#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is the Christian God evil?
Whatcha guys think?
As some of you may know I don't think he is evil at all, but that's just me.
Yep
Side Score: 168
|
 |
Nope
Side Score: 149
|
|
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
What makes any of God's actions "immoral" and "malevolent"? Again, because his actions match the definitions of those words. And if they were why isn't this the objective truth? It is objectively true that they match the definitions of those words, but all definitions of words are subjective. Words are just a way to communicate thoughts and ideas with each other. Since we are speaking English I'm going to assume you are using the English definitions of words unless you say otherwise. Side: Yep
1
point
Again, because his actions match the definitions of those words. I wouldn't advise using these definitions, but your argument is working against you. here is why. Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality. What morality is true? If many forms of morality exist then what he does is either good, bad, or neutral. Thus his actions are not objectively evil. they are evil to you and other that follow similar moral in acordance to your own. Malevolent: having or showing a wish to do evil to others. Again, this levels off into the subjective. Saying God is evil cannot be objectively true. It most certainly can be subjectively true, but there is no way this is true for all people. If I say God has only done good and all his actions are good the do not fit the definitions any longer. It is objectively true that they match the definitions of those words Not true, and I have just demonstrated this. Side: Nope
1
point
I wouldn't advise using these definitions So what definitions am I supposed to use? You didn't provide any definitions so naturally I'm going to assume you are using the standard English definitions. What morality is true? If many forms of morality exist then what he does is either good, bad, or neutral. Thus his actions are not objectively evil. they are evil to you and other that follow similar moral in acordance to your own. I never once said his actions are objectively evil. I said they are evil according to the English definitions of the word evil. There is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is subjective. You and I already had this conversation in another debate. Not true, and I have just demonstrated this. No, you demonstrated that definitions are subjective, but you didn't demonstrate that gods actions don't match the English definitions of those words, which is what my argument was. Side: Yep
1
point
So what definitions am I supposed to use? You didn't provide any definitions so naturally I'm going to assume you are using the standard English definitions. Are you like not reading my arguments? I said this in the argument above. Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality. Malevolent: having or showing a wish to do evil to others. No, you demonstrated that definitions are subjective, but you didn't demonstrate that gods actions don't match the English definitions of those words, which is what my argument was My argument actually did. If his actions are subjectively good or evil or neutral then they cannot logically be placed into one category. They must be placed under all the definitions in order to fit all morals. I provided the definitions and the fact that it becomes so subjective means that his actions are to be deemed good, bad, or neutral by whoever. This makes your argument weak. Side: Nope
1
point
Are you like not reading my arguments? I said this in the argument above. I misread your argument. I'm was multi-tasking so I wasn't focused. You ask if the Christian god is evil then play a semantical game where all words that are actually relevant to this debate are basically meaningless and can be defined any way you want. How are we supposed to debate something without a clear set of definitions. It's impossible. So, define evil Side: Yep
1
point
You ask if the Christian god is evil then play a semantical game where all words that are actually relevant to this debate are basically meaningless and can be defined any way you want. Thats not it at all. I am attempting to eliminate the sense that God is bad. It's impossible. So, define evil If I use the Christian definition then it's like this. Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God. Side: Nope
1
point
Thats not it at all. I am attempting to eliminate the sense that God is bad. Why would you do that? Why no let his actions speak for themselves instead of trying to redefine words to make him look good? Nearly every culture in the world associates evil with actions that are harmful to people such as murder, rape, slavery, etc. Simply changing the definition to try to make god look good doesn't change the fact that he does things that most people would consider evil. If I use the Christian definition then it's like this. Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God. Okay, but you're just redefining the word to fit your desired narrative. I can do the same thing. I can say evil is anyone that has a bad haircut. The purpose of definitions are to make it easy to communicate. If we change the commonly known definitions then it just causes confusion. If we use your definition of evil then the debate title should have been "Is the Christian god lacking the Christian god?" Side: Yep
1
point
Why would you do that? Because his actions are truly good. They aren't bad. Why no let his actions speak for themselves instead of trying to redefine words to make him look good? I haven't redefined anything. I have eliminated their basis. Their roots in moral relations relative to the subjective. Nearly every culture in the world associates evil with actions that are harmful to people such as murder, rape, slavery, etc. Doesn't logically make it universally bad. It is only subjectively bad since you benefit nothing from it. Simply changing the definition to try to make god look good doesn't change the fact that he does things that most people would consider evil. First, I would not say "most" since there are many religious people. Second I used the dictionary definitions. I did not change them. Okay, but you're just redefining the word to fit your desired narrative. Again this is not the case. I have yet to modify any standardized definition. I am saying that evil is the lack of good. God is good. Therefore it logically follows that evil is the lack of God. I can do the same thing. I can say evil is anyone that has a bad haircut. That doesn't follow my form of reasoning. What makes that haircut "bad"? That is my subset of which you have yet to follow. If we use your definition of evil then the debate title should have been "Is the Christian god lacking the Christian god?" The definition of good and evil remain constant. My definition explains the existence of evil. Not evil itself. I have not defined good or evil. Therefore you are making assertions that are non-applicable. Side: Nope
1
point
Because his actions are truly good. They aren't bad. So you think slavery, sexism, torture and indiscriminately slaughtering entire towns (including children and animals) are "truly good". I haven't redefined anything. Yes you did. You redefined evil as a "lack of good" and a "lack of God." Show me one dictionary that says that evil is either one of those things. I have eliminated their basis. Their roots in moral relations relative to the subjective. What you've done is say that since evil is a subjective term nothing can be labeled evil. Therefore this whole debate is pointless because the topic becomes nonsensical without a usable definition of evil. The debate title should be "Is the Christian god a subjective word that has no applicable meaning in this debate." First, I would not say "most" since there are many religious people. Second I used the dictionary definitions. I did not change them. Even religious people use the standard definitions of good and evil until someone points out that their god does evil things, then they change the definition. Again this is not the case. I have yet to modify any standardized definition. I am saying that evil is the lack of good. God is good. Therefore it logically follows that evil is the lack of God. That is not a standard definition because you won't find it in any standard dictionary. Even if I accept the definition "evil is the lack of good" you still have to prove that god is good, otherwise it's just a baseless assertion. Evil is not the absence of good. Good and evil are just words we use to describe certain actions. If I'm not doing a good action does that mean I'm doing an evil action? Of course not, the default is neutral. Good things can happen without evil, and evil things can happen without good. The two are not as intertwined as most people seem to think. The definition of good and evil remain constant. My definition explains the existence of evil. Not evil itself. I have not defined good or evil. Therefore you are making assertions that are non-applicable. I said, "define evil." You replied with "Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God." Now you're saying you haven't defined evil, you were just defining something to explain the existence of evil. This debate has one big semantic nightmare, so unless you can come up with a clear definition of good and evil that can actually be applied I'm done. Side: Yep
1
point
So you think slavery, sexism, torture and indiscriminately slaughtering entire towns (including children and animals) are "truly good" They are neutral. They are all actions. None of there definitions show evil. That is to be determined by society. Yes you did. You redefined evil as a "lack of good" and a "lack of God." Show me one dictionary that says that evil is either one of those things. Christians define it this way. I don't believe in an absolute good or bad. What you've done is say that since evil is a subjective term nothing can be labeled evil. Therefore this whole debate is pointless because the topic becomes nonsensical without a usable definition of evil. The debate title should be "Is the Christian god a subjective word that has no applicable meaning in this debate." How can I tell people my view points without listening to theirs? If there is no objective evil God cannot be evil. Even religious people use the standard definitions of good and evil until someone points out that their god does evil things, then they change the definition What does that have to do with my views? That is not a standard definition because you won't find it in any standard dictionary. And? My statement tell you what evil is. In its subject nature. Even if I accept the definition "evil is the lack of good" you still have to prove that god is good, otherwise it's just a baseless assertion. I understand. Evil is not the absence of good. Why? Good and evil are just words we use to describe certain actions Relative to the subjective right? If I'm not doing a good action does that mean I'm doing an evil action? Of course not, the default is neutral. Good things can happen without evil, and evil things can happen without good. The two are not as intertwined as most people seem to think. This supports my argument. I said, "define evil." You replied with "Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God." Now you're saying you haven't defined evil, you were just defining something to explain the existence of evil. This debate has one big semantic nightmare, so unless you can come up with a clear definition of good and evil that can actually be applied I'm done. Neither objectively exist, so ttyl. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
This isn't what I mean Then you need to explain what you mean. Just asking the same questions again without explaining what you mean is just going to get you the same response. If we are using the English definitions of the words Immoral and Malevolent then gods actions clearly match the definitions. If you are using some other definition of those words then you need to tell me what those definitions are. Side: Yep
1
point
Then you need to explain what you mean. Just asking the same questions again without explaining what you mean is just going to get you the same response. What was the point in posting this if I just took the time to make an argument around it? If we are using the English definitions of the words Immoral and Malevolent then gods actions clearly match the definitions. Again, they don't. I gave the definitions and nothing showed me that God's actions fit them. Let me show you why. tell me, what makes slavery bad? What makes mass murder bad? Side: Nope
1
point
You know, for a "non-christian", you do seem to take heavy defense of the bible and christian principles. But anyway, evil can be judged by how an action affects society, other individuals, the environment, etc. If I kill someone, then I might be kiloing a productive member of society (hindering social progress), killing a parent (leaving their child(ren) parentless), ending the existance of another human being. I can use my conscience to put myself in another individuals shoes and know that I would not want the same to happen to me. Btw, there is no such thing as "religous morality", secular morality is all we have, religion only makes a claim to certain moral principles. If you read up on your science,myou will see that a ton of other species have their own set of moral principles, in the way they often fight to protect the well being if their own community. Side: Yep
1
point
You know, for a "non-christian", you do seem to take heavy defense of the bible and christian principles. Grew up with a religious family. Well they weren't religious in the sense that they worship God, but they studied and worked with others to figure out what exactly makes God good or evil. I use the same arguments they do. But anyway, evil can be judged by how an action affects society, other individuals, the environment, etc. If they must be judged then they are inherently neutral. Thus God's actions are neutral. If I kill someone, then I might be kiloing a productive member of society (hindering social progress), killing a parent (leaving their child(ren) parentless), ending the existance of another human being What is wrong with killing another person? What makes it immoral? Btw, there is no such thing as "religous morality" I think I am aware of this. I have never claimed that any morality existed. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
The label must be given subjectively. Thus all actions are neutral. If they must be judged then they are inherently neutral. Thus God's actions are neutral. Objective reality versus subjective reality. Actions are simply just an objective reality, all actions are not neutral since neutral is a label upon that action. That is to say any descriptor assigned to an action is already a subjectified reality. Words themselves add value to the perceived action, "kill" has a different value than "slay" as does "god" or "jerk". By using a more value neutral word or idea (even the word neutral itself) for an action you are subjectifying the action. Whether someone perceives the actions as good, neutral or bad is subjective to them and is the subjective reality. By saying all actions are neutral you have just subjectified the action to your own perspective. The act of seeing/doing/experiencing, let alone verbalizing anything already makes the any action subjective to the entity experiencing the action. The act does not happen then they person or deity taking action judges their own action, that would be backwards. Action originates from a stimuli, want/need etc., and the resulting action is the answer. Therefore The Christian gods action are immediately subjective to himself. Wrathful, rightous, something drives his action. You cannot say an action from a person or entity is neutral, you can theorize if they feel it is a neutral action or state how you feel about it. An experienced action can not be experienced objectively. We can try to be more objective about it though. Side: Nope
You god people believe to much. please vote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://seriousbusiness.createdebate.com/ Side: Yep
Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” In our modern age, it is hard to find a military or social leader that has ordered the above and not thought of as "Evil". The old testament, specifically, is simply full of acts, edicts and other statements reminiscent of the type of statements from the worst of humanity. Side: Yep
How is God not doing good here, then? For all the reasons thus far stated in this thread. Including, but not limited to, all the examples stated here and more throughout the Bible where God has ordered, assisted or carried out acts that would be considered crimes against humanity, and evil personified if a human was responsible. Side: Yep
Indiscriminate murder of men, women and children, repeated genocide and killing of innocent people for the hell of it, sanctioned rape and abductions of women "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." Not only that, they are on a par with the nature of war rape, genocide, mass murder and a pattern of indiscriminate killings that have been repeatedly seen in the modern world and universally condemned. This begs the question, on what planet do you have to be to not see genocide, rape, indiscriminate purposeful murder of innocent men women children as not evil. Side: Yep
