking God from 100% to 99.99% unlikely is not a significant alteration, so it doesn't matter.

Arminianism usually is underdeveloped. We've already discussed Molinism enough to know that it has significant and well-recognized problems, particularly in that God can use dummy variables as a way of getting any desired outcome. Open theism rejects God's foreknowledge and thus isn't part of the discussion.

Empirical disproofs certainly can be crafted, that is no excuse for ignoring the choice between the incompatibility formulation and the evidential formulation of the problem of evil. Further, you are mistaken, an incompatibility claim is not just another sort of probability claim, the two are in fact, irreconcilable.

You really never studied philosophical arguments, your just being openly sloppy now.

Its refutes the logical problem of evil; by far the more powerful of the two in terms of conclusion.

Have we, I must have missed the part where you became an expert on divine foreknowledge and overturned centuries of study.

Irreconcilability is the possibility of two traits existing in conjunction being 0%. That's.... just that. If there is a deeply implausible possibility though, where the two ideas are compatible, all that is shown is that the probability is 0+I%, where I is the probability of the implausible possibility. However, for all other worlds, the ideas are still incompatible as far as we know.

You continue to ride is a haphazard fashion between two very different sorts of arguments. The logical problem of evil is powerful simply because it does not allow one any escape or resort to wider evidence if it stands. The evidential argument from evil, far from being powerful, allows for this. It means that your probability calculation has to take into account the positive evidence for the existence of God also; not just, what you see as the cumulative evidence against. The end result is a formula so complex, that the possibility just becomes a statement of how likely the author thinks the existence of God is. For example, you can say, God most likely does not have a reason for x and conclude the existence unlikely. I can say, given the positive evidence God must have a reason for x and make it likely. The argument requires an almost omniscient calculation to be accurate. Otherwise it is just ends up being subjective.

Have we, I must have missed the part where you became an expert on divine foreknowledge and overturned centuries of study.

So citing an uncontroversial textbook definition of a rather elementary term in a very uncontroversial field is an "[inapproperiate] appeal to authority", yet referencing the mere fact that there are controversial schools of thought is enough to refute AG's refutations of said schools?

That's the thing. 91 actually won't be dismantled as he'll come up with some line of BS and pretend it's reasonable and actually accuse you of dishonesty for not buying into his anti-reason. It's.... one of the stranger things I've seen.

Yeah, 91 is going to walk out of here thinking that he's won the argument and demonstrated mistakes in your reasoning regardless of whether they are real or not. He's mental. I don't know why either of you are bothering to engage him. Especially AG, who has already spent pages and pages on this exact debate with 91.

We already know this guy is profoundly irrational. We already know he rejects plain facts, textbook definitions, and basic logic whenever they become inconvenient to him (which is quite often). There is nothing to be gained from discussion with such a mind.

Except it really doesn't. God obviously fails any sensible probability calculation, as there are such a large number of evils and such poor explanations for why they exist, that the idea that God is implausible becomes obvious.

Except it really doesn't. God obviously fails any sensible probability calculation, as there are such a large number of evils and such poor explanations for why they exist, that the idea that God is implausible becomes obvious. Even requiring a calculation ends up being silly and more demonstrative than it being a situation where the math is really doing the heavy lifting. God is just a stupid idea.

See - there it is.

By you - you have what seem to you adequate reason to believe it is all conditioned a to b to c and God alone knows what came before a. Only you cannot plot the conditioning enough to prove with proof.

By me - I have what seem to me adequate reason to believe it is all driven and steered from Gen 1:1 through to Revelation by God - and who can postulate where / how God was before he turned the light on? But I cannot bring the proofs to Show and Tell, and most will say it thundered.

So - which one of us has a right to call the other a self-deluding idiot - and on what ground?

I am Thomas - ready at any moment to change stance if the evidence piles up in another direction.

Hopefully you can say the same - I would hate to waste verbiage on a surface thinker.

Orwell, don't be silly. We both know why I would engage 91. It's because I am profoundly irrational in another way. http://xkcd.com/386/

That the Bible is recorded by men shouldn't really be a problem. The assumption is that if an imperfect being (humans) is, well, imperfect, then nothing is reliable. But however flawed we may be, we still only have our senses to rely on if for no other reason than mere survival. So if we can rely on our senses to get us THIS far, then we can rely on our senses to understand what it is God is saying to us.

And the texts are not inconsistent. Part of the condition of human perception is that it does not often take in a view of the whole. Rather than inconsistent, I'd just say that they are incomplete in and of themselves. Taken as a whole, they are closer to a complete view of God's wishes for His creation.


The nature of God is one of forgiving, proactive, unprejudiced, selfless, patient, meek, etc. But this overlooks the fact that God disciplines those who belong to Him. God also provides justice on behalf of those who belong to Him. Thus those who do evil who would negatively impact His chosen deserve to be severely punished. Even the book of Revelation depicts what will happen to those who do not turn from sin and believe. Nowhere in the gospels did Jesus ever say that everyone wants to be saved or that everyone WILL be. And those who are unfaithful will be cast into the "outer darkness."

