It's time once again to discuss what is known as the bedrock of atheism, the problem of evil. As my springboard let's start with David Hume:
A deity who knows the secret springs of the universe might easily, by particular volitions, turn all accidents to the good of mankind and render the whole world happy, without discovering himself in any operation. A fleet whose purposes were salutary to society might always meet with a fair wind. Good princes enjoy sound health and long life. Persons born to power and authority be framed with good tempers and virtuous dispositions. A few such events as these, regularly and wisely conducted, would change the face of the world, and yet would no more seem to disturb the course of nature or confound human conduct than the present economy of things where the causes are secret and variable and compounded. One wave, a little higher than the rest, by burying Caesar and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have restored liberty to a considerable part of mankind.” [Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part XI].Here are some more things God could’ve done: One childhood fatal disease like the Spanish Flu of 1918 could have killed Hitler and prevented WWII. One actual attempt on Hitler’s life by some people, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, could have ended his reign after the war started. A different police officer could have discovered a naked boy who had briefly escaped Jeffrey Dahlmer’s clutches, and upon investigating further could’ve saved that boy’s life. Timothy McVeigh could have had a fatal vehicle crash while driving to Oklahoma, or a crash that would reveal what was inside his truck. McVeigh could also have been killed while in combat before coming back to the states.
A fatal heart attack could’ve been sent to Saddam Hussein before our war with Iraq, stopping it dead in its tracks. The poison that Saddam threw on the Kurds a decade ago could have simply “malfunctioned” by being miraculously neutralized. Sure it would puzzle Saddam, and it would not be explainable by science, but there are a great many things that take place in our world that are not explainable, so this wouldn’t necessarily lead him to believe that the laws of nature were suspended, revealing God behind it all. The same thing could have been done to the Zykon-B gas pellets dropped down into the Auschwitz gas chambers. Even if Nazi's did conclude that God performed a miracle here, what’s the harm done?
Why did God allow the earthquake that sent the tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people in Asia? Did he not have the power to restrain that earthquake? No one would know that he kept it from happening. The same goes for the predicted San Andreas Fault and the earthquake that will send Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean. No seismic scientist would ever discover God as the reason why it doesn’t do this.
Why couldn’t something have happened to all nine hijackers of those planes on that fatal 9/11 day? One could trip and fall to his death, or a broken limb. Three others could’ve gotten in a car accident on the way. One other could’ve had a heart attack. Still another could have been robbed by a New York pair of thugs and killed (there’s utilitarianism at its best!). Another could have been reminded of something by God that would weaken his will, maybe intense doubts like those who walk down the wedding aisle. Another could have been spotted at security by a different officer, while another’s take-on-bag might have spilled open revealing his knife. And so on. These things would all occur on that morning stopping the terrorist attacks dead on. But none of these things happened, did they? God allowed the destruction of nearly 3500 lives that day even though there were means at his disposal to stop it.
And even if by changing these things in the world God would “eradicate the laws of nature,” which I seriously doubt, the Christian would still have to argue that these things are impossible for God to do. Who says that the laws of nature must be fixed and unalterable, anyway? David Hume first questioned this. The ordering of the world by general laws “seems nowise necessary” to God. If by changing something requires some adjustment that does not accord with any known laws of nature, so what? The Christian claims God can do miracles, then why not a perpetual one that doesn’t affect anything else in his creation?
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Sconnor,
you said:"There seems to be two seperate thrones -- a throne for both god and Jesus."
Unfortunately you seem to not understand the application of the "throne" when it comes to Jesus. When the scripture talks of "right hand" or sitting "upon" the throne it's NOT talking about sitting in the seat "next to", but when you minimize history as you do, and approach the scripture in a fundamentalist manner as you also do you'll get lost and think the text is talking 2 seats but it's NOT.
Only God can occupy his throne. That's the whole concept of matthews gospel from the temptation until Jesus says "All Power" in fact in the temptation in Mt. 4:8-9 you'll see Jesus invoking Deut telling the devil, ONLY god is to be worshipped...only beginning at Mt. 2:2 and all throught the gospels Jesus receives worship...look up the word "worshipped" or "Gk:proskuneo"(I'm going from memory here so cop me some slack) Notice that every time jesus preformed a miraculous event and he was worshipped this word was used...
Only he that sat upon the throne was worshipped, but yet we see all heaven and earth bowing down to him that sat upon the throne...There was ONLY ONE throne and ONE God, this is the message and Jesus prves as much by accepting and receiving 'worship' all throughout the scripture...
