CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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 Problem of Evil a Sound Argument Against the Existence of God?
Given that a God has the characteristic trait of being all powerful and all loving, is the fact that evil exists incongruent with the assertion that such a deity exists?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
And to those of you who say that our free will is the cause of evil I have two things to say about that. First is that there are still natural evils not brought on by man like natural disasters, if God has a divine plan, then this suffering was part of his plan, is this not his fault? Second is that God still created humans with free will, and if our free will is at fault for evil, and God is at fault for humans, then God is at fault for evil. If God created everything then why is he only attributed with the good? He is still the author of both good and evil, no matter how many steps it took to get there.
That's an interesting riddle, and it provides a sound argument if you didn't know the history of evil. At least, the history as I take it from the Bible.
In the beginning there was God. God created a perfect kingdom with just rules and a happy populace. One day, one of God's high-ups decided that he was sick and tired of not being God. He felt he should have the same power. So he started teaching the other beings that God's laws weren't just, that God was a tyrant, and that his own laws were better.
God, knowing everything, knew about this. But what would happen if He had killed Lucifer right there? Is that proof that His laws are really just? No, it just shows that God doesn't want people to test them. Even if they are just, nobody would want to follow them except out of fear of what God would do.
So God let Lucifer live, but He cast the rebels out of his perfect kingdom. Lucifer goes down and looks at Earth, where God gave us free will. Lucifer turned that will against God, and our actions drove Him away.
It was/is our free will, our choice to disobey God's law, that has brought on evil, for evil is the absence of God (just like darkness is the absence of light). Yes, there are natural disasters and the like, but that can be explained by humans driving God's presence from Earth. God could easily stop hurricanes and earthquakes from happening, but our actions pretty much told Him to go @%#$ Himself, and He respects our decision.
You could argue that free will is God's fault, because it is. God gave us such will because He loves us for who we are. He doesn't want mindless robots, he wants people. But God is not at fault for the choices we make. Just like we don't arrest a rapists' parents, we arrest the rapist. It's not the criminal's parents' fault. If it was, we could push the blame all the way back to whatever you believe (either God, in this case, or that original primordial slime from whence some believe we came).
No, it's each person's choice to what they do. And that is the cause of evil.
In the first and second paragraphs you refer to God's laws quite a bit, could you elaborate at what you mean by this? I know about the rules he had given to Adam and Eve before the fall of man but I don't know what you are talking about the laws which Lucifer preached against.
"Yes, there are natural disasters and the like, but that can be explained by humans driving God's presence from Earth. God could easily stop hurricanes and earthquakes from happening, but our actions pretty much told Him to go @%#$ Himself"
- One problem, natural disasters are not caused by human immorality. There have been natural disasters long before humans, and there will be natural disasters long after humans. Thats just how the world i, it is a dynamic system with extreme weather, plate tectonics, and flooding. The thing is that, take for the earthquake in Japan or Haiti, (or any of the other thousands of places they occur annually). Earthquakes occur due to the quick shift or uprising of tectonic plates that are under extreme pressure as they collide with and sub duct under each other. This is the same process that creates mountains, volcanoes and lava flows and when an earthquake strikes, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. The system is self explanatory and there is no need for it to be a punishment from God because it is a natural process that can be explained through entirely logical, proven and scientific means.
Another example I have for natural evil, not brought on by free will, is disease. For example, what about an innocent little child, barely even capable of recognizing that actions have consequences but still human. When a child like that gets cancer and dies how does such an event happen in a world create by a loving God? This child did nothing to incur God's wrath, so why does an innocent child die in a system where God is all powerful.
"But God is not at fault for the choices we make. Just like we don't arrest a rapists' parents, we arrest the rapist. It's not the criminal's parents' fault. "
- Good example but you cannot apply that to the circumstances of God because parents are not all powerful creators of the universe. God created the universe according to you, and God has a divine plan. Since God created everything he is therefore responsible for everything. A more accurate analogy would be that God is a computer programmer, and since God is the designer and he created the program of the universe, he still created it with evil in it, or at least created beings capable of choosing evil and by proxy is responsible for evil. The bottom line is that God designed a system that contains evil.
There have been natural disasters long before humans, and there will be natural disasters long after humans.
Here you show your worldview and how it affects your reasoning, as mine affects mine. I believe that God created the world and humans fairly recently (<100K years ago), and that He created it without natural disasters. Such things only entered the world when humanity drove God away.
I understand how natural disasters come about. Well, mostly understand. Not enough to predict hurricanes and earthquakes months in advance, but I know they're natural processes. But God could easily stop them, if humanity wanted Him back in the world.
there is no need for it to be a punishment from God because it is a natural process
I never said they were punishments. If they were, than God's sense of judgement would be off as thousands of innocent people die with those He might be punishing. No, they're only a result of what happens without God's healing hand over the Earth. If you unplug your laptop from the wall, the draining battery isn't the power company's punishment to the laptop. It's only what happens when you take the computer away from the power source.
When a child like that gets cancer and dies how does such an event happen in a world create by a loving God?
Because the world that was created by a loving God is degenerating due to humanity pushing God away. The original Earth didn't have disease or cancer, and thus things like this wouldn't have happened. But when God was no longer there to keep things in balance, such things arose.
A more accurate analogy would be that God is a computer programmer, and since God is the designer and he created the program of the universe, he still created it with evil in it, or at least created beings capable of choosing evil and by proxy is responsible for evil. The bottom line is that God designed a system that contains evil.
But computer programs contain everything programmed into them, and retain them forever. They monotonously carry out whatever task they were told to do. People, on the other hand, have free will. And that free will pushed Him away. Like if the program pushed the programmer away so the programmer couldn't fix the code if it developed flaws. Which it has.
Evil isn't a thing. It cannot be created. Evil is the absence of God. If God created evil, than He would have had to created something without Him being there. You could argue that man created evil by pushing God away. Like if you turned off a light bulb. You didn't create darkness, you turned off the light. It's not the light's fault that you cant see anymore, and the light didn't create the dark.
Why would the world need god constantly in it to not degenerate?
God could of created the world to function perfectly independently of him.
Freewill has a couple different meanings, how you are attempting to use it is a impossibility and the other meaning is just a restatement of part of what is being questioned. Do you believe humans are gods themselves?
Your suggesting that humans have control over god by the way.
"Why would the world need god constantly in it to not degenerate?"
My theory is that it's just what happens. Observation has shown that random events tend to destroy rather than create, so when the Creator God left Earth via humans' wishes, the random events slowly destroy the Creation that was created, if that makes sense.
