Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Can we agree that the exercise of free will is something that happens, a change?

 

No, the argument can be reasonable even if there is a god, so long as that god's existence isn't known (depending on exactly what the argument is).

Regardless, this seems to miss the point I was making. If an atheist is making the argument of evil (in its logical, general or any other form, regardless of whether that argument is true or reasonable), it is reasonable for them to give examples of things that God supposedly did that were evil. It would however be beside the point to give examples of good things that God had supposedly done.

I believe the following is not true:

if God gets the blame for all the bad things He is said to cause, then He also must get the credit for all the good things He causes -- if you want to be
consistent, that is. And you do want to be consistent, I feel certain you do.
(source)​

If you are making a problem of evil argument, then there is no point in listing good things that God has done, i.e. it would not be inconsistent to not list them (or a person making that kind of argument would have no interest in that kind of consistency).

Yet you give specific examples, like Stephen Fry. Fry goes on to challenge the idolisation of God, an argument which requires not a full list of things God is responsible for, but, at least in Fry's phrasing, accountability for each action.

It seems to me that by saying that consistency demands that you list both, you have made an assumption about what those atheists are trying to do (and what they're trying to be consistent about).

Are the specific atheists you talk about on this forum? Have you tried to ask them what they're trying to accomplish?

What is there to scratch your head about? I think I have presented a decent suggestion about what the atheists in question are trying to do, and shown that the blame is relevant for the argument and the credit is not. If they were trying to argue that God isn't a morally neutral agent, it might be relevant to count each side, but if we're discussing a supposedly omnibenevolent god, a single act of unjustified cruelty makes the point.

I don't think I'm requiring that level of certainty. I'm asking merely for a justification for belief. If the weather channel said it's definitely going to rain, I have a pretty good reason to believe it will rain. Is it water tight? Is it like 2+2=4? No, I could be wrong, but it's a pretty reasonable belief. Like you say, I don't hold it against faith that it fails to attain the 2+2=4 level, but faith as a concept is failing to attain the weather-channel level too. I certainly wouldn't mind a stronger argument, but I think discussing that level of certainty is a deflection from the amount of certainty I'm actually requesting.

I would consider it if it had good (for instance rational) arguments for it. As I do with believing that I have carrots in the fridge or believing in Pythagora's theorem.

"So"? So then why believe it? If a nigerian prince wants help with nothing but faith backing it up, is it your duty to muster up the faith however you can, or is it to simply not offer belief?

So with that in mind, how do we come to believe it? The entire epistemology seems to be set up in a way in which we can easily fool ourselves.

 

I will say Yes for argument's sake. It will be interesting
to see where you will now go with this.

 

It may be "beside the point" to them, but it is not "beside the point" to me.

Here are questions for you: Do you understand that the Opening Post does NOT challenge
the atheist's view that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is evil? If you do not understand this
fact, then you do not understand the Opening Post.

Do you understand that the Opening Post presents the God of the Bible as being
both evil and good? If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
Opening Post.

That does NOT mean that, as a Christian, I agree that the God of the Bible is evil,
or both evil and good, it only means that in this particular Opening Post, I do not
challenge the atheist's view that the God of the Bible is evil. That is a subject for
another Opening Post and another thread,

You might ask, "Why make that point?"
Answer: Because I wanted to make that point. I find it interesting.
Some other people, it appears, also find it interesting.
I see that you are still thinking about it.
So you must find it interesting too.

See up-post.

Regarding belief in Christianity . . .
Apart from a willingness to exercise faith in God, you do not
come to believe it --- and never will come to believe it.

The path to faith in God is the heart and not the intellect.
The man who says "I will never believe without empirical
evidences" has given himself the answer to the question
"Will I ever become a Christian.?" And the answer is No, I
never will.
___________

Here is a question for you:

Pick one:

{1} I want to please myself. {here you stay with logic and
rationalism and do what you want to do}

{2} I want to please God. {here you read Hebrews 11:6 and
believe it, and do what God wants you to do.}

You might say, "No, I never will select {2}"

My reply: You have your answer.


`

`

 

Kreeft says:
"Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. "

If the exercise of free will is a change, then, according to Kreeft, the will needs to be acted on by other things outside for the exercise of free will to take place. However, in this scenario, the will is no longer free, being the (partial, at least) result of outside interference.