Indiscriminate murder of men, women and children, repeated genocide and killing of innocent people for the hell of it God only destroys evil. sanctioned rape and abductions of women "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." When does God do this? He sanctions the taking of women as wives. Not only that, they are on a par with the nature of war rape, genocide, mass murder and a pattern of indiscriminate killings that have been repeatedly seen in the modern world and universally condemned. How so? This begs the question, on what planet do you have to be to not see genocide, rape, indiscriminate purposeful murder of innocent men women children as not evil. *Raises the question. Begs the question is a logical fallacy. I do see these things as wrong, but God did no such thing. You might get away with saying "genocide", but that is because God destroys those who are evil. Side: Yep
Saying that God "only destroys evil" is fairly ridiculous and evidence of wishful thinking at its worst. Given the examples described here: -42 children who simply mocked Elijah are "evil" -All children, new borns and unborn life was "evil" at the flood, even if it is assumed that all adults on the planet are evil. -Lots wife was evil for looking back at her home. -the women and children who were killed at the sanction of God were evil (Jericho, and others mentioned here) - the 50,000 killed were evil because they looked inside the ark. There are many, many more. The problem here is, that for your statement to be true, "evil" would describe so banal and different from our concept of "evil" as to be morally irrelevant. After this, the argument simply becomes an incoherent semantic one about the definition of evil that has no bearing or correlation to what we experience in the real world. Side: Nope
How are any of these things that you have mentioned not just? God destroyed the evil. You should really read the Bible, not pick and choose which Bible verses you want to use. Especially look at the contexts of those passages, to which every objection of yours is answered. For example, the flood: the Bible says that every person, except for Noah, had evil in their hearts continually. Read. Don't pluck. Side: Yep
I am picking the Bible versus that demonstrate where God has committed attrocities. You can try and divorce your opinions from reality and try and claim the babies and unborn children wiped out in the flood had "evil in their heart" or try and rationalise the murder and genocide in the bible, but if you applied ANY of the things mentioned in the Bible to a single person, they would be considered evil. One of my favourite bible quotes, and the basis of my interpretation here is this: Matthew 7:15-20 "By your fruits you will know them." in this regard, God is vindictive, evil and genocidal. Side: Nope
God destroying evil is good. You can argue against justice all day, but at the end of it justice will always win. It doesn't matter if it is applied to many people or individuals: justice is justice, and it is good. If God did this solely to one person, then it would be good. I deserve it. We all deserve it. Side: Yep
This is arguing for a type of metaphysical evil that simply is not applied in the real world. "Every evil thing God does is good because we're all evil" In the real world, evil is judged by ones actions and their intentions and effects on others. A baby is not evil, a mass murderer is. By your own argument, all good intentioned rape, mass murder and genocide throughout history is acceptable as its destroying evil and therefore good. This is not a coherent position. Side: Nope
God destroying evil is good. You can argue against justice all day, but at the end of it justice will always win. It doesn't matter if it is applied to many people or individuals: justice is justice, and it is good. If God did this solely to one person, then it would be good. I deserve it. We all deserve it. What you are most definitely saying is that we are all evil, so God can do whatever he likes and it is good. You are not contending that the acts are not evil in and of themselves, but are excusable due to us all being evil and it is therefore justice. As a result, the only thing that makes the act good instead of evil, is that all humans are evil. Therefore, it is in no way a misrepresentation of your argument that is required for a straw man. Side: Nope
I never said that God can do whatever He wants because we are evil. I said that whatever God does is just, which includes the destruction of the wicked. Mainly, though, I didn't even represent the previous statement, and only said that God has judged the evil and is punishing it appropriately. Do not commit a straw man. Side: Yep
I said that whatever God does is just, which includes the destruction of the wicked. God is not evil, because no matter what actions he has performed, and no matter whether these actions would be abhorrent if committed by a human, whatever God does is just. The only way you have tried to justify this, is by claiming all the victims, including children, women, etc are all "evil". My statement is a logical conclusion of your own argument. What let's god off is that the victims are evil and thus deserve it. This is no straw man. The alternative is your above statement, which is basically the same as saying God is obviously not evil because he is not evil. This is a circular argument. Side: Nope
It is in no way the logical conclusion from my argument. The argument is that Gods nature is intrinsically just. Do not commit a straw man. Also, the argument is that God has judged justly that these people are evil, giving them death as justice, which is good intrinsically. Do not commit a strawman Side: Yep
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. If people are evil (as you mentioned previously) then God killing them is just. This is either justified (and not evil) because: A: all those people who were murdered are evil and the action is therefore just (note including women, children and infants always in all situations: and I note that you do not even bother challenging my examples of lots wife and the children who simply mocked elijah). Note you even go so far as to say everyone is evil in a previous post. b: God is always just so that action cannot possibly be evil. If a) it means that I could go out murder, rape and kill and be equally just. Therefore not a straw man. If b) Your argument is inherently circular and is simply stating that the reason God is not Evil because he is not Evil. If you want to simply claim I am committing a straw man, I would suggest you provided a step by step critique and explain exactly what steps above are not your argument and why rather than simply saying so. Side: Nope
A does not follow. Simply because someone has done evil, it does not mean that it is just to kill them. It is just to kill them when the punishment for a convicted person is death, and the sentencing is carried out by the one, or people, who have the right to do so. Simply killing someone who has done evil is not just. Do not commit a strawman. B is not circular at all. If something is a cow, then all you can say is that it is a cow. You can't do anything past that. But this wasn't even my argument. Do not commit a red herring. Are you new to debating? Side: Yep
A does not follow. Simply because someone has done evil, it does not mean that it is just to kill them. It is just to kill them when the punishment for a convicted person is death, and the sentencing is carried out by the one, or people, who have the right to do so. Simply killing someone who has done evil is not just. Do not commit a strawman. You have been arguing that God is not evil, because his actions were justified as the people being murdered were evil. It is NOT a straw man to point this out and then extend this to me; as you are arguing along the lines that the action is justified based on the act and those who are acted upon. If God is held to a different moral standard that means the ACTIONS he carries out are not justified by what the actions are and who they are acted upon by the fact that God is and so this whole strand of your argument is simply moot. Pointing out a logical hole in your argument by demonstrating the logical conclusions of your explanations by simply changing what you are saying from "God" to "A human" is very much not a straw man. B is not circular at all. If something is a cow, then all you can say is that it is a cow. You can't do anything past that. But this wasn't even my argument. Do not commit a red herring. The resolution is "Is the Christian God Evil", I pointed out the acts he carries out as proof he is evil. You point out that these are not evil acts; when prompted for why; they are not evil acts because God cannot be evil. This is most assuredly a circular argument. Proving your conclusion from your premise; and simply means that the entire strand of argument trying to justify his actions are simply moot. Are you new to debating? No; but I find it telling that you decide to resort to Ad-Hominem. Side: Nope
You have been arguing that God is not evil, because his actions were justified as the people being murdered were evil. It is NOT a straw man to point this out and then extend this to me; as you are arguing along the lines that the action is justified based on the act and those who are acted upon. I have been arguing that God has condemned these people for doing evil and is serving justice. Do not commit a strawman. If you can't understand this, then there is no point in continuing. The resolution is "Is the Christian God Evil", I pointed out the acts he carries out as proof he is evil. You point out that these are not evil acts; when prompted for why; they are not evil acts because God cannot be evil. / This is most assuredly a circular argument. Proving your conclusion from your premise; and simply means that the entire strand of argument trying to justify his actions are simply moot. This is not circular. The argument goes from a state of morality necessarily being based in God's nature. Thus, everything that God does it just. Hence, it is just if God does it. This is not a circular argument. It appears as if you don't like deductive arguments. Side: Yep
I have been arguing that God has condemned these people for doing evil and is serving justice. Do not commit a strawman. If you can't understand this, then there is no point in continuing. Well, you actually were talking about the people "Being" evil; which was odd considering I mentioned the deaths of lots wife, and the 40 children mauled by a bear; whose justification for death is "turning round" and "Mocking Elijah respectively". You are arguing from a position that God has condemned these people for doing evil and therefore serving justice (this is simply only a semantic difference from what I said). I have been continually pointing out that this is ridiculous; as if I commited those same acts, for the same reason; it would not be justice. I find it ironic that you basically restate what I said you were arguing and then claim it was a straw man. This is not circular. The argument goes from a state of morality necessarily being based in God's nature. Thus, everything that God does it just. Hence, it is just if God does it. This is not a circular argument. It appears as if you don't like deductive arguments. Oh, it is fine to simply say "God is not evil, because God is not evil", but it makes the previous dozen or so statements relatively redundant. You spend many posts trying to justify Gods actions, and now say that Gods actioned are justified becuase he's God. You seem to be arguing that God is justified in murdering children for mocking elijah, destroy lots wife simply for turning round, murder 15,000 people for looking in a box; on the grounds that he is justified because they must be evil because he is God and can't do any evil. My point is; and it still stands is that this is neither coherent or rational: As applying this same logic in the real world with our real moral values demonstrates the absurdity of your argument. The whole purpose of my argument here, is that God carries out deeds that, were it applied to a human would be considered evil. As you don't seem to be really contesting this (even though you were); and are instead saying that God doesn't count because he's God and is therefore not Evil; seems to illustrate exactly my point. So I don't see any point continuing as you seem to have conceeded my initial point: If I did any of those things for the same reasons, I would be Evil, but God wouldn't be, because he's God. Side: Nope
1
point
2
points
According to your justification in A, it logically follows that God should kill everyone all the time. Is that not absurd? B is simply a bald assertion. If killing is evil, and God kills, then it logically follows that God is evil. Either God's evil actions are justified because of the evil of the tribe he chose to kill, and thus evil justifies more evil, or God's actions are unjustified because they are evil. Which is it? Side: Yep
According to your justification in A, it logically follows that God should kill everyone all the time. Is that not absurd? He should! We are evil and horrible peoples. But God, in His incredible love, displays His patience and common grace/mercy to all peoples so that they may live. One day God destroys them, if they have sinned. Whether that be in the future, or whether that was in the past, through Christ'a sacrifice, we all who have sinned die. B is simply a bald assertion. If killing is evil, and God kills, then it logically follows that God is evil. Either God's evil actions are justified because of the evil of the tribe he chose to kill, and thus evil justifies more evil, or God's actions are unjustified because they are evil. Which is it? Killing is not evil. Who said that? Side: Nope
1
point
A. That is utterly ridiculous. God created man... man is evil... god should destroy evil... god should destroy what he created. Seriously? Why don't we all do him a favor and just kill each other then? Oh, but that would be evil and we should be punished for that... but God shouldn't? Please explain the logic here, it seems highly contradictory to me. B. Let's be specific then. Is killing babies evil? Side: Yep
A. That is utterly ridiculous. God created man... man is evil... god should destroy evil... god should destroy what he created. Seriously? Why don't we all do him a favor and just kill each other then? Oh, but that would be evil and we should be punished for that... but God shouldn't? Please explain the logic here, it seems highly contradictory to me. We messed up. We shouldn't have sinned. We will be destroyed for our evil, but that does not mean that we should repay evil with evil, in destroying others without just cause. B. Let's be specific then. Is killing babies evil? It depends on the context. Side: Nope
1
point
A. This is not an explanation, but a devious way of trying to evade the logical dilemma here: Using simple modus ponens: Premise 1: If X kills Y, then X is evil. Premise 2: X kills Y Conclusion: Therefore X is evil. Is this reasoning correct or not? If it's not, then why would God make a commandment that dictates as such? If it is, then God is evil. Another angle I could attack this at is this: God should destroy evil. Man is evil. Therefore, God should destroy man. But God doesn't destroy man. Therefore God is evil. Please address these two arguments. B. Tell me a single context in which killing babies is not evil. Side: Yep
If X kills y, then X is evil. Who said that? Another angle I could attack this at is this: God should destroy evil. Man is evil. Therefore, God should destroy man. But God doesn't destroy man. Therefore God is evil. This is a clear logical fallacy. B. Tell me a single context in which killing babies is not evil. Babies are sinful, just as I. They deserve death, just as I. If they are killed by God, under just conviction, then it would be just to kill them. Side: Nope
1
point
A. Is one of the commandments though shalt not kill? If it is, isn't that a moral law? If it is, then it follows that according to God, if X kills Y then X is evil. If this is God's law, then it follows that if God kills humans, then God is evil. B. Rather than just asserting it, please explain how it is fallacious. C. Why is God exempt from his own moral rule? If we are to understand that killing someone is wrong, then how else are we to interpret God's actions except by the standard which he gives us? If killing something that is sinful is right, then why is there a commandment that tells us to do otherwise? How is this anything but contradictory? Side: Yep
A. Is one of the commandments though shalt not kill? If it is, isn't that a moral law? If it is, then it follows that according to God, if X kills Y then X is evil. If this is God's law, then it follows that if God kills humans, then God is evil. The commandment is not to murder. Killing is fine, if it is justified. B. Rather than just asserting it, please explain how it is fallacious. Simply because God does not destroy evil, and God should destroy it, it does not follow that God is evil. There is no logical premise to derive the conclusion to which one might say "God is evil." C. Why is God exempt from his own moral rule? If we are to understand that killing someone is wrong, then how else are we to interpret God's actions except by the standard which he gives us? If killing something that is sinful is right, then why is there a commandment that tells us to do otherwise? How is this anything but contradictory? Killing is not wrong inherently. Stop looking at the King James Version. Side: Nope