It's just what happens, just like running out of power is just what happens when a laptop isn't plugged into the wall.
"Freewill has a couple different meanings"
When God gave us free will, it was the free will to accept our natural dependence on Him, or not. We chose not. Had God stuck around despite our wishes, than it wouldn't be free will, but an illusionary choice. Such an illusionary choice is not unlike the illusionary choice the citizens of Oceania had of whether or not to love Big Brother (1984).
"Your suggesting that humans have control over god by the way."
In a way, yes. God respects our choices, so we do sort of have a power over Him. But that power isn't inherent in humans, it's God's choice to respect our choices.
So, an all loving all powerful god decided to make man, a corruptible and atrocity-committing creature that holds will above Himself, because that is the best God can muster up?
-
Could a god like yours not create a perfect universe where free will entailed the choices between only good actions? Is He not powerful enough for that? Or is He careless? Or is He ignorant to this? What permitted him to make such a broken choice, allowing innocent death and rape and murder amongst His most beloved creatures?
"So, an all loving all powerful god decided to make man, a corruptible and atrocity-committing creature that holds will above Himself, because that is the best God can muster up?"
No, God created man, a corruptible creature with free will, because God wanted men--creatures with free will. We're not the "best God can muster up", but we're what God wanted. There's a big difference.
"Could a god like yours not create a perfect universe where free will entailed the choices between only good actions?"
So you're wanting God to limit your choices? You want only half-free will? You can chose X, Y, and Z, but only if they coincide with these rules. That's not free will, but forced will.
"What permitted him to make such a broken choice, allowing innocent death and rape and murder amongst His most beloved creatures?"
All along God created humanity to be able to chose between God's way or their own way. Those are the only two options. The fact that we believe such raping and murdering to be evil indicates that God was right in saying that His law was written on our hearts long before it was written in stone.
When we decided that we knew better than God, we allowed ourselves to rape and murder. Had God taken those options away, than He would have taken away our ability to decide for ourselves. Yes, we could have the 'free will' to two 'good' options, but that's not real freedom. That's very, very limited.
Once again, God didn't want robots when he created mankind. If He did, he would have made robots, and the world would still be perfect.
First is that there are still natural evils not brought on by man like natural disasters, if God has a divine plan, then this suffering was part of his plan, is this not his fault?
Do you think that people are innocent? That all people are not blemished by sin? Suffering was not His plan, but He did know that it would come about by "our" rebellion. This does not disprove omniscience at all, in fact it only proves it based on the fact that Jesus was designated to save the world before it was even formed.
1 Peter 1: 20
God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days. NLT
Second is that God still created humans with free will, and if our free will is at fault for evil, and God is at fault for humans, then God is at fault for evil.
False, don't take the blame away from the actions of people. Evil is the rebellion of God's laws and commands. Adam's sin is what caused the fall, and we are punished because we are his heirs. But God gave us a way out of condemnation. If He was evil then He wouldn't give us redemption.
Romans 5: 12-19
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
If God created everything then why is he only attributed with the good?
Because He is good in every sense. His will is the only righteous one. The violation of His laws and commands are the essence of evil. God does everything right, He is our creator and savior.
He is still the author of both good and evil, no matter how many steps it took to get there.
I have already explained that He is not the author of evil.
there are SO many arguments are here that are contradictory in nature. i am not even sure where to start to be honest. First things first, and i have to make this quick unfortunately, but for all those saying that god created all and such, if he created anything that had any even, thoughts of evil, he is no longer totally benevolent, that or he is not perfect, due to the fact that anything perfect cannot create anything from themselves that is not perfect. Therefore, for the creation of evil. There is two options, either your all mighty god messed up, and therefore is not perfect, or he created even just the seed of evil, at all, which means he is not completely benevolent. sorry to all those who disagree, but i have yet to see any argument that contradicts this that doesn't also contradict with every ounce of common sense i possess.
Does God 'employ' evil? If He did so, like you said, he wouldn't be omni-benevolent. But the Bible says He is, and thus, He can't employ evil. There's a difference for employing evil and allowing evil to run its course.
But He really doesn't do that, either. As I said on the left, God respects our choices. We pushed him away, and He respects that. And we live with the consequences--evil. The absence of God. If you chose not to drink water, is it the water's fault that you die of dehydration?
So god does not use evil to his benefit somehow? Like what the typical argument utilizing freewill against the problem of evil does?(like you more or less stated on the other side)
Could you quote a verse or two stating that he is benevolent, last I checked sending a earth covering flood down to destroy most of your creation isn't benevolent, among other things reported in the bible.
If god respects our choices, he wouldn't of sent a flood.
Also, the problem of evil isn't against the biblical god specifically but if you wish to make this debate about the god of the bible specifically, you will find the bible used against you and quite efficiently. It would better serve your purpose to avoid biblical references.
Evil is not the absence of god, for that to be true there would either have to be a lack of evil in the world or god would not be involved in his creation. Such a god can not be partially involved.
Could you quote a verse or two stating that he is benevolent
"God is love" --1 John 4:8
"I am the LORD, I am the LORD, the merciful and gracious God. I am slow to anger and rich in unfailing love and faithfulness." --God, Exodus 34:6
What is love if not benevolence?
If god respects our choices, he wouldn't of sent a flood.
""So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart. And the LORD said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."" --Genesis 6:6, 7
If God sent the flood out of hate, it wouldn't have broken his heart to do so. God respected their choice to not follow Him, just as He respected Noah's choice to follow Him.
Also, the problem of evil isn't against the biblical god specifically
Than which god are you talking about? Ra? Jupiter? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
you will find the bible used against you and quite efficiently
Go ahead.
god would not be involved in his creation.
He gets involved with those who accept and want His involvement. Everyone else doesn't want Him to get involved, and so He doesn't get involved with them. Thus the evil in the world.
""So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart. And the LORD said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."" --Genesis 6:6, 7
A few questions:
1. Since he allowed Noah and his family to survive, he obviously didn't completely wipe out the human race. So what happened here? Can an omniscient being change his mind?
2. If it was man that bothered him, why wipe out all of the other life forms too? Let's say you have a son, the son grows up to be evil and corrupt, and you decide he has to die. Fair enough (not really, but let's move on). Why drop a nuke on the city your son lives in when you could just kill him directly? In other words, why did the "animals and birds" (not to mention all land plants and darn near everything else) have to go with us? How is this benevolent?