Look I can't teach a class to you, but this is a subject that has AMPLE evidence that many including yourself 9as maticulous as you can be at times) simply overlook.
I may go further later, but let me get to the rest of your apostate renderings-LOL
Sconnor,
You said:"whatever writings they authored that may have referenced Jesus of the bible are NOT at ALL reliable because they are based SOLELY on HEARSAY"
What you espouse is a minimalist view of history and as things go some feel comfortable with that. the facts are that accounts that we have for many major historical information came centuries AFTER the events they record. Yet because the bible claims the supernatural a special pleading is made to discard it although it is much closer to the accounts it records, has a verifiable source, with verifiable tradition of it's passage and an unbroken chain of individuals who have handled it.
So at best your position would have to regard ALL works of antiquity as at best questionable and most works as unauthentic...In addition in all major studies questioning the embellishment of ane literature, one things is consistent, it takes much more time than the bible ever had to create and develop a myth that is fully consistent and even then myths don't have creeds as we see ESPECIALLY when they were just created (within 100 or 200 years)
We see exactly the opposite with scripture. early creeds, supported with uniform early writings and confirmation of testimonies.
Now what you question is the testimonies themselves but that is more a matter of faith to me than the record itself being made up or wrong.
I haven't seen a supportable myth theory yet and i have read a lot of them. So once again, by your standards ALL history can be HERESAY and that's not good historical study or good conclusions to draw.
Jonathan,
Go to http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2009/08/evil-who-knows-it-and-how-pt-1.html
and
http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2009/08/evil-who-knows-it-and-how-pt-2.html
I believe I address some of the issues you raise there. There are many ways to overcome the problem of evil statement that you render in all of it's forms. One such rendering goes like this:
1- If God is all good, he will defeat evil.
2- If god is all powerful, he can defeat evil.
3-Evil is not yet defeated.
4-Therefore god can and will one day defeat evil.
That's just one construct. but there are many more to address specific aspects of various arguments.
Sconnor,
You said:If you can argue that there are 3rd party historians that you think is substantive and important enough to support your position of the miracle of the resurrected son of god, then it is reasonable to conclude that if counter-evidence is presented that is antithetical to your argument such as there are NO 3rd party historians from Jesus' time, then your initial argument is rendered useless.
Ok I'm trying to follow this but it seems like your're saying that since there is SILENCE then that is a valid argument against the resurrection of Jesus.
First, I don't think it's essential to have others, "secular" historians give a verbatim on NT happenings. That's the standard that YOU impose but I don't feel that's necessary especially as it pertains to religious items who all agree were at best minimalized by secular historians of the day...not just Christianity but ALL religious systems...
A better comparisons would be to examine how much, as a comparison, were other religions discussed as opposed to Christianity...all things being equal, I believe it would be tough to conclude that ALL religions DID NOT exist because secular historians didn't confirm or verify the teachings or record the events regarding those religions first hand...
So once again, I believe you place a standard on the historical narratives surrounding the bible and NT that does not exist for other religions many of which also claim the miraculous.
So i see where you're going with this, but i don't believe your argument is persuasive when we understand the treatment of all religions by the secular historians that we have...
Question, out of all secular historians who wrote in their time, do any of them render first hand accounts of religions that existed in their times?
I think knowing that would make a more compelling argument IF it was the case that religions were often spelled out by secular historians.
Sconnor,
You said:~Considering Ehrman~
I know, I know REAL biblical scholarship rattles your cage.
NOW THAT'S funny! I told you, you were a HOOT!...
You said:"I contend there is some sort of ultimate reality but essentially god is unknowable. So I can't hate what's unknowable."
So what is it that hides himself/herself from you? is that a god or is that someone who doens't want to be found under any circumstance?
What you describe is more or less an impersonal force and if so (based upon his cations) cannot or will not love help or care about you in any sense. This is almost as hopeless as atheism, in fact I would say more hopeless because your god hides and doesn't even attempt or make an effort for you to know him at all...
Then you said:IF there is a god -- IT would have to transcend all thought; IT would have to be something that we can't even begin to imagine, let alone giving IT inept human attributes.
If god is really God then it would be nothing for him to communicate to his creation. I believe he has done so and provided a host of evidences to that effect. Man has been given some of God's attributes, what man has displayed is that many of those attributes he cannot use properly especially without the source from whence those attributes proceed.
I would take the position that although god certainl can and will find you (anyone) because we've NEVER been out of his sight, it is yet encumbent upon humans to walk in the lihht they receive. I don't believe in the philosophy that one can simply sit down, close themselves up and say, "God now reveal yourself to me if you're real." If the heaven's declare his glory, then all one would have to do is open their eyes (naturally and spiritually) to find what they seek. But the key word is OPEN.