1
point
A. What, then, is the difference between killing and murder? B. Ok. So by way of analogy, if I had the power to stop a person from murdering an innocent, am I not an accomplice to the action? Does that not make me at least partially morally responsible, and thus evil? C. You'll have to establish why I should stop looking at the King James version rather than flatly discrediting it. Side: Yep
A. What, then, is the difference between killing and murder? Murder is unjustified killing. B. Ok. So by way of analogy, if I had the power to stop a person from murdering an innocent, am I not an accomplice to the action? Does that not make me at least partially morally responsible, and thus evil? Not at all. We aren't utilitarians, since utilitarianism is pernicious. It makes everyone guilty necessarily and involuntarily, stripping one of moral integrity. Under utilitarianism, if I am simply walking down the street and a man comes up to me saying that if I do not kill Person X, then he will kill 10 people, including Person X, then I must kill the person. I am guilty of murder if this is the case; under some branches of utilitarianism, like what you are referencing, I would also be guilty if I let him be. I am guilty, thus, for simply being there. There is no moral integrity, only moral guilt, necessarily. This can, then, be applied to the world as a whole, making everyone guilty of every crime ever committed. Utilitarianism is not logical, making your notion of a person being guilty for letting something else happen also illogical. C. You'll have to establish why I should stop looking at the King James version rather than flatly discrediting it. The KJV is from the Latin Vulgate, which was also translated from some of the worst sets of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is a double translation, not a singular one. The ESV goes straight from Greek and Hebrew to English. Side: Nope
1
point
A. Alright. And how does one go about determining justification? B. Some of us are, so I reject your claim. I'll rephrase my claim then: if we have the power to prevent evil then we are under moral obligation to do so. Not doing so would mean to be morally irresponsible, i.e. evil. God has absolute power, even the power to control our actions or hearts, and could not suffer any unfavorable consequences, rendering him exponentially more morally obligated. The circumstances you provide may be unsatisfying, that does not render them illogical. C. If you would care to provide evidence of this, I will consider it. Otherwise I will continue to utilize the most commonly used bible in English-speaking culture, the one that most English-speakers refer to when they refer to the bible. Side: Yep
0
points
1
point
It would be evil to just kill the parents and then leave the infants to suffer without someone to care for them. It would be evil if they let the infants grow up to be raised by the villains in the civilization and thus leading them to become evil anyway. It would be evil to take the children from the parents and then have the children watch their parents be slaughtered. So they all must die conjointly. Side: Nope
So I would be perfectly justified in killing infants if they were to grow up to be raised by villains? I would be perfectly justified in killing infants if they were to suffer without someone to care for them? I would be perfectly justified in killing infants if the alternative is to have them watch their parents be murdered? Im not sure why this is true as ANY of the above would be considered evil if they were committed in the real world. Side: Yep
1
point
It is accepted by most Christians that god created all there is. It is also accepted by most Christians that those who do not believe in the correct god (the Christian god in the believers eyes) are doomed to spend an eternity in hell. If this were not true what would the be the good in proselytizing non believers if not to save their eternal souls? Therefore the Christian god would have created billions of people geographically and culturally isolated from the words of his followers since the inception of Christianity, not to mention the near hundred thousand years homo-sapiens walked this earth before the Christian religion came to light, with no purpose other than to torture these unfortunate billions of souls at no fault of their own. If any person were to do anything remotely similar like raising animals such as dogs for instance only to torture them people would find that person to be morally corrupt, sick in the head. The actions of torturing such animals has been attributed to actions of some serial killers in their childhoods. Many would argue that dogs are not comparable to humans and still the act would be atrocious in their eyes and to do something similar to humans would be a deeply unforgivable act that only someone who is without morals or evil would be capable of. Just as people may assume dogs are below people they can also assume people are below a god, and this will still not justify the actions to be just. Side: Yep
-1
points
Your claim is a bit nonsensical in the context provided, maybe even circular. It appears you need more context and warranting statements. Through God plans he is punishing evil. First, are you saying god created a situation that is evil and then he is punishing the evil he created? Second, how is the situation I outlined above evil? Is it evil because he is punishing it? Lets just fast forward the game you play with foundationalism and just skip to what supports your claim above. Side: Yep
1
point
Your claim is a bit nonsensical in the context provided, maybe even circular. Sorry I am running through arguments fast. First, are you saying god created a situation that is evil and then he is punishing the evil he created? God cannot create evil. God only created good. Evil is the lack of good and God is good therefore evil is the lack of God. Second, how is the situation I outlined above evil? What was situation 1? Lets just fast forward the game you play with foundationalism and just skip to what supports your claim above. Suprised you guus can't understand something so simple. Side: Nope
God cannot create evil. God only created good. Evil is the lack of good and God is good therefore evil is the lack of God. All you are doing is declaring things to be so, you offer no proof. In fact these declarations fly in the face of the actions outlined. How is the situation I outlined above good? The only thing holding your argument up is circular referencing/begging the question...so nothing holds it up except faith. What was situation 1? It wasn't a one it was the letter 'i' as in myself. Scroll up and read the situation I outlined, are you arguing or just point mining? Suprised you guus can't understand something so simple. See my first point in this response, you are just making claims without proof. The bible is full of these petitions of principle. I am surprised you don't understand something so simple...Example of your logic so far: "My hat is warm. It is warm because hats are warm." You could say 'My hat is made of wool. Wool traps heat well, therefore my hat is warm' These things can be warranted or tested. 'God can only make good so anything he does is good' cannot be tested and can only be warranted by further petitions of principle. Side: Yep
1
point
All you are doing is declaring things to be so Or stating the obvious. you offer no proof The proof is the logic. Dispute that. The only thing holding your argument up is circular referencing/begging the question...so nothing holds it up except faith False. It wasn't a one it was the letter 'i' as in myself. Ah. Example of your logic so far:"My hat is warm. It is warm because hats are warm." That is completely off. It's more like: Cold is the lack of heat. Heat is hot. My hat is not cold. Therefore my hat has a lack of heat, or is hot. Side: Nope
I asked several times for you to address my points and you never have. I asked for your foundation to back up any comment you made, you just reassert the comment you made.You just made statements that basically said you disagree. I showed where your logic erred you just say, and I summarize here, 'Nuh uh'. We can look again since you asked. Here is a copy paste of your logic from above bold is yours italics is yours too but my emphasis. The proof is the logic. Dispute that. Cold is the lack of heat. Heat is hot. My hat is not cold. Therefore my hat has a lack of heat(pretty sure you mean lack of cold here), or is hot. My hat is not cold= god is good by the way(or not evil in this context). This is a petition of principle, you need to show this but you haven't. Then you just say again that your hat is hot in another way. My hat is not cold. My hat has a lack of cold or is hot. Jim is taller than Bill, why? because Bill is shorter than Jim. Without proving god is good you then say your conclusion which is only held up by your assertion of the first part that you didn't prove. Now we can further measure hot and cold to prove those, but you haven't measured god being good. You are taking that for granted. To be clear we are not disputing the difference between hot/col good/evil but where god falls on the spectrum. Tautalogy is terrible in debates as it assumes you are already correct. It is circular or begging the question as I just showed above. We could measure Bill or Jim and see, but just stating that one is taller and the other is shorter over and over again doesn't prove anything. My argument measures Jim and Bill, yours just repeats itself despite my measure showing your conclusion not to fit the measure I used. Saying something is does not make it so. You have to show why it is as well as why my measure doesn't work. You are skipping the why bit. Your 'logic' only works if someone agrees with you, well I do not agree with you. I am fine with you believing whatever you want. If you got anything out of this I hope it is to see why you are not able to change minds with your tactics and the circular nature of what you argue with. Side: Yep
As a quick addendum, I had a quick look: Genesis 7:21-23, God sends a flood on the pretence that humans have become evil. Killing every child, newborn and foetus on the planet, even assuming every single grown up is so evil they deserve to die. Exodus 12:29 God kills all the egyptian first born, who were undoubtedly innocent bystanders. Numbers 16:41-49 the Israelites raise a complaint against god that he keeps killing many of them. He then gets angry and sends a plague to kill 14,000 more. Joshua 6:20-21. God helps the israelites kill men, women, young and old in Jericho. Deuteronomy 2:32-35: God orders the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Heshbon, including all the children. Deuteronomy 3:3-7 and the same in bashan Numbers 31:7-18. Murder of all the midianites. The virgins are taken as spoils of war. 1 Samuel 6:19 god kills 50,000 people for curiously looking into a box. Genesis 19:24. God kills everyone in sodom and Gomorrah (men, women and children). And lots wife for having the audacity of looking back at her burning home. 2 Kings 2:23-24: God sends bears to maul/"tear apart" 42 children. This shows a consistent pattern of moral evil. If any single person did any of these acts, leave alone all of them, they would be considered evil by modern society. Side: Yep
3
points
I feel like I have answered this many times before, but I guess I will again, If the Christian God exists with characteristics acording to the bible, then he: 1. Is A Mass Murderer: -flooding the entire earth, killing the entire world population with the exception of one family for a mistake he made-Genesis 6:5 - 10:32 -Killed all first born Egyptian children-Exodus 12:29 -commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Almaeks-1 Samuel 15:2-3 -Demanded the genocides of various other nations and regions- (Numbers 31:17), (Deuteronomy 2:33-34), (Isaiah 13:15-18), etc. Condones Murder: - Homosexuals must be killed- Leviticus 20:13 NAB - kill people who don't listen to priests- Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT - kill children who disobey their parents- (Exodus 21:15 NAB), (Proverbs 20:20 NAB), (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) - kill witches- Exodus 22:17 NAB - kill fortune tellers- Leviticus 20:27 NAB - kill non Christians- Exodus 22:19 NAB - kill non believers- 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB - if an entire town worships another god, then you must wipe them all out- Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT - kill people who work on Sunday- Exodus 31:12-15 NLT Views Women as inferior: - Credits women as being responsible for all humankinds damnation and that a man should have dominion over woman- Genesis 3:16 - Instructions on how to sell your daughter into sex slavery- Exodus 21:7 - Men are allowed to take multiple wives (the same does not apply to women)- Exodus 21:10 - Says that women are born filthy and must be cleansed- Leviticus 12:1-8 - God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men- Leviticus 27:3-7 - Women cannot make a vow unless their husband allows it- Leviticus 27:3-7 - Women who are not virgins, unless married, must be stoned to death- Deuteronomy 22:13-22 - encourages the rape of female citizens of enemy nations during wartime- Deuteronomy 20:13-15 - If a woman is raped in a populated area and doesn't cry out, then she must be killed- Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If a woman is raped, she must marry her rapist- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Condones Slavery: - instructions on how to purchase and treat your slaves- Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT - instructions on how to sell your own daughter into slavery- Exodus 21:7-11 NLT - states its ok to beat your slaves as long as the slave survives the beating for at least two days- Exodus 21:20-21 NAB - states that slaves must obey their masters as they would serve Christ- Ephesians 6:5 NLT Need I go on?... Side: Yep
1. Is A Mass Murderer: Incorrect. Mass killer. How has God murdered here? Do you not think God, the judge of the universe, should destroy evil? Atheists are always complaining why there is evil in this world, but when God destroys some of it, they complain. Why? Because they hate God and everything He does, regardless of it being good. Condones Murder: How so? Is justice not a good thing? Should capital punishment be considered murder? Views Women as inferior: How so? You do realize that Genesis 3 is actually the man's fault, correct? 1 Timothy informs us that the woman was deceived, not the man. Hence, the man willingly let his wife be deceived. Eve was not the one who was there at the time of the command by God to not eat of the tree, which means that Adam was required, as the head of his home, to teach Eve. Did he do so properly? No. Many theologians say that this was the first sin, not the eating of the tree. Hence, man actually is to blame, not woman, though woman does share in the evil. Moreover, God in Genesis 1 and 2 establishes that woman was created under the category of "God's image", which is to say that man and woman are equal, though they have different roles; role is not equivalent to value. Condones Slavery: Is there a problem with slavery? We have the same form of slavery today. Its called community service...... Side: Nope
1
point
1. I see no evidence that God has "destroyed" evil anywhere outside of the stories of the bible. Why didn't God destroy Hitler before concentration camps murdered millions? Why not Stalin? What about the genocidal mania that goes on in certain parts of Africa or the Middle East? If a god exists who is so amoral in his choices, why would he have not even lifted a finger to stop those atrocities? 2. Some people would say yes. Some people would say there's a higher morality than "eye for an eye." Basic game theory dictates that that is a LOSING strategy. 3. This fails to address the way the bible states women's roles in other passages. It's a deflection. 4. Is there a problem with slavery? Are you serious? Side: Yep
1. I see no evidence that God has "destroyed" evil anywhere outside of the stories of the bible. Why didn't God destroy Hitler before concentration camps murdered millions? Why not Stalin? What about the genocidal mania that goes on in certain parts of Africa or the Middle East? If a god exists who is so amoral in his choices, why would he have not even lifted a finger to stop those atrocities? Jesus destroyed evil on the cross. After this event, God not longer destroys evil in death, but in the death that has already happened. We believe in God, and He will restore to us a new heart over time. 2. Some people would say yes. Some people would say there's a higher morality than "eye for an eye." Basic game theory dictates that that is a LOSING strategy. And eye for an eye was Jewish civic law. 3. This fails to address the way the bible states women's roles in other passages. It's a deflection. Role is not equivalent to value. 4. Is there a problem with slavery? Are you serious? What? Do you have a problem with community service? Do you have a problem with people paying off debts? Side: Nope