3. Most importantly: WHAT DID THIS ACCOMPLISH?!? We still have evil in the world, as any Christian will quickly point out. Granted, if Noah was the only truly "good" person left, than perhaps we have somewhat less evil in the world than we did at that time. But there are much less dramatic ways to do that, such as protecting Noah's progeny from harm and allowing them to spread good unimpeded. To an extent, one could argue that's why we have at least some good people today, but why this broad-sweeping (and scientifically impossible to such an extant that some folks have probably been driven to atheism purely due to the flood story) massacre when it would be just as feasible to make sure the good folk had the opportunity to propagate in peace? Especially since evil wasn't wiped out, and God was latter driven to be born as a human and spread the Good word (an act which also didn't do a darned thing about evil, and also likely drives people to atheism due to its lack of verifiability)? Why not do the Jesus thing in the first place? How can an omnipotent and omniscient being be so incompetent that two radically different approaches to solving a problem fail to actually solve the problem?
1. Since he allowed Noah and his family to survive, he obviously didn't completely wipe out the human race. So what happened here? Can an omniscient being change his mind?
It might be possible. There are a few stories where God seemed to change his mind, but it's unclear whether He did, or whether He was just testing people's integrity.
2. If it was man that bothered him, why wipe out all of the other life forms too?
Because God was sorry that he had made everything on Earth. "I am sorry I ever made them." The entire Earthly Creation was causing Him enough pain to justify killing it all.
3. Most importantly: WHAT DID THIS ACCOMPLISH?!?
It gave humanity a second chance. As you yourself have pointed out, humanity isn't nearly as evil as back in Noah's day.
God was latter driven to be born as a human and spread the Good word (an act which also didn't do a darned thing about evil, and also likely drives people to atheism due to its lack of verifiability)
Various parts of the Bible indicate that this was always a plan, in case things went wrong (which they did and have). And Jesus' sacrifice did do something. It allowed us damned humans to be able to go directly to God for help instead of symbolically cleansing our sins via sacrifices. Jesus didn't come down to preach the Good News as much as He came down to die. Sin and evil will be wiped out during the Second Coming, which is obviously still in the future.
First off, kudos. This is actually a pretty strong set of responses, and rarely do I encounter that in these debates. You have my respect. But I still don't find your assertions to be without flaw.
"It might be possible. There are a few stories where God seemed to change his mind, but it's unclear whether He did, or whether He was just testing people's integrity."
See, this relates to the whole debate itself. Specifically, it begs the question: "is God omniscient?" See, if taken to the extreme, omniscience isn't just about knowing what all is true right now, it is knowing what all could be true, and what all will be true. By that definition, there is absolutely no need to test someone because you know immediately whether they will pass or fail. The exception, the "out" provided by free will, is that our ability to choose misdirects the intended future. But this only means that either God can't perceive possible alternate futures, or that he can't tell which one will come to pass. Would such limitations be possible for a being who is capable of "knowing everything?"
"The entire Earthly Creation was causing Him enough pain to justify killing it all."
Yet he should have known this would come to pass, and yet he allowed it anyway. That's like knowing full well that your choice will cause you pain, but you do it regardless. Humans can be expected to act this way, but a perfect being? Also, if the entire earthly creation was causing him pain, then what does the flood do to the earth itself, or the sun and stars, or time? No, his attack was aimed purely at life. Which makes me wonder two things: a) if his stated problem was sin, then how could beings who are supposedly unaffected by free will (and therefore sin) irritate him? and b) why not start start over from scratch? He didn't completely wipe out anything thing that still exists today, they all had 2 or 7 members present on the arc. So what is the difference in those beings who didn't possess free will? What is the difference between a pre-flood cat and an extant cat?
"Various parts of the Bible indicate that this was always a plan, in case things went wrong (which they did and have)."
Again, how can a truly omniscient being not know that things were going to go wrong?
Also, you ignored my alternate plan. Assuming that Noah's presence was what allowed some semblence of good to come back into the world, why not just allow that to happen in the first place? This wouldn't violate the free will of evil doers who seek to do his progeny harm because we all know that just because you want to accomplish something doesn't mean your plan succeeds. Also, if he had taken that route, it would probably be impossible to prove the story wrong via science. On the other hand, the flood presents myriad flaws: how did land plants return? How can 2-7 members of a specific species repropagate when genetics tells us that this is not possible for sexually reproductive species? How can the millions of forms fit on the boat (not to mention all the food and supplies)? How can sea life survive the rapid change in sunlight, salinity and other massive ecological problems? Et cetecra, etc...
"It allowed us damned humans to be able to go directly to God for help instead of symbolically cleansing our sins via sacrifices."
Then why not do that in the first place?
"Sin and evil will be wiped out during the Second Coming, which is obviously still in the future."
Yet he should have known this would come to pass, and yet he allowed it anyway. (and various other comments as such)
You provide excellent arguments that I myself have used, but for a different purpose. The way I see it, if God can see the future, than there is a future to be seen, thus removing our free will. God can still be all-knowing, able to see the nearly infinite number of alternate futures, and thus He can plan as such.
Otherwise, you're right. If God could see that His creations would break his heart, than why create them?
Also, you ignored my alternate plan.
Yes, I did. I'm sorry. I don't know why God wouldn't/didn't do that. I really hate to pull this card, but I'm sure God knew what he was doing when He did it.
Then why not [send Jesus to die] in the first place?
He was. The time Jesus came was a perfect time for Him to come. There were no wars going on, not to mention an entire nation that was (supposed to be) devout Him. Among other things that I can't remember right now.
Honestly, I like debating with you. In fact, when you disappeared the last time I challenged you I was disappointed. You are intelligent and careful, my two top priorities in an intellectual opponent. But still...
"The way I see it, if God can see the future, than there is a future to be seen, thus removing our free will."
So you indirectly support the main point of the person who posted this debate?
"Otherwise, you're right. If God could see that His creations would break his heart, than why create them?"
So what is your point of dispute, then? That God is not, in fact, omnibenevolent?
"Yes, I did. I'm sorry. I don't know why God wouldn't/didn't do that. I really hate to pull this card, but I'm sure God knew what he was doing when He did it."
That's the fly in the ointment though isn't it? I totally understand the "God works in ways we can't comprehend argument." But if he is omnipotent and omnipresent, why should he have to? I mean, that strategy works for human politicians, but why can't a perfect being create a perfect argument?
"He was. The time Jesus came was a perfect time for Him to come. There were no wars going on, not to mention an entire nation that was (supposed to be) devout Him."