Plantinga, on the other hand, claims that evil is exclusively the doing of human beings freely choosing to do evil. The exercise of free will does not depend on anything outside of the mind of the person choosing to do evil.

The exercise of free will is either really free, as Plantinga says, or the (partial, at least) result of outside interference. It can't be both.

I think free will is an illusion.

 

Regarding "we can easily fool ourselves":
Christianity teaches that all humans absolutely must
have supernatural help in order to come to believe
in God -- to come to have faith in Him. How do you get that
help? You have to ask God to help you come to have faith.

After this happens, you become a Bible student and focus
upon what you know to be sane and wise as found in the
New Testament. You might say, "Well there are many
Christians who have obviously not become sane
and wise." My answer: That's correct, but you're very
intelligent, so you can become very sane and wise.

______________


Thought For Today:

Here are the characteristics of the Principle Of Love as
presented in the New Testament
First Corinthians chapter 13.

{1} Love is patient.
{2} Love is kind.
{3} Love does not envy.
{4} Love does not boast.
{5} Love is not proud.
{6} Love is not rude.
{7} Love is not self-seeking.
{8} Love is not easily angered.
{9} Love keeps no record of wrongs.
{10} Love does not delight in evil.
{11} Love rejoices with the truth.
{12} Love always protects.
{13} Love always trusts.
{14} Love always hopes.
{15} Love always perseveres.
{16} Love never fails.
{17} These three remain: faith, hope, and love.
{18} But the greatest of these is Love.



`

 

All that up there is very very reasonable.

If you're not looking for, and don't have to have, the 2 + 2 = 4 certainty-level then we are
talking about you coming across arguments that have a high degree of Probability and
Plausibility --- which are both going to be subjective. I know you know this.

Here I do not know what to say -- other than to ask have you read any works on Christian
Apologetics? If not, that'd be an excellent place to start.

I perceive that you enjoy abstract thinking processes. Have you read any of
William Lane Craig's books? His work titled "Reasonable Faith" Third Edition, is considered
to be a masterpiece on current Christians Apologetics.

William Lane Craig's debates with various atheists are all over You Tube. You most likely
know all about William Lane Craig.

Have you read Paul Copan's work titled "Is The God Of The Old Testament A Moral Monster:
Making Sense Of The Old Testament God." ? The title tells you all you need to know regarding
what this work seeks to accomplish.

If you only require "weather-channel" level evidence then I think you can find some of that in
the works of William Lane Craig and Paul Copan.
Here is Craig's website:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

`

`

 

Pisa,
I read all that 2 times, slow and carefully.
I would enjoy a discussion with you, but I cannot "get a hold" of your points.
They are just a tad to abstract for me to grasp.
I can't think of any replies that I would consider to be 1/2 way intelligent to
post back to you.

Help me out. Give me something more concrete. Some examples of what
practical conclusions are based on your abstract points up there.

"I think free will is an illusion.__Pisa
Okay, but so what?
What do I do now?
Can I go rob a bank and in court tell the Judge, "Your Honor, you think
my Free Will is real, but Pisa says its not, its just an illusion, so please
dismiss this case."

Talk to me.


`

`

 

Irrelevant. The initial poster, Mr. Lucifer, agreed with my definition that “God is whatever you define Him as.”

If the religions and philosophies you are referring to define their conception of the supernatural as such- they are entirely free to do so. What difference does it call make, given that it’s ultimately a belief that exists in the mind.

The question, however, is which religion reflects the perfect encapsulation of God as defined by His attributes (in totality).

I can define my own conception of god as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. That’s all and good, but to what extent can a flying spaghetti monster act as an idea that can survive and withstand the eons of human existence? A flying cow? Doubt it.

Why else have the Abrahamic gods lasted this long, as opposed to those that significantly came before them...?

 

Suppose a law abiding man - let's call him Jack - kills his wife with a weapon (the type of weapon seems irrelevant for this example) because she wants a divorce (sadly this is not an unlikely scenario). Murder is the evil in this case.

We can look at the act of killing either through Plantinga's defense lens, or through Kreeft's first argument lens.

Plantinga:
Jack, a free creature of God, went wrong in the exercise of his freedom. Free will in action.