1
point
1. My point was that outside of the stories of the bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that God destroys evil. If God were so good and so powerful, why wouldn't he? I would say this makes him an accomplice to evil. 2. An eye for an eye was a dictate created by God. Hence, God is evil. 3. The very definition of submission is the acting of yield to a superior force or power. If one thing is superior to another, it is arguably more valuble. 4. Community service and debt repayment is not slavery in and of itself. In both of those situations people enter into a contract voluntarily, the antithesis of slavery. Slavery is coercive. Side: Yep
1. My point was that outside of the stories of the bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that God destroys evil. If God were so good and so powerful, why wouldn't he? I would say this makes him an accomplice to evil. He has, in Christ Jesus our Lord! He has destroyed it so that all may come to accept His free gift of eternal life! All those who do not will be dealt destruction. 2. An eye for an eye was a dictate created by God. Hence, God is evil. How is it evil? 3. The very definition of submission is the acting of yield to a superior force or power. If one thing is superior to another, it is arguably more valuble. Jesus submitted to the will of His parents. This does not mean that He is lesser than they. It simply means that He was serving them and doing as they asked of Him. He was superior than they, and He was shown to be superior than they because the least are the greatest: those who serve and submit are those who are held up. 4. Community service and debt repayment is not slavery in and of itself. In both of those situations people enter into a contract voluntarily, the antithesis of slavery. Slavery is coercive. This is what slavery meant when the Bible was written. If you don't want to apply historical context, then do not argue for or against the Bible. But if you want to argue with historical context, then you can only lean to support the Bible, in that it supports the slavery of criminals, for community service, and for debt repayment. Side: Nope
1
point
1. No, he hasn't. Evil still exists, hence God has not destroyed it at all. If there is a God and he has the power to stop child molestation, murder, rape, genocide, etc., then he is not doing it. He is therefore an accomplice to it. 2. I could argue a couple reasons it is, but in the very least it is less good than intermittent or even consistent forgiveness. 3. Whether or not Jesus was "superior" is, so far, complete conjecture on your part. All other things being equal, if object X is superior to object Y, how is object Y of equal or greater value than object X? 4. Actually, if you would like to argue with historical context, you also have to include the non-Jew slaves, who were not made slaves as per any agreement but were forced into slavery by the Jews. What you talked about applied only to Jew slaves. So try again. Side: Yep
1. No, he hasn't. Evil still exists, hence God has not destroyed it at all. If there is a God and he has the power to stop child molestation, murder, rape, genocide, etc., then he is not doing it. He is therefore an accomplice to it. He has offered Jesus as the propitiation for these things, so that one might be seen as Holy and blameless before God. He has taken that which sin demanded. 2. I could argue a couple reasons it is, but in the very least it is less good than intermittent or even consistent forgiveness. This is a civic law of the Jews, not a moral law. It was how they were to deal with the world. 3. Whether or not Jesus was "superior" is, so far, complete conjecture on your part. All other things being equal, if object X is superior to object Y, how is object Y of equal or greater value than object X? Who said that submission means that one is inferior? It simply means to serve as if under. I can submit my teacher, but she is not necessarily superior to I. 4. Actually, if you would like to argue with historical context, you also have to include the non-Jew slaves, who were not made slaves as per any agreement but were forced into slavery by the Jews. What you talked about applied only to Jew slaves. So try again. As I said, they were criminals. They were declared to be so by God. Hence, the historical context is still applicable. Side: Nope
1
point
A. You are now changing your argument. Please first acknowledge that God has not destroyed evil before suddenly changing topics. B. It was one of God's laws, wasn't it? C. That is the very definition of it. If you have an issue with that take it up with people who compile definitions. D. This goes back to our argument about whether or not it is good to do evil to evil. It would seem contradictory to state so. Side: Yep
A. You are now changing your argument. Please first acknowledge that God has not destroyed evil before suddenly changing topics. In what sense are you referring to the destroying of evil? God destroyed evil, in that Christ took upon Himself the merit of sin. We do not live in evil, since we are in His righteousness. B. It was one of God's laws, wasn't it? Laws are not continual if they apply to certain people for a certain time. For example, some commands might be directed at a specific person, or people. C. That is the very definition of it. If you have an issue with that take it up with people who compile definitions. Thats not the definition of it, though.... haha submission simply means to act in accordance with the will of another. This does not infer that one is actually superior to you. You are using a definition that is not an actual definition of the word "submit" D. This goes back to our argument about whether or not it is good to do evil to evil. It would seem contradictory to state so. Evil does not justify evil. But slavery is not inherently evil. Side: Nope
1
point
A. "put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it." I have seen no "end to the existence" of evil by any means. B. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" C. Ok, I'll concede this point, although I still think it's arguable that superior implies higher value. D. If evil does not justify evil, then how is God justified in committing evil? And how is the ownership of another human being not evil? Side: Yep
A. "put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it." / I have seen no "end to the existence" of evil by any means. Outside of Christ who has become the burden of evil for us, alleviating death from us, God is waiting patiently for all to take place before He calls His people home. B. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" What about it? You do realize that Christ is saying here that He came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, which is to say that He came to die, as the Messiah, for the sins of the world, being perfect and blameless before the Law, taking our sin because we cannot fulfill the Law. Because Christ fulfilled the Law for us, when we do have to fulfill the Law, we are no longer required to submit to the Law. And even if you don't accept that version of interpretation, which is backed up in Romans (specifically look at 6:14), then you can argue that simply because He did not come to abolish the law, not all laws, as I said before, are applicable to everyone. If I say that command X is for community Y, then if I say that the law is not abolished, which includes command X, then it follows that community Y still has to follow it, but that does not mean that people in Community Z must follow it. D. If evil does not justify evil, then how is God justified in committing evil? And how is the ownership of another human being not evil? How has God committed evil? How is the ownership of another person evil? Side: Nope
1
point
A. Please do not detract from the argument. Retract your initial claim and then we can proceed. B. It also says that Christ did not come to abolish the laws, which is to say they are not abolished. Shall I look up the definition of abolish for you as well? Please demonstrate where it says that all or some laws were only meant for certain groups of people at certain times. I am aware of other passages in the bible which would refute this, though. D. I suppose you will have to provide a definition of evil to which we will need to come to a consensus on, then. Side: Yep
A. Please do not detract from the argument. Retract your initial claim and then we can proceed. How am I detracting from the argument? B. It also says that Christ did not come to abolish the laws, which is to say they are not abolished. Shall I look up the definition of abolish for you as well? Please demonstrate where it says that all or some laws were only meant for certain groups of people at certain times. I am aware of other passages in the bible which would refute this, though. "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Hebrews 7:12 Hebrews 10:18 states that with Christ we do not need to do sacrificial laws any more: "Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." So there are multiple places which say that we are not required to do the things of the law any more. The reason for this is in the verse you cited. Christians are no longer under the law because Christ fulfilled the law. He did not relax on commandment not rule of God, making Him holy and blameless. He took our place. Thus, we live by the law of grace, not by the law of Moses. This theological theme is in most of Paul's writings. D. I suppose you will have to provide a definition of evil to which we will need to come to a consensus on, then. Evil is that which God hates. Evil is that which is not loving your neighbor as yourself with reverence to God. Side: Nope
1. No, he hasn't. Evil still exists, hence God has not destroyed it at all. If there is a God and he has the power to stop child molestation, murder, rape, genocide, etc., then he is not doing it. He is therefore an accomplice to it If God eliminated all of the evil in this world. Would you and I still exist if He eliminated all of it? Side: Nope
1
point
Thejackster, Your arguments are based on false representations of the Bible. First you present the flood as an evil thing. But the story presents the flood as an act of justice toward injustice. Genesis 6 presented how humankind had lost its way, and how the flood was necessary to "reset" history. And it should be noted that the flood tarried for about a hundred years, allowing enough time for people to change their ways. Also there is the view of the angels birthing titans through earthly women and corrupting the world (Enoch described this in detail). There is also the position that the flood was not worldwide, but regional, destroying an evil civilization. The point is that God judged an evil generation. God has the ontological ground to judge evil and its perpetrators. Second, on the killing of the first born sons of Egypt, you must remember that the Pharaoh of Egypt had ordered the genocide of Hebrew males many years before the plagues of Egypt. Pharaoh slaughtered many Hebrew males, of which Moses narrowly escaped, to maintain power over the Hebrews and keep them in perpetual slavery. And remember that the Hebrews were slaves and untrained in war. Therefore the plagues were the necessary toward setting the Hebrews free from slavery. How many lives were lost in America's civil war toward ending slavery? Will you argue that Lincoln was evil for fighting the war that cost many fathers their sons, to end slavery? Pharoah could have yielded after the first plague and let the Hebrews go. But instead, he insisted on keeping the Hebrews in "chains." His evil toward the Hebrews cost his nation the first-born sons. For further discussions on genocide, you may refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/11/28/ Third, Leviticus didn't call for the death of homosexuals, but those caught in the act of homosexual sex. This was to deter homosexual sex (and other sexual practices that were listed) from the public, not to persecute homosexuals. Fourth, children were not killed simply for disobeying their parents. The text was referring to youths in their late teens and early adulthood who were a menace to society and bringing dishonor to their parents. "Kill non-Christians" Fifth, there were no Christians and non-Christians at the time. "Kill people who work on Sunday" Sixth, Sabbath was on Saturday. And Jesus challenged the legalism that became a burden to the Sabbath, saying that the Sabbath was intended for humankind, and not the reverse. Seventh, Genesis 3: 16 apportioned punishment for sin to man and woman. Man gained dominion over woman, while he began to toil for his "daily bread." On slavery, you may also refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/12/23/ Eighth, though men were allowed to take multiple wives, it was not so in the beginning. The formula for marriage in Genesis is that "two shall become one." Ninth, The rape you purported actually referred to consensual sex. Don't be misled by the language. In that society where a woman's opinion was of little or no relevance, men "took" hold of women as desired. It was a woman's role to submit. Hence we are speaking of a man taking hold of a woman (as in wooing her and receiving her submission) and consensual sex thereafter. Side: Nope
3
points
Eternal punishment for temporary sins, with the sinner given an unknown but surely brief amount of time to discover his/her creator's specific and arguably counter-intuitive rules and then believe them despite the fact that this belief frequently flies in the face of the strong reasoning ability said creator imbued the sinner with is a pretty dickish move. Especially since one of this sins is not believing and worshiping something that refuses to operate on the same logical principles that said sinner is forced (by the creator) to live in. Side: Yep
-1
points
2
points
1
point
They argument you posted before this was stated in the instance of the existence of God and his works. It logically follows that a soul would exist. If this is the case the sin is not temporary since the soul still exists. even if souls can be proven to exist, how is it that these sins have an indelible, permanent effect on them. I would logically imagine that the state of the soul would reveal it's permanent effects. If the soul is in a state of joy or in a state of distress. I don't understand why your second point was even said. I also wouldn't call them absolutely indelible since God is capable of anything. Side: Nope
1
point
If this is the case the sin is not temporary since the soul still exists. Fair enough. However that just supports my stance. The soul may be eternal, but the body clearly isn't. Yet it is during that very brief amount of time that we have that physical body that our actions effect the eternal time we do not. This might be a little more acceptable if that time frame was the same for all people, or if we didn't have to spend the first 20+ years learning pretty much everything about our surroundings and letting our brains develop to the point where we can be properly responsible for these actions. But we don't have those, and we don't have equal or universal exposure to Biblical teachings. This seems like a mean-spirited set of circumstances for a benevolent being to place his favorite children in. I would logically imagine that the state of the soul would reveal it's permanent effects. If the soul is in a state of joy or in a state of distress. We are going in circles here. My question is, why is it right to let actions whose effects will be inconsequential within weeks or years determine the eternal state of the soul? Is it better to continuously punish someone or let them learn from their mistakes and grow? And why should our belief in God and the divinity of Jesus have any bearing on that anyway? It all sounds like ruling by fear rather than by compassion and logic. I also wouldn't call them absolutely indelible since God is capable of anything. But chooses not to once the physical body dies. Why give us a very finite and unknown amount of time to repent? Why can't we, upon seeing the final consequences first-hand, change our ways in the afterlife? Side: Yep
1
point
However that just supports my stance. The soul may be eternal, but the body clearly isn't. Yet it is during that very brief amount of time that we have that physical body that our actions effect the eternal time we do not. This is against your initial stance. Your existence is infinite. The impact you have in relationship to God is eternal and shall always exist. We are going in circles here. My question is, why is it right to let actions whose effects will be inconsequential within weeks or years determine the eternal state of the soul? It's the actions of one's entire life and everything they do with it that is judged. If one murders another they can still be saved. This seems like a mean-spirited set of circumstances for a benevolent being to place his favorite children in It's only mean spirited in the subjective. Not the objective. It all sounds like ruling by fear rather than by compassion and logic. He is ruling in the sense of compassion for those who choose to follow. Those that do not only open themselves up to evil. God is not bound by logic. Why give us a very finite and unknown amount of time to repent? Why can't we, upon seeing the final consequences first-hand, change our ways in the afterlife? Deprivation of free will and true love. Also a lack of God which still allows evil to proliferate. Side: Nope