Moreover, God is consistently forgiving and patient in the OT. God hold out for Israel's repentance. And rather than completely destroy them, He allowed the Assyrians to invade and deport them. So death and destruction isn't necessarily the first resort, but rather the last. God kept His promise to David by ensuring a lasting kingdom in Judah. And God even held off punishment because SOME kings chose to do what was right. Vengeance only came when Judah crossed a sort of point of no return, and even when the Chaldeans invaded there were still prophets calling for repentance. And even when the end came, the prophets were still reminding those who were left that God's vengeance would only be temporary and that those who genuinely repented would constitute a faithful remnant that would return and rebuild the nation.

There are no inconsistencies between the OT and the NT. Jesus was teaching those who had only known a misunderstanding of the ancient Judaic religion, a religion centered on a legalistic interpretation of Torah and oral tradition rather than one that called for repentance and sought to bring worshipers in--it was rather about keeping the "unclean" out and not really ministering to the spiritual needs of the community. The focus was on the leadership (among other things) and not God. All Christ wanted to do in terms of "religion" was restore the intended purpose of the ancient Judaic purpose all along. He ended up fulfilling the role of the sacrifice for all sinners who repent and believe in the grace of God to forgive.

If it's a problem with the Son of God dying to save the world from sin, then fine. But only seeing inconsistency is really just missing the bigger picture.


Well, that wasn't Jesus' purpose. The point of the OT all along is that sin brings death, repentance brings life. The religious leaders of Jesus' time focused too much on the sin and not the sinner. Jesus often brings a gentle "now you know; don't do it again." Jesus' indignation here just reflects the sentiment of the Father. The Bible doesn't say this explicitly, but I do wonder if Jesus hadn't done what the Pharisees wanted to do all along but were either afraid to do or were powerless to do it. If we assume they were money-hungry and corrupt, then they were complicit in the act. But not all the Pharisees necessarily agreed on all things, which was just part of their culture of scriptural scholarship. If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that there might have been a few cheering Jesus on.

Also, I think you have to consider who it was in charge. The Jews had limited self-rule, which makes sense, but they ultimately answered to the Romans. Jesus was about winning souls. Usurping political power and costing an unnecessary loss of life would have been counterproductive, and later apostles (Peter and Paul, for example) came to understand that the best way to win souls was by working through the culture, not in direct opposition to it with the exception of issues of morality. Publicly denying Christ would be unacceptable, as would the worship of other gods. So the matter of death-dealing is relegated to political authorities. This isn't even really inconsistent with OT practices because Torah initially gave the priests and judges judicial authority. As long as the people were dedicated to following God's commandments, everything went well. It was only chaotic when the leaders were weak or inconsistently exercised authority in accordance with law. So, yes, while ceremonial law is important to the worship lives of the people, much is also written to keep an orderly society. As to what God Himself does, well, vengeance belongs to the Lord. If people do not correct themselves, if evil is so ingrained into the fabric of their society, there's really nothing left for God to do.

A lot of Christian preachers, at least back in the day, taught all about death and hell. It was kind of scary and depressing. I think over time you hear less about that because people got sick of having the hell scared out of them. I don't think Jesus' teaching really centered on death and hell. You hear about it because it is a consequence of making the wrong choices. But rather life is the focus and it always had been. Even in the tabernacle and the temple, the mercy seat was above the law, indicating that God's mercy is more of a priority than strict execution of law. There's always room for mercy, and Torah is full of merciful ways of dealing with wrongdoing. Sure, there are crimes that are entirely unacceptable and can only be remedied by death. But by far the only consequence for wrongdoing is an act that is equivalent to the transgression. Personal injury lawsuits in the western world are founded on the same idea, though I think we have an ugly tendency in our society to overreach.


Perhaps it would be better for them to never have even been born, but it's an even greater wrong I think to never even allow them a chance. Now, sure, God is capable of saving all of humanity. But the issue is that not all of humanity even WANTS to be saved.


God forgives those who ask for forgiveness. If you don't want to be forgiven, or if you don't see in yourself a reason you need to be forgiven, then you don't have to ask. If you don't want to be with God, He's not going to force you into an eternity in His presence--not to mention it would be unjust to those who actually do what God commanded. And even if God did force you to spend an eternity with Him against your will, what would the difference between heaven and hell really be? I wonder if hell isn't a better place for some than heaven.


OK, but this is a subjective matter of opinion.


Sure, God can do this with a soul--IF it is the desire of the soul that God should do it.