Kreeft:
The act of killing is definitely a change, or rather a series of many smaller changes. Moving the hand to grab the weapon is a change, using the weapon is another change. But Kreeft tells us that "No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change". Jack, the law abiding man, changed his mind about abiding the law. Can we exclude this change from the series? Can we postulate that, if Kreeft's first argument is correct, the human will must be exempt from it? Kreeft says we can't, since will is just a thing in a series, needing something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change. Here goes free will out the philosophical window.

If free will is an illusion, personal responsibility doesn't just disappear in thin air. We still have both the knowledge of what's considered good or evil, and the ability to discern right from wrong.

Free will is not merely the possibility to choose from several options. It entails that our choices are ours alone, without any outside influence. I don't think that's possible.

 

Pisa, you write well. You're much more philosophical than I am and far more
fond of abstract thought than I am. I read all that you wrote very carefully.
I went over it 3 times looking for something that I could "connect to" and
discuss. I'm not having much success finding that, Pisa. Sorry.

I even went over to Peter Kreeft's 20 Arguments website and re-read his
"The Argument From Change" --- however I experienced no "tingling"
within my cerebrum, cerebellum, or brain stem. /smile

Nonetheless, I will give you some of my thoughts about some of your
thoughts:

Miscellaneous Points:

{1} Peter Kreeft explained that his "unchanging source of change" was
"God" --- I think Kreeft put "God" in quotes to make the point that his
"The Argument From Change" was not designed to succeed in
demonstrating that the "unchanging source of change" was the
God of the Bible.

{2} I do not think Kreeft's intended his "The Argument From Change"
to be applied to "Jack murdering his wife" or to any other human sin,
or human condition, or human processes.

{3} I think the key word in Kreeft's "The Argument From Change" is
the word "unchanging." Why do I think that? Because Kreeft's
argument is an argument ONLY for the existence of an unchanging
Source of all change and does not have further philosophical
applications or ramifications to the human condition.

{4} Here is Kreeft's closing paragraph from his "The Argument
From Change"
"Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there
is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does
change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the
material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter,
space and time. These three things depend on each other.
Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter,
space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the
unchanging Source of change." __Peter Kreeft
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1

So?

So its clear that Kreeft is making ONLY an abstract philosophical
argument for the existence of a "Source" for all change in the
Universe. Notice that Kreeft capitalizes the word Source --
he means the Source is "God" -- but again he does not offer
"The Argument From Change" as a proof for the existence of
the God of the Bible --- rather his "The Argument From Change
has the same goal as the Teleological Argument which merely
and only allows the Christian to assume by FAITH that the
unchanging Source is the God of the Bible . . .

Same with the Teleological Argument . . .

{5} The Teleological Argument {Intelligent Design} will NOT take
you to the God of the Bible. Christians who believe that the
Intelligent Designer of the Universe is the God of the Bible are
correct --- but their belief is a FAITH belief and not based on
empiricism.

{6} Pisa, I am a Christian. It has come to pass that I have very little
fondness for abstract philosophical "solutions" to the severe problems
arising from the human Sin condition. I prefer simple more concrete
solutions based on principles that can be selected from Christian
literature.

Pisa, I am going to "send this on" to you, and follow-up with some
more of my thoughts on your thoughts . . . later . . .

_________________


Thought For Today:

"Out there in the vast ignorance of the world it festers and spreads.
A shadow that grows in the dark. A sleepless malice as black as the
oncoming wall of night. So it ever was. So will it always be. In time
all foul things come forth."___Thranduil, the Elvin King Of Mirkwood



`

 

Pisa, I'm just curious. I made reference
to both Peter Kreeft and Alvin Plantinga
in this thread. Was this the first time you
heard their names mentioned?

Had you ever read anything written by
either Kreeft or Plantinga previously?

 

Pisa, to "pick up" where I left off . . .

JAG Previously Wrote:
"I am a Christian. It has come to pass that I have very little fondness
for abstract philosophical "solutions" to the severe problems arising
from the human Sin condition. I prefer simple more concrete
solutions based on principles that can be selected from Christian
literature."___JAG

If Free Will goes out the philosophical window, then that's not a
bad thing on my lights. If fact if philosophy itself goes out the
philosophical window that'd be okay with me. On the other hand
I guess some philosophy can end up doing some good in the world.
So not "all" philosophy is bad. That word "all" is not a good word
to apply to most human issues --- because of the usual "exceptions"
that exist in most areas of the human condition.