1
point
Your existence is infinite. The impact you have in relationship to God is eternal and shall always exist. Why allow us and our relationship with God to be mutable for a blink of an eye (especially when we have so many other things to deal with during that blink, and are always at least a little ignorant of reality during that time) and allow the repercussions to carry on for infinity. He placed us squarely within a world of change, and our perceptions are based on that change. Then, before we can properly get the hang of THAT, poof we must stagnate for an eternity that we can't even conceive of while we are forced to decide. Its like asking a person who was born blind to pick a painting, then forcing them to live in the painting forever. It's the actions of one's entire life and everything they do with it that is judged. If one murders another they can still be saved. Saved only by fear of hell, not by realizing why what they did was wrong. Its giving a cheat code to a select group of people and encouraging them to give up before they even try to beat the game. Those that do not only open themselves up to evil. Too absolutionist. People can come to fully secular reasoning why things like murder and rape are wrong. God is not bound by logic. But WE are. Why allow logic to be so darned useful in the materiel world if it has absolutely no bearing in his? Deprivation of free will and true love. That is a cop out if you believe that God is truly omnipotent and omniscient. Just because we can't conceive of a way of reconciling free will with a reality where we don't suffer does not mean he could not. Also a lack of God which still allows evil to proliferate. Plenty of evil has been done in God's name. Lots of gangbangers believe in God but they still run around killing and stealing. Meanwhile, atheists are underrepresented in jail. At the very least, belief in God seems irrelevant to whether a person will do evil, at the worst that very belief can cause more suffering. Side: Yep
1
point
Why allow us and our relationship with God to be mutable for a blink of an eye I think it's longer than a blink of an eye. Its years. Many years in fact
and allow the repercussions to carry on for infinity. Don't know the exact answer to that. I know that the deity can do whatever it wishes. Especially since it rules over all. So one set of rules it ordains will ne picked over any others. I don't know. Does that help? Sorry. That is a good question. Then, before we can properly get the hang of THAT, poof we must stagnate for an eternity that we can't even conceive of while we are forced to decide. Its like asking a person who was born blind to pick a painting, then forcing them to live in the painting forever. It's more like telling you a way to have eternal peaceful life. Saved only by fear of hell And the grace of God. not by realizing why what they did was wrong I think someone is aware of their doings. But WE are. Why allow logic to be so darned useful in the materiel world if it has absolutely no bearing in his? He is the creator of logic therefore he is above logic. You canmot use logic to deduce God. It is below him. That is a cop out if you believe that God is truly omnipotent and omniscient. How is he not both? Explain. Plenty of evil has been done in God's name What evil? God cannot perform evil tasks. God cannot do evil. Also all his actions are good. They are only deemed good or bad by society which is the collective body of the subjective. It cannot logically serve as thw objective. Lots of gangbangers believe in God but they still run around killing and stealing. Okay? What does that have to do with God's omnibenevolence? Meanwhile, atheists are underrepresented in jail. The need more representatiom then. I wouldn't mind supporting that. At the very least, belief in God seems irrelevant to whether a person will do evil, True. People can commit acts of evil. at the worst that very belief can cause more suffering. I agree. For some it causes suffering. Side: Nope
1
point
Its years. Many years in fact Even if you lived to be 200, that is virtually nothing compared to eternity. Its virtually nothing compared to a million years, which means nothing compared to 5 billion years, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to 5 trillion years....etc. I think someone is aware of their doings. In some cases, although people with certain mental/emotional conditions (conditions given to them by God, mind you) will be unable to see what is wrong with certain actions. But there are a lot of things that are not inherently obvious to all people. A gay person won't feel that following their heart is objectively wrong. A person who has never read the OT is not going to have any reason to believe that working on the Sabbath is bad. So on and so on. He is the creator of logic therefore he is above logic. You canmot use logic to deduce God. It is below him. I know, that is my point. Why should we be held accountable for his beliefs when we can't properly fathom them. We, and the world we observe, are bound purely by logic, and he put us in that set of circumstances. Its like blaming your cat for disgusting you with dead animal carcasses presented to you in bed. The cat is just following its instincts, and its your fault for letting it go outside in the first place. How is he not both? Explain. I didn't say that. I said "if YOU believe that he is" then by your definition it is fully within his power and imagination to have arranged reality in such a way so that these things are not mutually incompatible. What evil? God cannot perform evil tasks. I wasn't talking about his actions, I was talking about actions performed in his name. Holy wars, witch hunts, persecution of scientists... Okay? What does that have to do with God's omnibenevolence? In reference to the idea that believing in him promotes good. My whole point was that said belief does not inherently promote good, is not required to be good, does not universally forestall evil. The need more representatiom then. I wouldn't mind supporting that. By jailing them when they have broken no laws? Side: Yep
1
point
Even if you lived to be 200, that is virtually nothing compared to eternity. Its virtually nothing compared to a million years, which means nothing compared to 5 billion years, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to 5 trillion years....etc. The chronological mechanism of time still remains constant. You still logically have a while. In some cases, although people with certain mental/emotional conditions (conditions given to them by God, mind you) will be unable to see what is wrong with certain actions. Given by sin you mean? I uneerstand that. God may take care of that. A gay person won't feel that following their heart is objectively wrong. A person who has never read the OT is not going to have any reason to believe that working on the Sabbath is bad. So on and so on. I know. Most old testament law is non applicable in the modern era. Why should we be held accountable for his beliefs when we can't properly fathom them. You can fathom rules. You cannot fathom God. Its like blaming your cat for disgusting you with dead animal carcasses presented to you in bed. The cat is just following its instincts, and its your fault for letting it go outside in the first place. Umm, no. I wasn't talking about his actions, I was talking about actions performed in his name. Holy wars, witch hunts, persecution of scientists... Yet, that is not God himself. So it does not affect him. By jailing them when they have broken no laws? Oh sorry. I thought you meant that Atheists on jail go unheard. Sorry. Side: Nope
1
point
The chronological mechanism of time still remains constant. You still logically have a while. That is not guaranteed. People die young all the time. And even those who live reasonably long lives can be led astray by circumstances beyond their control. And no matter what, it is disproportionate, 70 some odd years of activity simply does not warrant an eternity of suffering. If one could change their minds within that eternity, repent after a few years in hell or whatever, that would be more acceptable. But this proposed arrangement is barbaric. Given by sin you mean? Which brings up a whole new point to my argument that I was initially avoiding to keep us on track, but since it came up....that whole original sin thing is downright evil. Punishing beings for the faults of their ancestors, is absolutely ludicrous. If my great-great-great grandfather was a murderer, it does not follow that I will be one too, or anything remotely like it. We are innocent of a crime until we actually commit it, but God already closed the book on every human soul because the first two humans chowed on that apple. To make it worse, I understand that Eve wasn't even really trying to disobey God. She got conned by a trickster into thinking it would be okay. So they got punished not for being evil, but gullible. A level of gullibility God allowed them to have. And he, being omniscient knew they would do that. He put them right next to the tree, allowed the snake to con them...this is his sin. Umm, no. Umm yes. He would know better than anybody how faulty we are. Rather than trying to get us to improve ourselves or taking action to make it a little easier on us, or even making it undeniably clear that he and all the other supernatural constructs are real, he just lets us fumble on and lets us burn for eternity for not acknowledging his less than obvious existence. Horrible management strategy. Yet, that is not God himself. So it does not affect him. But it seems to upset him. It really would be beneficial if believing in God prevented a person from doing evil. There would be a lot less false idols and atheists running around. Oh sorry. I thought you meant that Atheists on jail go unheard. Heh, that's actually pretty funny, and I can see the misunderstanding. If that is what I meant, I would totally agree with you :) Side: Yep
1
point
That is not guaranteed. That is illogical. Time will flow at a constant rate. Regardless of one's actions. People die young all the time That is understood. Most people live beyond this though. If one could change their minds within that eternity, repent after a few years in hell or whatever, that would be more acceptable I agree. Sounds more logical. ..that whole original sin thing is downright evil Well I dont think its evil. But it is deceptive and manipulative. this is his sin. Well technically its still ours. The sin wasn't in the fruit as you know. I agree though. It really would be beneficial if believing in God prevented a person from doing evil. There would be a lot less false idols and atheists running around. That isn't true love though. It's not letting them choose. Heh, that's actually pretty funny, and I can see the misunderstanding. If that is what I meant, I would totally agree with you :) Lol. I think many people would totes agree Side: Nope
1
point
For that first point I wasn't talking about the passage of time. I was talking about how nobody knows how much time they have. But you addressed that later. Indeed, we seem to be largely in rough agreement so I'll skip most of this. That isn't true love though. It's not letting them choose. You are choosing to believe in God in the first place. It would function in roughly the same way other choices do. Some of them have permanent consequences. This would be a permanent beneficial consequence, but you still have to make that choice. But there are other less drastic ways that could help. For instance make heaven and hell places that we could visit at least once in our lifetimes. To know that they are there for sure, to get a glimpse of what they would be like. I have a very hard time believing in things like heaven and hell, so they have no bearing on my choices. If I had experienced them first hand, and so had everyone else on the planet, it would be a lot easier for me and people like me to give credence to the Bible. To me THAT IS true love. Not just letting people make choices, but making it perfectly clear what the consequences of their actions could be. To say that its all there in the Bible doesn't do any good for the people who are never exposed to it, or to those like myself who find it to far-fetched and anachronistic to put faith in. Heck, even two different people who DO believe in the Bible can view it in two vastly different ways due to difference in interpretation. Side: Yep
The sins are not temporary. Can you name one non temporary sin? If I steal eventually that comes to an end. If I murder eventually that comes to an end. Even the lamest sin of all, not believing eventually must stop once I have died and learned that God is real. Once someone is eternally punished how are they committing any sins? Do souls commit more sins when in hell? Side: Yep
1
point
Can you name one non temporary sin? No. That is why I said they aren't temporary. If I steal eventually that comes to an end. The action itself ends. The sin remains eternal. If I murder eventually that comes to an end. Even the lamest sin of all, not believing eventually must stop once I have died and learned that God is real. All those actions do end. The sin remains constant. It will determime your fate for eternity. Once someone is eternally punished how are they committing any sins? The action has ceased. However sin itself still exists. The marks of sin still exist. Do souls commit more sins when in hell? Highly doubt. Side: Nope
No. That is why I said they aren't temporary. You just said that all sins are temporary. Hehe, oops. The action itself ends. The sin remains eternal. That's a stupid way to look at it. All those actions do end. The sin remains constant. It will determime your fate for eternity. That is circular logic. You are saying it is eternal because you are punished eternally. The action has ceased. However sin itself still exists. The marks of sin still exist. The temporary actions are being considered eternal sins. Just because you repeat it doesn't make it any better. Highly doubt. So you do 1 thing bad and it haunts you for eternity, that's real fair. Side: Yep
1
point
You just said that all sins are temporary. Hehe, oops Okay? I never said that. So..... That's a stupid way to look at it. Okay. That is circular logic. You are saying it is eternal because you are punished eternally. Nope. The marks of sin are eternal. Sin itself will remain eternal sonce it fills the body and soul and the soul is eternal. The temporary actions are being considered eternal sins If I murder someone that judgment is forever upon me. That sin will always be with me unless I am cleansed from sin. So you do 1 thing bad and it haunts you for eternity, that's real fair I don't think that is how it goes. You can always be forgiven (which you already are) and thus all you have to do is reach for paradise and escape from sin. Side: Nope
Okay? I never said that. So..... You did by accident, hence the hehe oops. I asked you if you could name a non temporary sin and you said no. Which means you don't think there are any that are non temporary and all are temporary. Nope. The marks of sin are eternal. Sin itself will remain eternal sonce it fills the body and soul and the soul is eternal. Blah blah blah, sin is eternal because sin is eternal. You are still talking about an eternal punishment for a temporary action. If I murder someone that judgment is forever upon me. That sin will always be with me unless I am cleansed from sin. You have only taken away someones temporary body. It is a temporary action that is being considered for a permanent punishment. I don't think that is how it goes. Why do you keep saying the opposite then. You can always be forgiven (which you already are) and thus all you have to do is reach for paradise and escape from sin. You don't actually believe that, so why should I think this is true? Side: Yep
1
point
You did by accident, hence the hehe oops. I asked you if you could name a non temporary sin and you said no. Which means you don't think there are any that are non temporary and all are temporary. Okay. Blah blah blah, sin is eternal because sin is eternal. You are still talking about an eternal punishment for a temporary action. Very mature. Lack of recognition, perhaps? Totes un-fabu. You have only taken away someones temporary body. It is a temporary action that is being considered for a permanent punishment. Your soul controls the body. This isn't that hard to realize. Why do you keep saying the opposite then. Opposite of what you say? It's natural. You don't actually believe that, so why should I think this is true? Uhh, totes excuse me, but when did I say it was true? Anyways that is irrelevant. Side: Nope
1
point