I'm going to say this without doing research: are you sure about there were no wars? No Native American tribes counting coup against one another? No African tribes vying for limited resources? China, at that time, was ALWAYS in a state of war. That is one of my biggest bones of contention with ANY religion, its only local. It only talks about the group that lived to tell the tale, and rarely has comment on society living on the other side of the mountains. My points are totally irrelevant IF you are a local religious leader trying to gain power. But what about UNIVERSAL truth.
And again:
"not to mention an entire nation that was (supposed to be) devout Him."
Supposition should logically preclude omniscience.
It is fun. Sorry for disappearing. I probably had good reasons at the time. :P
So you indirectly support the main point of the person who posted this debate?
I was rather arguing the other way. God respects our free will, thus He cannot see the future.
So what is your point of dispute, then? That God is not, in fact, omnibenevolent?
No, that God cannot see the future.
why can't a perfect being create a perfect argument?
In a way, He did. Paul says that even those who've never heard of God can believe by looking at Creation. Maybe not that it's now flawed, but the complexities. How a single cell is more complex--and infinitely more automatic--than a modern city. In how many things must happen for a muscle to twitch a fraction of an inch, and how quickly it has to happen.
are you sure about there were no wars?
Sorry, I should specify. There was pax romana. No wars in Rome, and Israel was in the Roman Empire.
My points are totally irrelevant IF you are a local religious leader trying to gain power.
No, I'm not a leader trying to gain power. Sadly, however, you've hit the nail on the head. I am quite sad that Christianity has become a religion. Most organized religions are about gaining power, which often deters people from listening to the small nuggets of truth that may or may not reside deep inside.
As for a universal truth, how about this: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." --Paul, Rom 8:38.
You can take that or leave it, but I quite like that verse.
Supposition should logically preclude omniscience.
Yes, but although the religious leaders were about power, the people still believed in God , which is why Jesus was able to gain listeners. If he had gone to, say, Indonesia where they hadn't even heard of God, He probably wouldn't have gotten very far. Nor would it have been likely to be recorded, like it was in Rome.
"Sorry for disappearing. I probably had good reasons at the time. :P"
Totally fair. I know how it goes. But I feel (arrogantly, perhaps) that if I post an argument and my opponent does not respond, it is a victory on my part.
"I was rather arguing the other way. God respects our free will, thus He cannot see the future."
Intriguing. I must admit that I haven't heard that argument before. But that presents a potential problem itself: Can you provide a Biblical quote that clearly supports that notion? Because, if not...then that is simply an interpretation. And necessitated interpretation creates a required "margin of error" within the Bible. And if said margin of error exists, how can you know if you are right (outside of pure emotion, please)?
"Paul says that even those who've never heard of God can believe by looking at Creation."
Acceptable, except that the adherents of any other religion say the same (presumably, I am only 1 deity more atheist than you are). What methodology can I use to support your understanding over any mutually-exclusive understanding provided by a different religion?
"How a single cell is more complex--and infinitely more automatic--than a modern city. In how many things must happen for a muscle to twitch a fraction of an inch, and how quickly it has to happen."
Suppose that reality operates on a principle of diminishing returns? In such a case, our gestalt being simpler than the parts of the whole would make sense. And there are multiple laws of physics that seem to indicate this...
"There was pax romana. No wars in Rome, and Israel was in the Roman Empire."
True. But this indicates that God had a specific audience to appeal to. Yet a "creator of the universe" should be trying to communicate to all audiences, right?
"No, I'm not a leader trying to gain power. Sadly, however, you've hit the nail on the head."
No, no, no. By you, I was referring to the authors of the Bible, or perhaps Constantine...
"I am quite sad that Christianity has become a religion."
Me too, though I suppose I could say that about any organized religion. Buddhism is the main one that I accept as being non-pernicious. Look at it: No inherent God, very few universal truths, rarely does it draw a line in the sand against other religions because it doesn't really see itself as a competitor to them. As a result, it has successfully intermingled with other religions (Bon, Taoism, shinto and in limited cases, every other religion) to create a bizarre hybrid that doesn't definitively exclude any other, yet provides a basic moral framework that the others can accept. Now, let's exclude the more supernatural components (reincarnation, karma, "enlightenment") that I have a hard time accepting. Let's look instead at the philosophy behind it: this is the sort of religion that makes sense to me, that comes the closest to representing what a rational "God" could ask of us. Yet many Christians won't hear this, even if the Buddha's teachings were surprisingly similar to Christ's (indeed, some have argued that Christ may have been exposed to these teachings during his "lost years".) But that is off-topic...
"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." --Paul, Rom 8:38."
If true, that should preclude the concept of Hell, shouldn't it?
Also, should a sinning human's convictions be taken as universal truth?
"If he had gone to, say, Indonesia where they hadn't even heard of God, He probably wouldn't have gotten very far. Nor would it have been likely to be recorded, like it was in Rome."
That supports one of my other points, though (at least in my opinion.) Universal truth shouldn't be a localized phenomenon. If multiple people (Jesus and Moses) could communicate with God, then why should it hit specific times and places? Why not an isolated occurrence on every continent, every three generations or so? What is it about the middle-East that means these concepts are superior to any other religion, farther away? If it is all true, why shouldn't an Indonesian recognize it, regardless of his experience with the Judeo-Christian concept of God?
But I feel (arrogantly, perhaps) that if I post an argument and my opponent does not respond, it is a victory on my part.
I'd say you have a right to feel that. Good arguing!
"Can you provide a Biblical quote that clearly supports [the notion that God cannot see the future]?"
A single verse, no. But there are hints to it. For instance, if God could see the future, than He knew Eve and Adam would eat the fruit. So why even have the test? Exodus 13:17 says "God said, 'If the people are faced with a battle, they might change their mind and go back to Egypt.' " If God could see the future, why would He wait until the Israelites were complaining to rain Mana down? There are many times, especially in the OT, where God does things in response to human activity--which wouldn't be true if God could see the future.
And now for more modern examples: God would have seen Hitler's reign of terror, why not push his pregnant mother down the stairs? He would have seen the various arguments about His existance today, why not put something in the Bible--some advanced scientific truth--to prove it?
"What methodology can I use to support your understanding over any mutually-exclusive understanding provided by a different religion?"
Sadly, and embarrasingly, I'm not up to speed on other religions. Not enough to be able to answer this question. Sorry.
"this indicates that God had a specific audience to appeal to. Yet a "creator of the universe" should be trying to communicate to all audiences, right?"
Yes, He should, and did. God did it in steps, however. First the Israelites. When they failed, He tried the early Christians (which did a pretty darn good job of it for the first few hundred years). Now, there are all sorts of missionaries spreading the Good News.