Sconnor,
You said:So good we agree there was something before the big bang. remember you said: That would be good IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE EVIDENCE that the universe had a beginning...So you are catching on -- there was something (elementary matter) before the big bang"
No sconnor, there was no "elementary matter" BEFORE the big bang. There was ONLY God himself. I pointed this out on another page and noone ever responded but go here: http://www.ankerberg.com/TV/ankjasrm.html
and check out the vids Scientific evidence proves God Created The Universe Parts 1-4. Dr. ross presents a 9 dimensional space theory which is a current research on beginnings. You'll see in greater detail why there could have been no 'elementary matter' before the big bang.
You said:Again, using your argument -- what caused your complex god?
Once again God is uncaused. 1st he is without time or not bound by time. Therefore he is not constrained to the elements of time which measures change. If there is no change in him he is without what we call a beginning. That's the scriptural description of him from the OT to NT. 2- God is uncaused meaning that he is a necessary, eternal and infinite being. 3-Spirit has no extension or physical dimension in time and space.
You said regarding me asking you about Bishop C. H. Mason:Why? -- did he perform miracles
YES he did and many live today to confirm such. No he didn't rise from the dead but he was highly used of the Lord during his life...so why haven't you heard of him and he effects over 8 million people in his former organization and over 100 million world wide?
In all this has been a good convo with you Sconnor and that's a good change of pace from our history.
"The Problem of Evil: What Can God Do?"
Exodus 12:29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.
Facts are that all of Egypt deserved to die for rampant immorality, rape and other atrocities not to mention the worship of false gods.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett
The very fact you can condone this behavior without any form of prejudice, without reservation only means you would defend the bible instead of reason. Do you think, Do you personally think, its justifiable for God to kill the first born of Egyptians for the reasons you have stated?
Worship of false Gods? God knows that God is the only God. It doesn’t take one to figure out the Egyptians are worshiping God in their culture, how can God miss that? The very ability for the Egyptians to have their religion in the 3000+ years of their existence had to have some sort of contact by God, if one believes that God exists at all. The Egyptians must have some feedback from God towards their religion. The Egyptians also practice morality.
Can you prove the Egyptian moral system (or legal system) is worse than the Israeli morals system?
The Coming Into Day (book of the dead)
Chapter 125
The Judgment of the Dead
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM
Read this, the Egyptians had no morality at all?
I have committed no evil upon men.
I have not oppressed the members of my family.
I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.
I have had no knowledge of useless men.
I have brought about no evil.
I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
I have not brought my name forward to be praised.
I have not oppressed servants.
I have not scorned any god.
I have not defrauded the poor of their property.
I have not done what the gods abominate.
I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
I have not caused pain.
I have caused no man to hunger.
I have made no one weep.
I have not killed.
I have not given the order to kill.
I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples.
I have not fornicated.
I have not polluted myself.
Does this sound like the Egyptians that are portrayed in the bible?
deserved to die you sit in your chair in your comfortable environmentally controlled environment with ample source of food, safety and health and say deserved to die. A child deserves to die, a mother deserves to die, a dog, a baby, and a first born of anything deserves to die. Freaking Ugh! This is what you think the Christian God represents.
You claim the reason I have my knowledge of right and wrong comes the Christian God. Not from experience, not from society, not from culture, not from family, not from friends, but from the Christian God of the bible. The very fact I can say, the Egyptians first born didn’t deserve to die is the complete rejection of the Christian faith. No one “deserves to die” and we don’t need the Christian God help in these matters either.
Thank you for your time.
Jonathan.
Jonathan,
You are full of yourself and a double standard and illusionary justice. You PRETEND that the atrocities suffered not only by Israel but surounding nations at the hand of the Egyptians was somehow "morally less" impacting than the atrocities they show.
What you reprinted is the epitome of arrogance saying that they have committed NO atrocities, that's not even the bible dictum when it comes to men. Ps. 51 and david, a man after god's own heart, admitted and thought of himself as the most wicked and vile.
You render saying of people who THOUGHT they were gods...they rendered deeds upon non egyptians cruely. tHE RAPED, ROBBED, STOLE, CASTRATED, and MURDERED without apology, rhyme or reason for over 400 years...400 years...and yet you think in your vain heart that somehow they deserved a pass on God's justice??? You're living in la-la land my friend, fantasy island to say the least!