The action of your sin may come to an end but its effect continues. The Holocaust came to an end about a century ago, yet remains potent upon pronunciation. Hypothetically speaking, if Hitler were around today would you say that since its been close to a hundred years since the Holocaust we should no longer make a big deal of it but allow Hitler to get on with his life and not be accountable? And what if Hitler showed up 200 years now? Slavery ended in the 1800s, yet its unjust effect has lingered in the African American community. Even though the actual generation that were victims of the practice of slavery have long passed on, those around today usually don't make light of the matter. If an evil deed continues to have a negative effect, its perpetrator should justly be held accountable. Side: Nope
The action of your sin may come to an end but its effect continues. But, that still doesn't last forever. The Holocaust came to an end about a century ago, yet remains potent upon pronunciation. Hypothetically speaking, if Hitler were around today would you say that since its been close to a hundred years since the Holocaust we should no longer make a big deal of it but allow Hitler to get on with his life and be accountable? And what if Hitler showed up 200 years now? Your hypothetical is impossible and not worthy of discussing. If we lock him up in prison for 10,000 years and he survives, I would say let him go. Slavery ended in the 1800s, yet its unjust effect has lingered in the African American community. Even though the actual generation that were victims of the practice of slavery have long passed on, those around today usually don't make light of the matter. But, white people aren't punished for it. If an evil deed continues to have a negative effect, its perpetrator should justly be held accountable. How many people go to hell without having done anything that has a lingering affect? If someone commits sin should they only be in hell for as long as anyone living remembers their sin? I could get behind that policy. Side: Yep
"Your hypothetical is impossible and not worthy of discussing." It's not impossible on the premise that Hitler has a soul, and that the soul is the individual and survives death, and that the souls of his victims would have also survived the holocaust. On that premise, the evil is eternal. "If we lock him up in prison for 10,000 years and he survives, I would say let him go." The Holocaust will continue to be an evil crime against the Jews past 10,000 years, and suggesting that Hitler may be set free after 10,000 years is insensitive and unjust to the weight of the crime that Hitler committed. "But, white people aren't punished for it." Exactly! Whites are not punished because in general Whites today don't think like their fathers who practiced slavery. White America has gone to some extent to remedy the evils of slavery, starting with the terrible civil war that was waged to free the slaves, which the Bible calls repentance. When we commit evils and we make reasonable effort to remedy the effects of what we have done, then we have changed. Whites have generally changed on the matter of slavery, many even voting for then Senator Obama, and re electing President Obama to a second term. "How many people go to hell without having done anything that has a lingering affect?" But their actions have an eternal effect if we believe they are souls. You have to keep the apples from the oranges. If we are talking about hell, then we are talking about souls, and if we are talking about souls, then we saying that things are not temporal but eternal in consequence. Side: Nope
It's not impossible on the premise that Hitler has a soul, and that the soul is the individual and survives death, and that the souls of his victims would have also survived the holocaust. On that premise, the evil is eternal. There is no way to verify it is his soul. Plus, reincarnation is not part of your mythology. The Holocaust will continue to be an evil crime against the Jews past 10,000 years, and suggesting that Hitler may be set free after 10,000 years is insensitive and unjust to the weight of the crime that Hitler committed. You don't even think the world is 10,000 years old, how can you possibly fathom what it will be like that long into the future? Exactly! Whites are not punished because in general Whites today don't think like their fathers who practiced slavery. White America has gone to some extent to remedy the evils of slavery, starting with the terrible civil war that was waged to free the slaves, which the Bible calls repentance. So, you are agreeing that sin should not be eternal. When we commit evils and we make reasonable effort to remedy the effects of what we have done, then we have changed. Whites have generally changed on the matter of slavery, many even voting for then Senator Obama, and re electing President Obama to a second term. Sending someone to hell will not allow for someone to remedy the situation. But their actions have an eternal effect if we believe they are souls. You have to keep the apples from the oranges. If we are talking about hell, then we are talking about souls, and if we are talking about souls, then we saying that things are not temporal but eternal in consequence. Will you please make up your mind. Do souls get punished forever or do they come back to Earth? Why does the person who disrespected their parents get the same eternal punishment as the man responsible for killing millions of Jews? Side: Yep
I didn't argue there weren't souls. You are arguing that the soul's temporary time on Earth has eternal ramifications and arguing against me saying the same thing. You have failed to point out why the eternal soul should be punished forever while also arguing that the soul should be allowed to repent. Side: Yep
"I didn't argue there weren't souls." You said we can't verify that a soul exists. Make up your mind so that we can have a conversation. Stop moving the post. If you want to talk about eternal justice, we must first establish the premise of the soul. If we establish the premise of the soul, the deeds of the soul would have eternal consequences. Side: Nope
You said we can't verify that a soul exists. Make up your mind so that we can have a conversation. Stop moving the post. I was saying we can't verify that it is Hitler's soul, not that souls at all exist. Why can't I argue that souls don't exist and that's why we don't have eternal punishment? What does stop moving the post mean? If you want to talk about eternal justice, we must first establish the premise of the soul. If we establish the premise of the soul, the deeds of the soul would have eternal consequences. The existence of souls does not force there to be eternal torment. If you permanently destroyed a soul than that's one thing, but doing something to the temporary realm is another. Saying that a soul holds on to its actions from the temporary world does not mean that it is great that God punishes for that forever. Side: Yep
"If you permanently destroyed a soul than that's one thing, but doing something to the temporary realm is another." There is actually a teaching on the complex subject of the afterlife called annihilationism, which is where I lean toward. In the teaching, all wicked people are destroyed, and the context of forever is in that the effect is permanent. Side: Nope
"You don't even think the world is 10,000 years old, how can you possibly fathom what it will be like that long into the future?" That is a "straw man." You think every Christian believes the world is 6000 years old? No. Many don't believe the world is 6000 years old. Side: Nope
"So, even if all the people you wronged still remember all the bad stuff you did, as long as you repent to God, everything is ok?" You are putting words in my mouth. I never said everything is okay, but that reparation was the necessary in owning up to an evil consequence upon repentance. Returning to the example of slavery, I said, that Whites today generally don't think like their prejudiced fathers is an example of what repentance means. And that Whites have generally stood by Blacks in making sure the enjoy the same civil rights that Whites do is an effort in reparation. It doesn't negate the evil of slavery but remedies for the evil effect of it. Newton who wrote "Amazing Grace" did so out from remorse from being a slave trader. He turned from his ways and encouraged the abolition of slavery. Does that take away from what he did to the slaves while he was a trader? No. But his sincere actions must also be taken into consideration, that he realized and did his best to change and address that evil. Side: Nope
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said everything is okay, but that reparation was the necessary in owning up to an evil consequence upon repentance. So, you must be saying that the only repentance that works is toward the people you have wronged and God has nothing to do with it. Returning to the example of slavery, I said, that Whites today generally don't think like their prejudiced fathers is an example of what repentance means. And that Whites have generally stood by Blacks in making sure the enjoy the same civil rights that Whites do is an effort in reparation. It doesn't negate the evil of slavery but remedies for the evil effect of it. This example is a perfect illustration of how God does not punish people. The "Whites" have repented toward those that were enslaved and God has nothing to do with it. Newton who wrote "Amazing Grace" did so out from remorse from being a slave trader. He turned from his ways and encouraged the abolition of slavery. Does that take away from what he did to the slaves while he was a trader? No. But his sincere actions must also be taken into consideration, that he realized and did his best to change and address that evil. Ok, so still no God then. Side: Yep
"So, you must be saying that the only repentance that works is toward the people you have wronged and God has nothing to do with it." Well, the Bible says the all of morality is summed up loving others in the same way that we love ourselves. "The "Whites" have repented toward those that were enslaved and God has nothing to do with it." Actually God had plenty to do with it in that abolitionism had Christian influences. And Newton converting to compose "Amazing Grace" shows that Christian influence. Side: Nope
Well, the Bible says the all of morality is summed up loving others in the same way that we love ourselves. The Bible also says burn in hell if you don't believe in God. What does that have to do with loving others? Actually God had plenty to do with it in that abolitionism had Christian influences. And Newton converting to compose "Amazing Grace" shows that Christian influence. The repenting that makes things ok doesn't involve a belief in God. Christianity had nothing to do with abolitionism, they were Christians before they took slaves. Side: Yep
"The Bible also says burn in hell if you don't believe in God. What does that have to do with loving others?" Common man, the Bible doesn't say that. If you want to have a sensible conversation, don't misquote or misrepresent the Bible. "Christianity had nothing to do with abolitionism, they were Christians before they took slaves." Christianity had no influence on ending slavery?" Common man, do the research before you say something that stupid. Side: Nope
Common man, the Bible doesn't say that. If you want to have a sensible conversation, don't misquote or misrepresent the Bible. Sweet, so you are saying that not accepting Jesus as your personal savior is no longer a sin. Great. So there is no reason to be a Christian. Christianity had no influence on ending slavery?" Common man, do the research before you say something that stupid. Yes, how could Christianity have any bearing on ending slavery if the slave owners were Christian while keeping slaves? Calling someone common and not addressing their argument doesn't make you look any better. Side: Yep
Yes, how could Christianity have any bearing on ending slavery if the slave owners were Christian while keeping slaves? Okay, by that reasoning, because Stalin and Mau killed millions of people, atheism killed millions of people. Therefore, atheists cannot be good people, since atheists like Stalin and Mau killed millions of people. See how your logic adds up? Side: Nope
Okay, by that reasoning, because Stalin and Mau killed millions of people, atheism killed millions of people. No, that would mean that I was saying that Christianity was responsible for slavery. That isn't what I was saying. Therefore, atheists cannot be good people, since atheists like Stalin and Mau killed millions of people. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? I made no judgment about how bad Christians were for having slaves. I didn't say they were bad for having slaves, or that it was because they were Christian. I seriously have no ill will toward Christians with respect to American slavery. What I don't see is the part in the history book where all the slave owners converted to Christianity, then abolished slavery. I don't think that Christianity had anything to do with slavery. I am just trying to figure out how you can make the claim that Christianity was involved with the ending and not with the beginning. As an Atheist I have the ability to not judge while doing that. Side: Yep
Until I learned differently from you I was under the impression that Jesus died for our sins and anyone who hears about Jesus and accept that he is the son of God can spend eternity in the kingdom of heaven. As long as you agree that Jesus is your savior and he died for your sins you can ask for his forgiveness and be rewarded in heaven. But, if you don't accept Jesus you will not go to heaven and will be sent to hell instead. Thankfully you have pointed out that none of this is true and there is no reason to praise Jesus. Thank you for that. Side: Yep
So, now you are saying the Bible does say you burn in hell if you don't believe in Jesus. Why don't you make up your mind? The Bible didn't say so, you did, which is a lie. Ooh, now you don't know what lying is either. Is there anything you do know? Provide a quote and you will see that Bible said something else. Interesting, the guy with all of the knowledge still can't provide any information. You are giving false witness. I don't think I am. I would ask you how you came to that conclusion, but you would probably tell me to look it up on my own. Side: Yep
"Will you please make up your mind. Do souls get punished forever or do they come back to Earth?" I have made up my mind long time ago. The Bible speaks of the resurrection and all souls returning to earth. You don't seem to know much about Christian doctrine, yet seem eager to speak evil of it. Side: Nope
It has everything to do with what we are talking about and I know what I'm talking about. You are making statements on the afterlife without really knowing much about the doctrine on the afterlife. How can you know whether it is just or unjust if you don't even know the doctrine(s) on the afterlife? Side: Nope
It has everything to do with what we are talking about and I know what I'm talking about. You are making statements on the afterlife without really knowing much about the doctrine on the afterlife. How many times does this resurrection party take place? How can you know whether it is just or unjust if you don't even know the doctrine(s) on the afterlife? How many times does a soul get judged before God gets it right? Side: Yep
The frustrating thing is YOU DON'T KNOW THE DOCTRINE ON THE AFTERLIFE YET HAVE THE NERVE TO TALK AS THOUGH YOU ARE WELL INFORMED ON WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ON HELL, OR THE RESURRECTION, OR THE NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. YOU DON'T KNOW OF THE IDEA OF HELL ORIGINATED AND HOW THE IDEA HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS IN. DON'T GET INTO SUBJECTS YOU DON'T KNOW OF, WITH MISINFORMED PRESUPPOSITIONS. Side: Nope
I have studied on the afterlife and can tell you that it is an extensive subject. That is why it is frustrating that your are reducing a difficult subject to nonsense. I mean, where did you get that the Bible said you will "burn" if you don't believe in Jesus. Do you know what the Bible means by "believe" and "perish" respectively, in what context and where in the Bible? I think you just want to make outrageous statements for the fun of it, just to get a rise out of people. Either that, or you are insistent taking one of several views on the afterlife in Christianity (the literal eternal hell) to represent what all Christians believe. Side: Nope
I have studied on the afterlife Awesome, but that's impossible. I mean, where did you get that the Bible said you will "burn" if you don't believe in Jesus. It is a sin to not accept Jesus. Sinners go to hell. Are you saying that the fact that I have not accepted Jesus will not keep me from going to hell? If you are mad about the use of the word burn than you are the one who is doing the ridiculous reducing. Do you know what the Bible means by "believe" and "perish" respectively, in what context and where in the Bible? I fail to see how this fits into our conversation. I think you just want to make outrageous statements for the fun of it That's part of it, but it is also the repeating of what I hear from Christians. just to get a rise out of people. But, not in this case. Either that, or you are insistent taking one of several views on the afterlife in Christianity (the literal eternal hell) to represent what all Christians believe. I didn't know that it was against the rules to claim that Christians believe in Christianity. Strange, I still see no actual afterlife knowledge in your post. I wonder when it will come. Side: Yep