"I was referring to the authors of the Bible [as possibly being power-hungry people]"
As the authors of the bible tended to be people of very humble origins, I'd say not. David was but a sheepherder when He wrote most of his stuff. Paul wasn't anybody special, and even made points to not get any power ("Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only Christ." Can Christ be divided into pieces? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, for now no one can say they were baptized in my name.") As for other authors, we really don't know who they were. Maybe Daniel, and the rest of the prophets (but they were considered crazy, so probably didn't have any hopes of gaining power).
Constantine, on the other hand, probably had power on his mind, along with many of the church leaders.
"If true, that should preclude the concept of Hell, shouldn't it?"
Ah-ha. We come to another point we will probably disagree on. If Hell (as an eternal fire-pit) existed, would that destroy sin in the Universe? No, it would simply keep it in one place. And what kind of loving God (Who, although He did destroy most of humanity, it "broke his heart" to do so) would send people to suffer for eternity? The very fact that Paul didn't mention Hell at all indicates that he probably didn't believe in it, either. And as he never wrote about it, it might be safe to assume the rest of the early Christians didn't as well.
"Also, should a sinning human's convictions be taken as universal truth?"
Possibly. This is a human who spoke with Jesus face-to-face, so I'd take his word for it.
"What is it about the middle-East that means these concepts are superior to any other religion, farther away?"
I'm not sure about other religions, but the Middle East is practically in the middle of the world. What a better place to spread the story?
"If it is all true, why shouldn't an Indonesian recognize it, regardless of his experience with the Judeo-Christian concept of God?"
There isn't, which is why missionaries are able to go to those places and teach.
First, I must say that your argument about God not being able to see the future (by choice) is fascinating and well structured. Initially I was wondering what role prophecy played in all of that. But then I realized that coming from the point of view of an omnipotent being, that prophecy might be more of a promise than a prognostication. So I will concede this point to you. It bears thinking about.
"Sadly, and embarrasingly, I'm not up to speed on other religions. Not enough to be able to answer this question."
Well you don't really have to go into specifics, the overall concept can be debated on a more general level, with ideas that I'm sure you are already aware of. There have been thousands of of religion in history, with dozens or hundreds still around today. They tend to share some really basic similarities, but they also have lots of mutually exclusive elements. The number and nature of deities, the nature of soul and concepts of afterlife, cosmology. And many of them (although not all) identify themselves as the sole purveyors of truth, accepting principles of other religions only if they correspond with their own, which never happens universally. And most of them have adherents who claim divine inspiration. So what we would need to be able to do is find an objective system to identify which ones actually have access to the truth. The problem is, our most objective systems, science and logic, tend to refute claims made in any religion. So that, in a nutshell, is what I'm getting at. Objectively, all religions display faults at some point or another when it comes to things we can test. So how can I be at all sure of the untestable claims?
"As the authors of the bible tended to be people of very humble origins, I'd say not."
I find this assertion to be somewhat problematic. First, I just don't know how much of the Bible I can trust. If we had more extra-biblical evidence of these people, it might be a different story. But the skeptic in me has to at least consider this question: what if they were lying? About themselves, about Jesus, about the events they describe? Further, if they were actually of humble origins, one could argue that they had motivation to put themselves at the center of a growing religion in order to move up in the world. This had been happening all over the region at that time. Now, I'm not saying that they were definitely power-hungry, but I can't be sure that they weren't either. Really, societal control seems to be what tends to separate religion from more personal spirituality.
"Ah-ha. We come to another point we will probably disagree on."
Actually, I'd say we're getting closer to agreement. For instance the idea of a loving God who would punish (or even allow people to suffer) eternally for finite transgressions is a big bone of contention that I have with the Abrahamic faiths. Although your comments inspire an inference, I think I should directly ask you: setting aside what Paul and the early Christians believed, do you believe in Hell?
"I'm not sure about other religions, but the Middle East is practically in the middle of the world. What a better place to spread the story?"
Well, and it might have been the most heavily populated area at that time too. But there were other flourishing civilizations that at the time were cut-off from the fertile crescent. Egypt had interactions with them of course, but further down in Africa there were other societies who did not. Then there were the inhabitants of what we now call India and China out east, and some other strong kingdoms in Asia. And most distant were the native societies of the Americas, as well as the Aborigines, who had absolutely no chance of contact until centuries later. Taken as whole, this means that there were more people who had to wait to hear of God than there were people in the immediate path of influence. And these people had their own power games and societal components that ended up supporting very different religions. And these religions were often rather antagonistic to the new comers and their own version of religion. So what I'm saying is that a heck of a lot of war and division could have been avoided, as well as probably some modern atheism, if there was a Jesus-like being in every region, preaching more or less the same things, with similar portrayals of God and the Genesis creation account or other things that are specific to Christianity. Wouldn't missionaries be able to operate more effectively if they didn't have to teach wholly new concepts while they set about doing good in the local communities? I mean, it just seems that the spread of Christianity as we have seen it is rather inefficient for an omnipresent entity. Part of the fuel for my skepticism.
"Well you don't really have to go into specifics, the overall concept [of other religions] can be debated on a more general level"
Okay. In my view, it would seem that humanity tends to lean toward polytheism. After the flood, when all of humanity came from an obviously-monotheistic family, polytheism still cropped up, and fairly recently if Gilgamesh can be taken as at least semi-true. (Gilgamesh, by the way, mentions Noah and his monotheism, which I find interesting). And so it would be no wonder that cultures that spread out after the Tower of Babel would develop their own religions. I'm guessing that many would have undertones of the ancient Hebrew religion (now Jewish, Christian, and Muslim). But I cannot say without further research. Sorry.
"what if [the authors of the Bible] were lying?"
If they were lying, we'd never get to know, as it obviously wouldn't be true. It's unprovable until you can prove whether or not God exists. So now it's up to your own beliefs, as it tends to do.
"I think I should directly ask you: setting aside what Paul and the early Christians believed, do you believe in Hell?"
I believe that Hell doesn't exist, but it will for a short period of time. During Jesus' 3rd Advent (1000 years after the 2nd), and Satan rallys up all the evil people who recently underwent the 2nd ressurection to attack the Holy City, Hell will descend in the form of God's righteous fire and consume them all in one last act of justice. And that will be it. The unsaved will be dead forever. Non-existent. My resources and references would be Revelation 20.
The comment of why only the Middle East got Jesus
Again, I'm not sure. Maybe God saw that the region had the potential to affect most of the world. The Greek and Roman Empires surely ruled so much, not to mention the Muslims (who also descended from Abraham and had the message of God) ruled much of the middle-east and Africa while the Latins ruled Europe. The Romans were more likely to record things than the Indonesians and native Americans, thus preserving knowledge through time until people could go and preach the word.