"All means all, and that's all, all means", is not really true.

So some philosophy is goody goody . . .

However, a huge amount of philosophy is, on my lights, a maze-jungle
of abstract useless silliness serving primarily as brain-entertainment for
the world's brainy-ones like Ludwig Wittgenstein.

By the way, Ludwig Wittgenstein said “Everything that can be said,
can be said clearly" --- but then ended up writing some of the most
un-clear befuddled abstract unintelligible philosophical gobbledygook
ever penned by mortal man. {if you're a fan of "The Ludwig" my
apologies.}

Back to my preference for the more simple explanations . . .

The New Testament never seeks to explain how man's Free Will
and God's Sovereignty works in harmony, rather it proceeds on
the assumption that there is no conflict between the two, and that
both are real and true realities within the human condition. Take
for example, Acts 2:23 which says:

"This man {the Lord Jesus} was handed over to you by God's
deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of
wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

Note the particulars:
{1} God had a deliberate plan.
{2} That plan delivered His Christ over to death.
{3} God had foreknowledge that His Christ would be killed.
{4} Wicked human men used their Free Will to kill the innocent Lord Jesus.
{5} God planned it.
{6} Man carried it out.
{7} Men are condemned for doing it.
{8} You can see both God's Sovereign Plan and man's Free Will at work in
Acts 2:23
Note: "Foreknowledge" in the Bible means more than mere knowledge before
the fact. The death of the Lord Jesus was Predestined. Revelation 13:8 says
Christ "was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world."

One great theme of the Bible is human Free Will. The Bible, from Genesis to
Revelation, asks men to make a choice. Joshua 24:15 presents clearly the
Biblical requirement to exercise human Free Will.

"But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves
this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the
Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for
me and my household, we will {choose to} serve the Lord."___Joshua 24:15

Christendom's most famous Bible verse asks men to make a choice:
"For God so loved the world that He Gave His one and only Son that
whosoever believes on Him might not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

"any"__Pisa

You may be correct. Your word "any", like the word "all" does not
allow for exceptions. In Acts 2:23 there were outside influences
but not to the extent that removed human guilt and sin for the
crime of murdering the innocent Lord Jesus. The Bible nowhere
attempts to explain how God's Sovereignty and man's Free Will
work together ---rather it correctly assumes that the one does not
void out the other -- both are true.

Pisa, I don't think that up there is the kind of discussion that you're
looking for --- but its the best I can offer you -- I'm not a "Ludwig"
type of guy.

_____________

Thought For Today:

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He
was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through
His poverty might become rich."__2 Corinthians 8:9



`

 

Pisa, you previously gave an illustration of "Jack killing his wife because she
wanted a divorce." I assume you agree that was cold-blooded murder.

I believe you do have some arguments {reasons} why you believe that
cold-blooded murder is immoral-wrong.

Just curious. Do you believe proclamations that say murder for money-gain
is wrong-immoral are no more than mere human opinions?

Or do you believe proclamations that say murder for money-gain can
be logically demonstrated to rise above mere human opinion?

Can you give me one {1} reason why murder for money-gain is
wrong-immoral that rises above mere human opinion?

Pisa, if those questions do not interest you personally, please
feel free to ignore them.

 

Atheists come here to beat up on Christians and make themselves feel better. In short they come here to be bullies.
Which is funny because they are discussing something about which they are ignorant.

 

sadly many Christians are ignorant of their own religion

 

Thank you for the compliments.

I'm not really into philosophy, but I have to understand some basic concepts for the discussions here.

Lack of "tingling" in such situations is to be expected. We're very different people, with very different worldviews, each with a specific mindset, including specific biases.

1. I can't argue against Kreeft on this point. Faith is not debatable. Arguments are debatable though, so I took care to analyze only the possible consequences of his arguments, not his basic premise.

2. I thought of that. My point of view is that we humans are indistinguishable from the rest of the Universe, we are Universe, there's no way to imagine the Universe without us just like there's no way to imagine the Universe without stars. Therefore, any theory regarding matter in the Universe applies to human beings as well. Kreeft might disagree, of course.

3. Again, I don't think human beings can be treated separately from the rest of the Universe. Same laws apply, as far as we know today.