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
The debate says "Is the Christian God Evil?" not "Is the Christian God Objectively Evil" Therefore we should be able to argue why we find it evil even if it is subjective, if you aren't swayed, you aren't swayed however his argument isn't invalid, you just don't agree with his sense of morality... we can convince you how it might be a desirable moral argument for you, but if you don't agree you don't agree. Fore example people claim that god has committed genocide, and that makes god evil to some, they perceive that as a bad thing. If that isn't a bad thing to you, then there is no point of convincing you of it, we can only argue why it may be a preferable morality. I could also argue that morality being subjective it is a result of our evolution, and argue how committing genocide is counter productive to our evolution as well as arguing it being lacking compassion of well being which is equally important to me and others. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
Torture brings about the pain and suffering of another, the very definition of immorality. In this case, it is ETERNAL. This is the definition: the quality or state of being immoral; especially : uncha Morality is subjective. Thus anything that is deemed moral or immoral is only a collective subjective. It is not the objective. It cannot be intrinsically true. Therefore torture or even mass murder is only deemed good or bad by society, which again is subjective, and thus is not intrinsically true. Again, killing - generally speaking - is an immoral act. I have already addressed this. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
The question is whether or not God is evil, Exactly. The way you see God is not the objective. It's the collective subjective. You connotation of God is your subjective view point of God. Ot does not describe him inherently. torture is evil and so is killing Neither of these are evil. The definitions do not support evil. They do not allude to evil. You have to determine what it is. Thus it is subjective. Side: Nope
1
point
The determination of the meaning of words or terms is not subjective. We all agree on what type of object a table refers to; it has an objective definition. So the key point here is finding an objective definition of evil that is clear, precise and is verifiable. Since you have a contention with the way I am using it, I will allow you to determine under what definition you are willing to use the word "evil" and we can go from there. Side: Yep
God doesn't send anyone anywhere merely for not believing in Him. That is an outright lie! "Belief" in the Bible is usually used in the context of complying. God therefore sends people to hell for not complying with Him in terms of the moral worth of their actions. Faith without works is dead! And the flooding took hundreds of years before coming to pass. That was plenty of time for the people at the time to change their minds. But they were hardened to God's mercy, the same way you have hardened yourself to His mercy. Besides, if God made the world and it is his world, He has a say in His world and how it ought to be, and the option of starting over if He chose to. If God waited patiently for hundreds of years for wicked people to change, and they didn't, when He finally punished them, how can that be evil? And we are not sure whether the entire planet was destroyed or a local civilization (as with Sodom and Gomorrah). Side: Nope
1
point
|
4
points
What goes through your head other than sheer denial when you read the arguments on the left? Are you really that interested in wanting to know what I am thinking? I could honestly care less what people on the left think. Plus no matter how many times I defend the faith. My point will never be driven across but at least I tried explaining things to others. Side: Nope
To be truly unbiased, you must pretend that you are undecided in your decision to be Christian or Non-Christian. And you must read the arguments of both sides to make a decision. For me, something just isn't connecting on this side. I am certain you must be familiar with the bible verse that states that stoning a rape victim to death is law? Although you may say this verse was taken out of context, what would God have to say to the victims of people who actually stuck to the bible's word and followed the practice of stoning rape victims? God's ambiguity and subtlety of words actually caused needless physical and mental torment among humans, because he was not intelligent enough to predict that some humans may take his words at face-value. Side: Yep
1
point
I could honestly care less what people on the left think. So you do not care to hear why others feel different than you on this subject but want to give your reasons why you feel you do anyway. Plus no matter how many times I defend the faith. My point will never be driven across but at least I tried explaining things to others. You feel your points have been explained despite not comparing your points to what others have written on the issue. Surely the petition of principle you posted for your side of the debate flies in the face of the actions outlined. It explains nothing but relies on tautology and no examination of actions or even context. This is actually quite common in western religions. I blame Augustine for this as he structured how Christian religions approach these issues by writing how philosophy is to be religions hand maiden. That is to say religion could only illuminate the scriptures and not question the scriptures. But hey, I am not here to change your mind or troll you. Just saying if you feel the way you do there was little point for you to even type in this thread isn't there? I understand folks not wanting to address some issues that they hold deep within their web of belief but the above seems like a case of you want your cake and to eat it too. That seems to be a big hurdle to effectively changing peoples minds or even examining your own ideas. Think that could be related to why your point may never be 'driven across'? Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
So believing in god is a mental illness!?Wow that is so arrogant of you! Just like a stupid Atheist. I am sick and tired of your kind preaching around as if your the ones that have the right answer! You morons are forcing your subjective beliefs onto Christians as if they are the objective! Just stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
Well these "morons" of whom you are speaking so negatively of on average have higher IQ than you lot so if I were you I would be keeping my trap shut on the topic of Atheism and intelligence. That's so childish. "Haha we're smarter than you so be quiet!", Is what that argument looks like. There's no way you can prove that because you are just being immature.* Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
2
points
2
points
2
points
Short answer: Because He is evil and He says He is not. what makes you think He is evil? Long answer: I didn't actually say He was lying. You quoted God saying that He wasn't evil. My argument is that an evil being will lie. What would stop an evil God from lying about being good? God isn't an evil being. God is good and He told the truth that is written down in His word. Side: Nope
what makes you think He is evil? Does evil stuff. God isn't an evil being. God is good and He told the truth that is written down in His word. Let's see if I can save you from complete stupidity. If a being were evil, is there anything to stop that being from lying about being good? Let's assume this being isn't God. Side: Yep
Does evil stuff. Like what? Let's see if I can save you from complete stupidity. If a being were evil, is there anything to stop that being from lying about being good? Let's assume this being isn't God. I don't understand what you mean. You're only confusing me even more. Side: Nope
1
point
Murdering of 99.999% of the Earth population, for starts. They where nephilim Genesis 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Side: Nope
1
point
Including the animals? Of the area where the flood occurred? What the heck? Everything is going fine, and all of a sudden God sees wickedness. That sounds exactly like reverse beer goggles. Well having humans half-human/half-demon hybrids probably won't end up too well..... Side: Nope
Of the area where the flood occurred? The entire world? That would cover all the animals in water, right? Well having humans half-human/half-demon hybrids probably won't end up too well..... I guess I missed the half demon part because the quoted text makes no mention of demons. Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
Where does it say that? The part about the flood. No but that is the same word used in Job 1:6 King James Version (KJV) 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. So, Satan is nearby and that makes the sons of God demons. Doesn't make sense. Side: Yep
Murdering of 99.999% of the Earth population, for starts. He did that because people were sinning and were doing evil instead of good. Therefore what God did was just because He got rid of evil. What's the matter with you? Can an evil being lie? God isn't evil and He didn't lie. Side: Nope
Again just like any other non-believer on here you take things out of context and you don't know what is going on because you simply picked and chose a verse. The second verse doesn't state God lied to him. In Jeremiah, he is complaining to God about how people aren't listening to the prophecies and how he is being ridiculed. Side: Yep
You have just spoken about his lament that comes after his stating of deception by God, instead of addressing the actual main part of the verse in question. "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived" He says 'you' addressing God, 'you deceived' so he states that God had performed the action of deception (deception means 'to lie or mislead' or to act with dishonesty) 'you deceived me' Jeremiah states that God has taken an action of dishonesty upon Jeremiah, 'you have deceived me, lord' Jeremiah further states that it is the Lord God that took this action upon him 'you have deceived me, lord, and I have been deceived' Jeremiah admits that God's action of dishonesty had mislead him. Jeremiah was mislead by God. Side: Yep
2
points
3
points
2
points
2
points
I'm not talking about gods of any religion. I'm talking about the ultimate God who has revealed Himself in time. There are objective arguments to conclude an ultimate God, so it is not my subjective and distorted belief. "Everything we know of your God does not verify that God is holy, good, and merciful." You don't know anything about God and therefore cannot reach that conclusion. Side: Nope
I'm not talking about gods of any religion. I'm talking about the ultimate God who has revealed Himself in time. My point stands. You assert to know of the ultimate God because of some purported revelations. This negates the legitimacy of other peoples' interpretation and understanding of the ultimate God. There is no reason your ultimate God is any better than any other persons understanding of God. So, I ask again, what makes you correct? There are objective arguments to conclude an ultimate God, so it is not my subjective and distorted belief. What exactly are these objective arguments for the existence of an ultimate God? You will understand, I hope, when I do not simply take you on your word that they exist. You don't know anything about God and therefore cannot reach that conclusion. Just because I do not believe in God does not mean that I know nothing about God and am incapable of holding a legitimate opinion on the subject of God. Side: Yep
1. Kalam Argument Assumes the universe has a beginning. Further assumes that such a beginning demands a divine cause. For your point to have any validity and for me to refute further, you need to elaborate on this with actual proof of both. 2. Fine tuning Premised upon a false assumption of subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants (i.e. the assumption that only carbon based life is feasible). An argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life are possible. It makes more sense that humans are adapted to the Universe through evolution rather than the Universe being adapted to us; to suggest otherwise is to commit the logical flaw of hubris. 3. Morality Predates religion, and is an evolutionary (by)product. Is inherently subjective at any rate, as it does not exist as an objective reality outside of human imagination. 4. Free will Does not exist, and is supported by zero objective evidence. See secular determinism by contrast, substantiated by a growing body of objective scientific research causally correlating human behavior with genetic predisposition triggered by environmental stimuli. 5. NDEs Inherently subjective and non-verifiable. Side: Yep
That the universe began is not an assumption but scientific fact. The Kalam argument argues for a transcendent and timeless cause since the universe would not have caused itself. The argument is a reasonable position and cannot be substituted by any other theory as rational. Fine tuning argument presents constants that whereby where changed would have greatly altered the universe that we know. Arguing that we evolved to fit into the universe is trumped by the fact that the constants were in place to begin that evolution that you speak of, without that evolution would not have began. Morality cannot have been solely based on sociobiology since it would have been solely subjective, while there has been a universal understanding of moral principles. NDEs isn't merely subjective as it has been debated in medical circles. People who have been declared dead all over the world have returned with out-of-body experiences and details that they would not have been known of considering that they were not conscious or even dead at the time the experiences occurred. NDEs thereby qualify as an argument. It's better you make an argument to show the fallacy of what I present, than simply say that what I present is a fallacy and not produce any convincing argument to show the position. You cannot just make statements like "free will doesn't exist," while free will is still debated and hasn't been conclusively dismissed by skeptics. There are agnostics who believe in free will, without the metaphysical explanation of free will of course. You can say in your opinion free will doesn't exist and present your argument with sources for pure determinism. That would be a better way to discuss than reaching conclusions without even taking the journey. That just shows that you are closed minded and not even willing to engage in a discussion. Side: Nope
Kalam That we lack a probable explanation for an eternal universe does not inherently preclude its existence, nor does it constitute proof of a divine origin. Further, there is a plausible alternative explanation: the Big Bang could very well have been the consequence of the collapse an earlier iteration of the universe that birthed the current iteration. Even were you correct on finite origin, you have not addressed my second objection regarding the assumption of divine creation on the sole basis that we do not yet understand how it could occur naturally. Fine Tuning You just restated the theory without refuting my objections. Try again. Morality There is not a universal morality. There has always been, still is, and will always be exceptions. So long as there is a single exception, morality is not universal. Further, it is a universal characteristic among humans that we all breath oxygen and that is biological... so why can a mental byproduct highly advantageous to human survival also not be so consistently selected for? Oh right, no reason at all. NDEs Cite me something legitimate to actually refute, and I'll lend this an iota of credence. Until then, just another assertion. Free Will Seriously? Piss off. Literally the only thing you wrote at all for your argument on this point was "free will." On what basis do you expect anyone to give you a highly detailed response when all you write is two words? By comparison, my response was already elaborate; in fact, it was 16X longer. I actually pointed to a specific theory (secular, biological determinism) and pointed to what is generally common scientific knowledge (that an increasing amount of human behavior is being linked to neurobiology). You did not even bother to address that, instead hiding behind the most hypocritical accusation you could have possibly picked. Do not attack my intellectual integrity when you give me nothing to work with. Side: Yep
I think it's best to take one argument for discussion and then move to another after thoroughly discussing one. I will start with fine tuning. "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop" (Dr. Dennis Scania). "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all" (Dr. David D. Deutsch). “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty” (Stephen Hawking). Fine tuning has already been established by the top minds and there shouldn't be any argument about that. The question that one should reasonably ask from fine tuning is why and how the universe was fine tuned. My conviction is that God fine tuned the universe. Side: Nope