As for why Jesus didn't come multiple times, I'd say it's because one sacrifice was enough for the whole of the world. He didn't die for the Chinese because there was no need. That one sacrifice allowed all to be saved. Thus Christ's final mission for His followers: "...Tell people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." --Acts 1:8
Well, this where we get into a bit of sticky archeology, though. The comparison between the Biblical flood account and the Epic of Gilgamesh becomes a "chicken and egg" debate. Both accounts are old, no doubt. But which one is actually older? The oldest copy of anything from the OT comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to somewhere between 200-100 BC. The Septuagint, was reputedly from about the same era. Now, I'm sure there were older copies that have been destroyed, and prior to that it may have existed as an oral tradition for quite some time. But, outside of the claims of the Bible itself, we are hard pressed to know just how old the OT is. The earliest we can say for sure would be 200 BC. Contrast that to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest copy of which is from the Stone Tablets of King Ashurbanipal and are about 400 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is believed that the legends about Gilgamesh were told for over 20 centuries, but to stick to pure evidence we can say that the oldest extant copies of the Epic were from 7th c. BC. So here we have two traditions, from the same place and era, neither able to establish Supremacy of Antiquity over the other based on available evidence, but having several similarities (i.e. Flood Stories. Also, because the Sumarian legend of the Flood was found in Gilgamesh, a story rife with Gods, calling that flood monotheistic is possibly inaccurate.)
But when we look beyond the Fertile Crescent, the spread of Humanity makes a common post-flood origin rather unlikely. Especially considering the Native Americans. There is no way they could have built ships good enough to get them to America no matter which direction the came from. The only logical method we can find is the presence of the Bering Land Bridge (which would have been solid enough to walk on in an Ice Age.) And the genetic comparison with Asian DNA adds credibility to this. I mean, is there anything in the Bible that explains how people got all the way out to the Americas thousands of years prior to European exploration?
"So now it's up to your own beliefs, as it tends to do."
Which, of course, brings us to faith. But each religion boils down to faith. And that's where I run into problems. Faith in one typically leads to lack of faith in another. So its not just about having faith, it is about having faith that is almost purely molded by where and when you grew up. This wouldn't be such a problem for me if the various religions weren't adamantly claiming supremacy over the others. But since they are, they have to offer me something to take their side. Not immortal life, but rather a really good set of evidence. And once again, the testable evidence doesn't ever hold up universally. So my faith cannot land anywhere that claims to be the truth if it provides falsities in its scriptures.
As far as Hell, well I guess I don't really have a point of debate on that for now. Your response shows consistency with your original assertions, and that's all I was looking for. You are a strong opponent :)
Well, your assertions about the societal abilities to record documents works well for many of the cultures, but not China, who had a very well-established written tradition even by then.
"As for why Jesus didn't come multiple times, I'd say it's because one sacrifice was enough for the whole of the world."
As far as soul-saving, sure. But I'm talking about establishing global veracity. The Chinese Jesus wouldn't have to die for Chinese sins, but putting up a few localized prophecies, performing a few miracles, doing something that would be uniquely crafted to Chinese character, maybe we never would have had a Mao...
"The oldest copy of anything from the OT ... date to somewhere between 200-100 BC"
But there is evidence that Israel as a nation existed back in the 1000-900 BC. A tablet from Egypt places a nation called the Israelites in Canaan during that time.
Also, for somebody to have put parts of the OT into caves in the 200s, it would be logical to assume there were a few hundred other copies floating around the cities, those probably much older.
"is there anything in the Bible that explains how people got all the way out to the Americas thousands of years prior to European exploration?"
It would be understandable that the flood would have caused such changes in the environment to allow crossings of the Bering Land Bridge. In Genesis 10:25 it says " the people of the world were divided into different language groups." Since the Native Americans had their own language groups, this would probably apply to them, too.
Sorry, but one more thought. Feel free to downvote this to zero to keep the scores realistic.
"No, no, no. By you, I was referring to the authors of the Bible, or perhaps Constantine..."
Also, if they were writing for sheer power, to gain themselves a position above that of their peers, it would seem they would have written something other than humility. Throughout the Bible people say "Don't look at me, look at God!" Even those that did amazing things never took credit for it, nor was any given.
Moses' actions parted the Red Sea, and yet he never claimed to have the power, nor did anybody give it to him. Ever after that feat was attributed to God and God alone. It seems that if Moses wrote that (which he probably didn't), he would have given himself a little credit.
Also, it would seem that we would know who the authors of the Bible were more often than we do. Sadly, history remembers those who used falsehoods to elevate their position more often than those who actually deserve said position. And yet, most of the authors of the Bible fade into anonymity, while God is probably the most famous person out there (if you include Allah, which even the Muslims agree is the same as the Christian (and Jewish) God).
"Feel free to downvote this to zero to keep the scores realistic."
That's quite gracious of you, but the way I see it, my response will even out the points. Besides, I'm not terribly concerned with the points. They help keep things interesting, but I'm mostly here for good debates. And you are providing one. :)
"Also, if they were writing for sheer power, to gain themselves a position above that of their peers, it would seem they would have written something other than humility."
Its a good point. The thing is, though, that being humble might have been a pretty good, if rarely used, strategy in ancient Rome. The Romans didn't treat threats kindly, and it is clear the authors knew that Christianity would be treated as a threat. They may have wished to keep a low profile as far as the government was concerned. But for the people? I have long felt that one of Jesus' strengths was by appealing directly to the people, and historians generally give that aspect credit for helping to establish Christianity in the first place. He and his disciples didn't want to seem like direct authoritarians, or they would have a hard time making a ripple, as many historical examples have shown. By giving the credit to God and simultaneously presenting themselves as likable people with no desire for power, they may have appeared to simply be people who believe, and that could be quite convincing, particularly since they offering hope in tough times. But they were still at the heart of it. They were the ones dispensing the knowledge, writing the Bible, the ones you go to for truth. And they were the ones who stood a chance at being elevated to a position of power (or possibly their students or descendants) if the religion became a notable political force. It didn't quite work out that way (at least not in their lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that that isn't what they were planning.
That being said, I'm not arguing that you are definitely wrong. As you say it is hard to avoid speculating about their lives and motives with so little information presently available. But I do see a lot of possibilities, and not all of them point directly to God, in my opinion.