The false religion was ony symptomatic of their defiled heart. YES they deserved to die...yes SINNERS deserve death from a holy God who has pleaded with them for generations but they CHOSE death by refusing to obey after 9 signigficant and solid requests that took not just days, but probably months to complete...
THYE were responsible for their death's and the death of the firstborn. There was NO QUALIFICATION for who would be saved by applying the blood of the passover...that was GRACE that they took for granted and spit at and it cost them...So I don't care what your warped sense of morality says...the holiness and justice of God is a part of his nature that will not be merely skirted by even by screamin' and kickin' atheists...
In addition, before you want to tout too much information that the Egyptians say about their history, you'll have to petetion teh government to release most of it as their is a law against disclosure of certain historical information in egypt. i wonder why?
"You render saying of people who THOUGHT they were gods...they rendered deeds upon non egyptians cruely. tHE RAPED, ROBBED, STOLE, CASTRATED, and MURDERED without apology, rhyme or reason for over 400 years...400 years...and yet you think in your vain heart that somehow they deserved a pass on God's justice??? You're living in la-la land my friend, fantasy island to say the least!"
According to many modern biblical scholars, the Exodus, at least in the manner described in the bible, never occurred. There is simply no evidence of 2,000,000 people either being in the dessert or arriving as a mass influx in canaan. Furthermore, for the period that they supposedly arrived in canaan, their number would have well exceeded the entire population of palestine at that time.
Also, one of the things that I do not miss about my former christian background, I went to a fundamentalist church for 50 years. Much of that time I heard one conspiracy theory after another to explain one paranoia after another. As a child I was told stories for the express purpose of scaring the hell out of children. The differences between christianity and other more barbaric religions is a matter of degree, not kind. If you want to know what I think is evil, making a child go through a "hell house" put on by the local church to scare him into believing, that's evil.
You are full of yourself and a double standard and illusionary justice.
It is completely laughable that a Christian would be supportive of a Jew. The Christian only supports a Jew to convert to and expedite the 2nd coming. You also seem to forget Christians have been the main persecutors of Jews for the last 1700 years more so than Muslims.
The bible is not a history book of the Hebrews, Egyptians, Romans, and who else is named. So “if” Exodus had occurred it had been seriously modified by its original authors.
They wanted to be like Gods. It is no secret the Egyptian monarchy thought themselves as Gods, so did every early civilization. Your claim is all Egyptians thought themselves as Gods, which is a complete fabrication. Wikipedia “Devine right of kings’ Christians themselves believe their monarchs had some divine right to rule promoted by both the Protestants and Catholics.
400 years? Your biblical God waited for 400 years till the Egyptians got around to releasing the Hebrews from Slavery. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? God is all-knowing, God wouldn’t wait 400 years but free them on day one. So you’re “pleading: Egyptian cruelty falls flat on its face.
Sinners deserve death I guess we can define a Sinner by your narrow concepts, what ever they might be. When Christians start claiming God has to the right to kill, and Christians believe they follow the word of God, it gets a little spooky here, no? I am quite relieved that I live in a secular society and not dictatorial theocracy that I see you wishing to put into place.
Christian Reconstructionism anyone?
Petition the Egyptian Government? Disclosure of certain information? Okay, sure.
Harvey wrote: I pointed this out on another page and noone ever responded but go here: http://www.ankerberg.com/TV/ankjasrm.html
and check out the vids Scientific evidence proves God Created The Universe Parts 1-4.
I started watching this series, but stopped as soon as the narrator displayed a quote from one of Steven Hawkins' book clearly out of context. The quote was…
It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us
Hawkins goes on to show to explain how the inflationary model is one way to solve this difficult problem.
Given this clear tactic of misrepresentation, right from the start, why should I trust anything the rest of the video has to say?
Scott,
Hawkins, Gould and Dawkins have all said and made statements like that following it up immediately with their conclusions and reasons why they don't believe in ID or God, so when I hear those type of things I always consider those things to be their observations but the fact is they haven't changed their worldview, but I understand about the "misrepresentation" bit.
Dawkins said that microbiological science is the study of things that appear to have been designed. If you stop there you would think he afirms design, but he doesn't and in the next scentence goes on to explain why he doesn't believe and so forth...
So I agree, a good argument doesn't need to be shaded, it can either stand or fall on it's own.
In actuality, I think that's why it would be good to have a more critical review of that material. Just like you observed that, there may be something else along those lines that could be brought out to place a better perspective on what's being said.
So believe me, I ain't mad atchya!
Post a Comment