Agreed, one at a time is less cumbersome. You have completely misrepresented the views of these individuals. You do this primarily by conflating references to the concept of "fine tuning" with a scientific and/or personal belief in God. This is simply inaccurate. Addressing each of these individuals in order: Dr. Dennis Scania does not exist. Presumably, you are referring to a quote often mis-attributed to one Dr. Dennis Sciama. What he actually had to say on God was that he did not believe in it, and that physics does not demonstrate the existence of God. See a collection of excerpts and review on his position in his biography here, p.404. Dr. Sciama was an agnostic, perhaps even a soft atheist, who expressly denounced the very argument you are attempting to make. You have also taken Dr. David D. Deutsch out of context. He is a proponent of multiverse theory, a direct counter to pro-God arguments derived from the fine tuning stance. He has also made anti-theistic/pro-atheistic remarks and observations. See his website. Stephan Hawking co-authored an article explicitly deconstructing the very argument you are trying to substantiate by quoting him. See it here. So, now that you have successfully identified the very people (indeed, the "top minds" in your own words) who most undermine this particular argument shall we proceed to another of your notions? Side: Yep
I looked up Dr. Dennis Scania and there are some quotes from him, but it is odd that he doesn't have Website or Wikipedia page. My apologies for letting that slip. As for the rest, especially Hawking who is obviously atheist, I wasn't presenting them as theists, but in the context that scientists concur that the universe appears fine tuned. "Scientists call this extraordinary balancing of the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with hundreds of articles and dozens of books written on the topic. Today, it is widely regarded as offering by far the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God" (Robin Collins). http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/ It is reasonable to say that the universe is fine tuned, hence why atheists have come up the anthropic principle based on the multiverse theory. But that falls short of explaining why this universe is fine tuned. Side: Nope
Effectively, you are willing to abuse and misrepresent the views of the leading professionals to the extent that it serves your argument but at the moment when their knowledge departs from and contradicts your claim they are inadequate dunces simply incapable of believing in God. The leading minds concur that while God proponents may see fine tuning as the strongest argument for the existence of God, the actual science surrounding the matter does not at all substantiate that conjecture. There is no scientific proof of God. Robin Collins is a philosopher, and with no intention of wholly dismissing the field, I respectfully turn to actual physicists to explain the plausibility of God based upon known evidence. The leading professionals in this and other pertinent scientific fields, as captured by the very individuals you quoted, are in agreement that fine tuning does not prove the existence of God. The multiverse theory (and others) did not arise to defeat the theist proposition, but rather as scientifically derived potential solutions based upon what evidence we do know. While the evidence is minimal and currently requires substantiation, it does actually exist... whereas there is no evidence beyond philosophical conjecture that fine tuning means God exists. That current theories "fall short" does not by default make the God conjecture true. Side: Yep
I didn't misrepresent any professional but gave statements on the observation that the universe appears fine tuned. If the universe is fine tuned, one can deduce that it is either fine tuned without any explanation or fine tuned with an explanation. The second deduction will make more sense. That Robin Collins is a philosopher means nothing. And saying that only physicists have the knowledge to prove theism is true or not is absurd. You haven't responded to the fact that the universe appears fine tuned and provided an explanation to why it appears so? I'm still waiting for an explanation to why the universe appears or is fine tuned? Side: Nope
I didn't misrepresent any professional but gave statements on the observation that the universe appears fine tuned. If the universe is fine tuned, one can deduce that it is either fine tuned without any explanation or fine tuned with an explanation. The second deduction will make more sense. Yes, you did. Not only did you decontextualize their statements, but you have flagrantly ignored their uniform observations that God cannot be logically deduced from the existence of fine tuning. You further ignored that some have even come up with alternative theories (actually premised in science rather than assumption), such as the multiverse theory, even though I pointed that out to you. That Robin Collins is a philosopher means nothing. And saying that only physicists have the knowledge to prove theism is true or not is absurd. I never said that at all. What I said was that on matters of physics I would take the word of a physicist over that of a philosopher. Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics. You haven't responded to the fact that the universe appears fine tuned and provided an explanation to why it appears so? I'm still waiting for an explanation to why the universe appears or is fine tuned? Yes, I did. I also pointed out that the absence of alternative explanations does not constitute proof that any other explanation is itself true; it just means we don't know yet. To prove that fine tuning means God is real, that idea has to stand independently upon scientific proof... something which the very leading physicists that you yourself cited say it does not do. Side: Yep
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts. "Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics." But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning. "It just means we don't know yet." If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported. Side: Nope
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts. "Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics." But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning. "It just means we don't know yet." If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported. Side: Nope
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts. No, I get it; you are just wrong. All of the people you quoted expressly state that there is no evidence supporting theism within their field of expertise. Fine tuning is not proof of god, per the experts. You defeated yourself from the offset. I have repeatedly observed all of this, and am not inclined to continue restating. Make a new argument on this matter, move on to your next "proof", or consider me done here. But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning. That is not a refutation of my point about Collins. It is also not a refutation of the analysis of physics experts on the lack of evidence for any deity existing. If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported. My argument in this thread has been that you have no evidence to prove that God exists. My certainty of the absence of God is another discussion entirely (one which sidesteps the corner you are presently backed into); in short, though, my certainty on this matter is a consequence of the combined utter lack of evidence supporting the existence of God and research indicating that theism and faith generally are neurobiological consequences of evolution. Side: Yep
The universe did have a beginning. If you are disputing this then you don't know much about science. The Big Bang is essentially indisputable. All evidence supports this. Do you even realize that if the universe was eternal there would be no non renewable resources available? The Big Bang really should be declassified as a theory and made into a law. The reason it won't be is that atheist scientists don't want to be backed into a corner. Let me explain this. Atheists go into science with the purpose of convincing the masses that God does not exist. They spend their entire scientific careers trying to find proof that God isn't real. Per capita, the conversion rate of scientists is overwhelming to belief than the other way around. Very few scientists who believe in God convert to atheism. If the Big Bang is absolute, then atheists should have to accept it as scientific fact just like they need to accept the laws of thermodynamics. But atheists overwhelmingly reject scientific facts when it goes against their view. Atheists make up wild ideas to try to convince themselves that they are right while ignoring the laws presented to them. fact: the universe had a beginning fact: matter and energy cannot by created. fact: matter and energy are not eternal logical conclusion: God is real Study science and you will see things in a different perspective. Side: Nope
To the contrary, I am not at all disputing the Big Bang Theory as our most probabilistically true explanation for the origin of the present iteration of the universe. What I contest is that there is any evidence to even probabilistically suggest that this is the first iteration of the universe, and that the Big Bang was not the consequence of the collapse of an earlier universe in sequence of eternally collapsing and expanding iterations. We have not established that there was nothing before the Big Bang, therefor we do not know that the universe has a finite beginning. I am not bending the science to fit my views; I am observing that we do not yet have the proof to draw a conclusion either way. Who is really bending the science here? You wholly neglected my second objection to the Kalam argument, which is that it assumes that a finite origin necessitates divine causation. That we presently lack an understanding of how something could come from nothing does not make it implausible that it is naturally possible. The assumption of the divine as origin of the finite universe is nothing more than than an unfounded assertion for those too incapable of living with non-knowledge, or for those predisposed to bend the absence of knowledge to their pre-existing beliefs. Side: Yep
2
points
2
points
While I'm not going to argue the God angle, I will argue the evil angle. There most certainly is evil. A number of things are classified as evil- if there is a god, then ostensibly he classifies them as such. if there is no god, it is simply mankind that has classified them as such. To say there is no evil is about as valid as to say there are no mammals, simply because they are human classifications rather than innate properties. You could say there is no such thing as economic class either with the same reasoning, and still be wrong. Side: Yep
I should clarify that I do not think there is an objective God or an objective evil. They obviously exist as mental constructs; what I deny is that they exist beyond such human cognitive abstraction. If people ceased to believe they existed, they would not exist at all because they are not actual realities (only imagined realities). I will completely understand if this alters your response or interest in debating this matter; I should have been clear from the offset. I do object to your comparing morality to mammals. It is not at all the same to say that there is no evil and to say that there are no mammals. Evil does not exist outside of the human imagination; mammals do (whatever they are called they still exist). It is also inaccurate to compare evil to economic class. The concept of the latter is derived from an actual objective reality whereas evil originates purely as a mental construct. Evil is an ascription of relative value (esp. moral) to that which otherwise lacks any innate value. Mammal is not a value ascription, but a technical description. The same is true of economic class. Side: Nope
1
point
I'll agree with you that there is no such thing as objective evil. I disagree with your objection regarding the comparison of morality to mammals. There are a number of actions that we classify as good or evil based on their characteristics. There are a number of animals that we classify as mammals or reptiles (etc) based on their characteristics. These are still labels that we apply to things and do not exist in objective reality. While the criteria for what constitutes a mammal is admittedly far more objective than the criteria for what constitutes evil, it's still not absolute; the classification of some animals into Mammalia is under dispute, after all. Without taxonomy, these animals would still exist and would still have their properties- Just as without morality, the actions we call evil would still exist and would still have their consequences. I'll concede that they vary greatly in how objective vs subjective they are, but taxonomy is not entirely as objective as you seem to believe, and morality is not entirely as subjective as you seem to believe either- certain things are considered to be evil almost unanimously. Side: Yep
I still see an important distinction with the examples at hand. Subjective classification will be inherently fallible, whereas objective classification will be significantly less fallible... that relative fallibility is why the two are neither comparable nor equitable in utility. What truly distinguishes the subjective and objective realities, however, is not accuracy. The distinction I was really attempting to make was with respect to the distinct processes of classification inherent to the subjective and objective. The difference between saying a particular thing is evil and that a particular thing is an animal is this: The idea of evil would not exist in any sense at all absent our construction of it, because it does not refer to anything that objectively exists. "Evil" does not reference an approximate, actual thing. The idea of an animal would cease to exist subjectively but its essence would remain intact, because the object to which it refers does objectively exist. "Animal" does reference an approximate, actual thing. In neither case does the label actually exist independent of our thoughts, but with morality the value it references does not exist and the with taxonomy the animal it references does still exist. For further clarity, you claim that morality is the labeling of an action and its consequence. However morality does not label either of these things, it labels a system of value ascription that is then applied to action and sometimes consequence. You also write that "certain thing are considered to be evil almost unanimously" and I am led to conclude that you conceive this as a basis for objectivity. This is a logical leap unsupported by the reality of what morality is labeling: the process of value ascription. Everyone could believe in a certain moral; that would just make it a universal subjective truth. It would still not be objective. Side: Yep
1
point
I think you're overvaluing the concrete vs. the abstract. There is a distinction between the two, yes, but not so much of one as to invalidate the metaphor; we may just have to disagree on that. The way I see it, "evil" does reference an approximate, actual thing- it's just more subjective in what it references. Without the term evil, we would still consider things such as murder and rape to be every bit as bad. I think you're overly nit-picking my words too. You're extending this from my usage of taxonomy in the prior sentence, but I have to also point out that taxonomy does not label animals; it is a system used by man to classify life forms, based on their characteristics. Similarly, morality is a system used to classify actions based on their characteristics. The difference is simply that the characteristics of animals are generally objective, whereas the relative value of the various characteristics of an action is subjective and based on the morals of the individual, the group, or the society. I wasn't presenting the fact that some things are all but unanimously considered evil as any kind of proof of objectivity, but rather to demonstrate that the subjective isn't always whimsical; it can, in some cases, be every bit as solid as something objective. One cannot have a clear, rational view of the world while remaining entirely objective in my opinion. I think you rate objectivity too high and underrate the subjective, personally. But this has gotten rather long, hasn't it? What I originally disputed was your claim that there was no such thing as evil. There is, even if the classification of some things as evil is itself disputed. I stand by that claim. Side: Yep
I think you are correct, and this has rather departed from the original question into a matter of personal semantics. Your original dispute was a consequence of my poor phrasing, and this debate we are having now is a spin-off from my clarification on objective versus subjective morality. I feel that I have said all that I have to say on this, and that you likely have as well. I am content to agree to disagree and go our separate ways if you are. Side: Yep
|