There are no reasons why Biblical writings should have even been written down and passed down in the first place. Not if God didn't have a reason for it. If He spoke it and commanded someone to write it, then all one must do is examine the claims themselves and decide whether you want to believe it or not. If you don't believe it, then there's nothing left to argue about, is there? But if one DOES read and understand the claims being made and feels this makes sense, then Christianity and/or Judaism MIGHT actually be legit. There's a longer argument here, of course, but I think that's the basic idea.


Where did Christ command that Christians do these things?


Well, this is contradictory with what you wrote before. People wrote it and other people don't believe it. Ok, fair enough. So if THE person writes it, it should be more believable? No. Think about a court of law. Just because "I said so" doesn't mean that the evidence holds. Evidence is more believable if examined or experienced by multiple witnesses. It's not enough that "Jesus said something," but rather that several people heard and agree that He said it. And not everyone trusted Jesus, anyway. So, if not everyone trusted Him it wouldn't matter if He wrote the entire Bible in one sitting in the company of His disciples. And it wasn't His job, anyway.

The problem with your RC conspiracy theory is that if they're "hoarding" stuff we need to know, how do YOU know about it? You got an insider at the Vatican who can back this up?

Actually, there have been things that recently have been made public. Even back during the time of Christian persecution in the early church, books of the Bible were collected and burned. It would have done no good to burn books if you didn't know which books to burn--those that early Christians actually read. So we have very clear evidence of what was widely distributed, read, and believed early on in the church, and those books correspond to our "modern" Bible. Those "extra" books are inconsistent with known scripture, were later written by leaders NOT associated with the early church, lack apostolic authorship, had authorship outside the Jewish world, and were even flat-out heretical. Even the apocrypha included in Catholic (and other) Bibles is still included in sections clearly denoted as such. So, not even Catholics understand these books to be necessarily inspired but are rather answers to Protestant objections. If I understand correctly, the appearance of apocrypha didn't even happen until the counter-reformation. The Catholic church doesn't really have that much to hide nor any reason to hide, since most of it's history is well known. Also, not all Christians are even Catholic, and I include myself here as a non-Catholic believer.


Who is hiding anything? And if it is hidden, how do you know?


Which is why God didn't do that. He created a being and gave it a will to act on its own apart from God. Adam had the choice of life or death. God gave Adam clear instructions. Sure, Adam was tricked into doing something. But if Adam sensed weakness in himself, or if Adam was confused by hearing conflicting messages, all he had to do was call on God for help and remove himself from the situation. God never allows someone to be tested or tempted beyond what they can reasonably bear.

As an example, take a person who is an alcoholic but wishes to break free from it. If he empties his liquor cabinet and stays away from the liquor store and away from bars, will God decide to test him by supernaturally refilling the stash? Adam had the power to avoid the tree of death. He merely made the wrong choice.


OK, so you call "Take up your cross and follow Me" sublime wisdom? How wise, in present-day terms, is it for someone to knowingly choose a path of life that will end in a premature death? That's what "Take up your cross" means--it is an instrument of death, not merely a burden to deal with. What about eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood? Does that sound like sublime wisdom? Some would object, saying it favors cannibalism and vampirism. There are tons of things in the NT, the very words of Jesus, that resemble insanity and suicidal tendencies. Now, sure, it might ignore the underlying truths and the message. But Christ might have been a gifted prophet in His own day. He might have been kind to the marginalized. But to make the claims Jesus made, any ordinary person making those claims today would have been locked up in a state hospital. So, "just a prophet" or "just a wise man" simply doesn't cut it.


The RC church doesn't seem to me to be His clerical assistant. I'll agree with you in that one DOES have to question authority to be sure what that authority says is true and that authority deserves to be recognized. I'll agree that SOME or CERTAIN Christians have really messed up the faith in their own time. I just don't agree that this has ALWAYS been the case, nor was it the case from the very beginning. And I'm not Catholic. Lot's of Christians aren't Catholic. And "good Catholics" didn't always agree with the "Church." And even Catholics have come to understand where they've gone wrong in the past and seek to correct the mistakes of the past by the witness of their own lives. Maybe the Crusades and the Inquisitions WERE their fault; so what? This has nothing to do with the church, any church, right now and today.

And lots of churches are also starting to recognize that part of the problem is positional authority. Sure, they still have "lead pastors" or "senior pastors"/"associate pastors," but they see their job as more instructive than authoritarian. They prefer to hand over their presumed "power" to those in the church who actually feel a desire to lead and do the work of Christ in their communities. They are rather guides as opposed to a kind of corporate CEO, which is the traditional pastoral role in protestant churches. It really makes a difference in how congregations perceive themselves and their actual role in living out the words of Christ, and these are the churches you see most often experiencing consistent growth. The more authoritarian churches are on the decline, and I think part of the reason this is is because preachers and even lay leaders have their fists clenched around their power and positional authority that they fail to open their hands to accept what God really wants to give them, which blesses the entire community rather than only the leader.

So, to a degree, I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think that it is quite as pervasive as you might have been led to believe that it is.