Because if one who knows everything didn't know what does not "exist" yet, then they wouldn't know everything. Sometimes the hows and the whats are separate things. I suppose you could argue that a future thing is a non-existent thing, ie a no-thing. But such an argument is cheap and based on word play, a god which completely knows his creation in the now will know how it unfolds into the future.
God as a super natural entity exists "outside" of time, time is his creation correct?
"a god which completely knows his creation in the now will know how it unfolds into the future."
Life isn't a bunch of billiard balls on an infinite frictionless plain. Once humans (and other animals, to a lesser exent) get involved, you cannot predict things indefinitely.
I would agree that God would be able to see the nearly-infinite possible futures that exist, based on the millions of choices the billions of people on the planet make each moment, and how they'll interact with each other. But the thing about free will is that we can still surprize God. If I suddenly killed someone for no reason, I'm sure that would surprise God, as that's not who I am.
You could even say that, knowing all these futures for the world, and the people in them, He could even predict the most likely route that it will take. But that is a far step from actually seeing the future.
If God could see the future, then it eliminates any free will we have, and replaces it with a mere illusion. Once that happens, no matter what you do, God knew you were going to do it, and you cannot escape that fate. "Fate" is exactly what it becomes.
And once that happens, there's no reason that God couldn't just end it now. For if He knows who is going to be Saved and who isn't, than why wait?
"God as a super natural entity exists "outside" of time, time is his creation correct?"
I'm not sure if God created time. You'd have to ask Him. He might have created the ability for time to flow as it does, but that does not mean that He can see the future (which doesn't even exist yet), any more than an airplane manufacturer can say exactly where that airplane will fly to in its lifetime.
"Does God 'employ' evil? If He did so, like you said, he wouldn't be omni-benevolent. But the Bible says He is, and thus, He can't employ evil."
- Thats the point of this debate though, does the assertion that god allows or employs evil exist discredit his benevolence and thus disprove his existence based on the lack of characteristics he is supposed to have. You can't state that the bible says otherwise so your claim must be wrong, you must address the evidence supporting the claim that the existence of evil is an argument against the existence of a benevolent God
" There's a difference for employing evil and allowing evil to run its course."
- mmmmmmmmmmm, no, not really. If you know evil is occuring and you do nothing to stop it you are as bad as that evil. If God is God, and God has the power to stop evil and the obligation of benevolence to do, then the fact that he doesn't discredits his credibility and disproves his existence based on disproving his traits. This is like I say I have the power to predict the lottery, but whenever I played the lottery I never won, you can say may claim is false based on the fact that I never won the lottery.
"The absence of God. If you chose not to drink water, is it the water's fault that you die of dehydration?"
- No but is it God's fault that hundreds of millions live in poverty and have to drink contaminated water that will kill you by the time you are 30?
The lottery analogy isn't the best because a person who claims to be able to predict the lottery but doesn't win leads to: the person can not predict the lottery, doesn't want to win, or refuses to use prediction well playing, or the person is unable to play,, the person can play but not in a way which allows them to win(like not being able to be in the right place at the right time)... In the end, an able, lottery predicting, desiring to win by use of prediction person would ensure he wins but if such a person claims to be that but doesn't win you can reckon his claim false.
You can't state that the bible says otherwise so your claim must be wrong, you must address the evidence supporting the claim that the existence of evil is an argument against the existence of a benevolent God
I have addressed it. Read my arguments on the left.
As for the Bible, it says many times that sin (evil) is a result of man and man alone. In the Garden, God gave humans a choice: trust in Him, or try their own way. By eating the fruit (most likely merely a symbol of said choice), they chose their own way, pushing God out of their lives. Thus, sin; thus, evil.
If you know evil is occuring and you do nothing to stop it you are as bad as that evil.
No matter how 'right' God would be to end sin and evil, it would be morally wrong. Again, this battle between God and ex-Lucifer is to show that God's way is the right way. If God simply destroyed anything that went against His way, nothing would be proven, except that maybe God is a tyrant.
No but is it God's fault that hundreds of millions live in poverty and have to drink contaminated water that will kill you by the time you are 30?
Not really. First off, my comment of water was to show that it's not God's fault that evil is in the world, just like it's not the water's fault that someone who refuses to drink it dies of thirst.
Second, poverty and water contamination originated from that first sin by Eve and Adam. Such things wouldn't exist had humanity not pushed God away.
freewill can be defined in a couple of different ways, one way(the way it is often used and the only one which could work as intended) defines it self as not anything which is so it doesn't exist, the other way means simply that man can choose to follow god's rules or not, ie to sin or not. There is no reason why sinning must result in evil or harm, rather such a thing is due to the creator ie god. A creator god with the properties of omnipotence and omniscience is, more or less by definition, responsible for everything. Freewill can not act as an excuse for it.
The case of the virus involves numerous designers so blame is shared(if we are holding to "freewill"), typically the god in question is taken to be the only one.
So what you are saying is that Morally acceptable options could still be harmful ones? For in order for god to maintain his omnibenevolence the granting of such a choice between harm and "morally acceptable options" would have to be considered morally acceptable itself but isn't granting such a thing harmful in the same way as a parent granting their young child a knife to play with is harmful? If so, then god's morally acceptable decision was also a harmful one but I would say that harmful decisions are only moral in situations where you must choose between various types of harm, the god in question does not.
Not really. To utilize the previous example, the virus was not created by the computer's designer and as such the blame does not fall on the builder. One could not reasonably accuse HP of responsibility for Conficker, despite its influence on the consumer computer industry.
So what you are saying is that Morally acceptable options could still be harmful ones? For in order for god to maintain his omnibenevolence the granting of such a choice between harm and "morally acceptable options" would have to be considered morally acceptable itself but isn't granting such a thing harmful in the same way as a parent granting their young child a knife to play with is harmful?
No, I was referring in general to the concept of people's ability to choose between moral and immoral actions. I first had to gauge whether you believe in the concept of universal morality.
The metaphor of the child being permitted to engage in dangerous activity is different than the dynamics between the entities this overall discussion. As a society, one would recognize that we have to capability to make informed decisions. These can be categorized as "moral" or "immoral." An atheist rejects the notion of a deity, and as such you might understand that people act according to their choices rather than in manner that suggests that they are being controlled.
Consequently, this indicates that we are to blame for our choices, rather than God.
It does fail partially on the designers(since there are more then one) of the computer, one the designers of the non-malicious programs, and on the designers of the virus. The god we are talking about is the only creator, and thus all blame rests on him. The only way it could be other wise was if humans co-create independently of god and environment ( a impossibility) and thus god wouldn't of create everything, be all powerful, and certainly not all knowing.