4. While I don't agree with Kreeft's definition of the Universe, I'm not going into the science of it now, since science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Kreeft has faith, and again, faith is not debatable.

5. Faith again...not debatable.

6. I hate the concept of original sin. It's demeaning, humiliating, frustrating, unfair.

I guess that "ignorance" means something different to you than what it means to me, and so it should be.

Never heard of Plantinga and Kreeft before you mentioned them in this thread.

I'll answer your next post tomorrow, it's already sleep time here.

 

depends on the power of the leaders, convert or kill does work, for a time....

in the beginning, not everyone believes it, but then the fear causes people teach it to their children and fear telling them the truth for fear they will be harmed by society

it would be harder to create a new religion in this day and age, unless we once against enter the dark ages

 

Y'welcome.

All the better for you, in my opinion.

Noted.

A very good basis and attitude for any discussion.

I know what you mean when you say that . . .yet I will
point out, just for you to consider, that continuous heated
debate goes on within Christendom all the time.

* Not a lot of actual debate going on here inside
Thread World on the Internet At Large. More like
a Cannibalistic Feast than debate.
* I have the impression that you're not into
Thread-World Cannibalism, metaphorically
speaking. That's a pleasant conclusion for
me to reach. A happy moment.

Noted.

Astute.

That scares me . . . /smile . . . Reading that is like looking at a
Jackson Pollock abstract art piece where he splashes paint
all over the canvass. Questions arise: What pragmatic
conclusions do you {we} draw from that?

He probably would.

Scary stuff. /smile

Tell me what that is, if you want to.

It will one day.
Revelation 21:3-4

So do you.
You'd agree that it'd be impossible for you to demonstrate
true with empiricism all that you believe?

You can skip over Genesis and just go straight to the human
Sin condition. It stares you in the face each and every day. You
can call it evil or immorality if you want to avoid the word "sin"
which requires that God exists. But you are forever faced with
the effects of Sin which is Destruction and Death -- and here
the New Testament's remedy can apply -- if you open you mind
and heart to faith. John 3:16 cures Destruction and Death.

I posted the "Thought For Today" with zero intention of
it having anything whatsoever to do with our discussion.

I just like the quote.

Thoughts For Today:

"Out there in the vast ignorance of the world it festers and spreads.
A shadow that grows in the dark. A sleepless malice as black as the
oncoming wall of night. So it ever was. So will it always be. In time
all foul things come forth."___Thranduil, the Elvin King Of Mirkwood

I like this one too:

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such
times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to
decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Good to know. I therefore conclude that I have made at least
some measurable contribution to your life. Maybe not much
but at least measurable, say this much: 0.001
That's better than 0.000
{ You may find Kreeft and Plantinga to be helpful in your
future --- you now know where to find them -- before
you didn't.}

Looking forward to it.
Sleep well.


`

 

Almost feel sorry for the poor dupes who've been sucked into this EPIC BS known as religion.

Guess the fear of death can cause people to become increasingly desperate for something to cling to...

 

Sadly there is so many people who live themselves and im doing so hate God.

 

There is Scientology, of course.

With its roots so solidly in scifi and with religion as prominent as it is in scifi one wonders whether Scientology is going to be the only case of a crossover into full blown religion.

Given our reduction in respect for science, one could also wonder if we aren't retreating to the dark ages - at least in terms of our seemingly increasing rejection of science and disrespect for knowledge.

Yuck!

 

jesus christ, are you into the wine, allen?

Do you mean to say … Sadly there [ARE] so many people who [LOVE] themselves and [IN] doing so hate God. [?]


I would certainly hate your alleged god, by the way, if I was convinced that it existed...

 

that is just a rich social club for rich people

 

Well, we sure see a lot of that in Scientology. Not deniable.

But, I've personally known those who have zero fame and not much money who are taking classes on their religion on a continuing basis (that is, forever) for fairly significant charges. They are also pressured to make significant donations, write Scientology into their wills, etc.

These and other conditions are required for remaining in good standing.

I had a guy working for me once who believed Scientology was requiring him to oppose homosexuality within the company - infiltratig groups, posting messages, getting in people's faces, escalating issues. He finally said I'd have to fire him, as he was following church requirements. That was an easy decision as his behavior wasn't tollerable in the work invironment.