En Universal morality, general rules of conduct do tend to emerge naturally from the universe.
Choices which are made are functions of the environment, the person represents previous states of the environment. A person is Similar in this regard to a shift register or other sequential device. The device itself makes no "decisions". The child differs from an adult only in how they are wired or how many of the initial states have been set. Blaming a cpu but not a shift register for outputting zero rather than one doesn't make sense. Humans are not some magical little gods ourselves or do you have evidence to the contrary?
It does fail partially on the designers(since there are more then one) of the computer, one the designers of the non-malicious programs, and on the designers of the virus. The god we are talking about is the only creator, and thus all blame rests on him. The only way it could be other wise was if humans co-create independently of god and environment ( a impossibility) and thus god wouldn't of create everything, be all powerful, and certainly not all knowing.
That is illogical, as there is no connection between what the creator does and what someone else, possessing the ability to think autonomously, chooses to do with that creation.
A person is Similar in this regard to a shift register or other sequential device. The device itself makes no "decisions". The child differs from an adult only in how they are wired or how many of the initial states have been set. Blaming a cpu but not a shift register for outputting zero rather than one doesn't make sense. Humans are not some magical little gods ourselves or do you have evidence to
Not particularly. A person's actions may not reflect the environment. Look at immature children who act without any perceptible motivation. Even if the actions do, that person has discretion to act how he chooses. Comparing that person to a device that accepts and processes input does not reflect the human capability for independent thought.
define: "thinking autonomously" or "independent thought". What it appears to be is a impossibility, but I'll wait to tear it to shreds till you better define it.
It seems you are stating that if I were to make a "world" object, in c++, with only one method accessible to a user, a "exist/run" method, and give it many sub-objects as its properties, and utility methods which made the sub-objects interact(probably by evolutionary programing) I would not though the complete creation of the world determine how a particular object I created interacts with the rest of the objects due to this objects ability to "think autonomously". (assuming I could create such an object)
There is a difference between motivation and the environment determining actions.
define: "thinking autonomously" or "independent thought". What it appears to be is a impossibility, but I'll wait to tear it to shreds till you better define it.
Making considerations and evaluations regarding situations using one's own faculties. These analyses are then utilized to craft a proper response (hopefully) based on these circumstances.
The implication of this is that a human can think as an entity separate from external influence and as such is independent. You may suppose that it is not independent because the thought can be affected by other factors, but the mental capability to process and develop said thought is most certainly independent.
It seems you are stating that if I were to make a "world" object, in c++, with only one method accessible to a user, a "exist/run" method, and give it many sub-objects as its properties, and utility methods which made the sub-objects interact(probably by evolutionary programing) I would not though the complete creation of the world determine how a particular object I created interacts with the rest of the objects due to this objects ability to "think autonomously". (assuming I could create such an object)
I was referring to the fact that your earlier metaphor utilized examples that accept human input and produce a corresponding output.
With regard to your current metaphor, there are similarities, but that is not true. Rather, my supposition would be more accurately represented by an artificial intelligence such as those that are not in existence yet.
There is no reason why sinning must result in evil or harm, rather such a thing is due to the creator ie god.
And there is no reason that unscrewing a light bulb would result in it going out, rather such a thing is due to the electricity in the wall. After all, the electricity has the power to light the bulb, so why doesn't it?
I can say though that turning innocent by standards who happen to look at a city they are from, burning, into a pillar of sale = evil. That god is evil. So no problems.
Also that thing about you're aloud to beat a slave. That shit's fucked up.
So basically, I have many an argument against the fairytale, evil's not one. they are consistently evil.
I can say though that turning innocent by standards who happen to look at a city they are from, burning, into a pillar of sale = evil. That god is evil. So no problems.
Except that she disobeyed a direct request from God. The actual biblical story is quite brief, and there were probably good reasons why He did so. What if Lot's wife looked back and wanted to be with her now-dead friends? What if God was simply doing what she was wanting Him to do?
Also that thing about you're aloud to beat a slave.
This was a society where slavery was morally acceptable, and slaves were the property of their owner. But the Bible clearly states that if the slave receives permanent damage from a beating, the slave is to go free. It sounds fair to me.
So Christian morality concludes that a woman turning around out of curiousity merits death,
And that slavery is a-okay.
No, God shaped those rules around the accepted norm of the day. Again, we have no idea if Lot's wife's intension were only curiosity. The Hebrew word (nabat) has slightly deeper connotations than just a glance. Maybe she desired to be with her friends, and thus, away from God.
Also, those rules about slavery (and things like what to do if your house has mold) were written for the people of the time. The only standing laws were written by God on stone tablets known as the 10 Commandments. None of them have anything to do with saying slavery is okay.
The Laws of Moses were fulfilled and abolished with Christ's death. And since slavery isn't okay in today's culture, God wouldn't (and hasn't and doesn't) tell us to go buy slaves.
A note: Those laws never say to buy slaves, but only apply if you buy slaves. Since it's difficult to buy slaves nowadays, they don't apply even if they were still enforced.
Trust me, try as you might you will not be able to justify to me an all powerful being of any sort turning a girl into a pillar of salt directly after her city is burned. Much less the destruction of the city.
That god's an ass, and not worthy of worship - real or not.
1. Naturally if there were a god, he would be nothing close to what Christians describe. You are an unimaginative, fear-ridden, and narrow-minded cult. The Universe is vast and diverse and exciting. The two are not compatible.
2. I'm quite sure there is no such thing anyway.
3. If you were to happen to be right about this silliness, I would choose still not to worship this person. I find the one described by you as god to be tyranical and hateful. If it is not so, and there is some "divine" plan whereby some awesome invisible guy remains hidden and sends the likes of you to represent him as some sort of cosmic SAT, than I would question his judgement of whom should represent him and state you've all done a piss-poor job of representation.
A note: Your god should have said not to have slaves, instead of to what degree beating one you should happen to own would be acceptable. You would have to be deeply indoctrinated and rigidly brainwashed to not see the evil of this being... case in point, you apparently.
"Naturally if there were a god, he would be nothing close to what Christians describe."
How do you know? What makes you say that?
"I'm quite sure there is no such thing anyway."
That has as much weight as me saying that there is a god.
"I find the one described by you as god to be tyranical and hateful."
Ah, I see now that sending your son to die for people who don't love or believe in you is tyrannical and hateful. You try having your son die instead of a mass-murderer because you love that murderer enough to see him get another chance. But, of course, if you did, you'd be tyrannical and hateful.
