One Ad Hoc Built On Top Of Another, Greg Koukl On People Who Have Never Heard the Gospel
This video was posted on Facebook by Cameron Bertuzzi who interviewed apologist Greg Koukl. It was on how their god could send people to hell who never heard the gospel. How could a good god do that? It's instructive of the ways on an apologist. You should watch it. There are plenty of things to learn, most notably how to obfuscate, or hide the truth.
Yes, yes, yes, there is so much to say, and not enough time. Regardless, here are several of my comments put into one response below (along with a link):
According to theology we will be punished because of our sins. But the supposed remedy is not offered equally to the human race. Think how long the gospel took to reach China and India. To believe that not one person in those areas for more than a millennia would've been saved, defies all sense of credibility. It smells just like all other apologetical obfuscationism, the goal of which is to hide the truth of the matter. God is unjust.
Whether there is such a god is the question. Using god to obliterate the near certainty that there would be one person in the billions and billions of people who never had a chance to hear and respond to salvation is arguing post hoc.
We're talking in terms of probabilities. If there is a god who so orchestrates human life on this planet then it entails a lot of metaphysical machinery, including, I think, the wholesale denial of free will. If god can do this it raises the issue of why he couldn't do this with everyone, such that he orchestrates human life so that no one refuses salvation. The powers that you might allow this deity in the one scenario also entails him doing it in this alternative scenario, which shines the light on how it is an ad hoc hypothesis called upon to defend the indefensible.
One of the criticisms of Molinism is that it doesn't do the work it's supposed to do. If god can so control human lives such that he can control them, then, well, he controls them. He can get us all to do what he wants. At that point we don't have anything one might call free will in any relevant or significant sense. So the Molinist just uses different nomenclature to describe the same phenomena. Determinism is determinism no matter the name, if the result is the same.
The whole artifice is contrived and ad hoc when it comes to the specific case of sequestering billions upon billions of people who never would have embraced the gospel even if they heard it. We're speaking of that specific overly complicated case. Now you introduce another ad hoc idea to further dispute the previous claim of mine that it practically eliminates free will, by saying such a god cannot control people just by manipulating our circumstances. Upon what basis do you assert such a bold thing when you've already granted a god can do what the previous ad hoc hypothesis asserts?
I'm almost as sure as sure can be, that if a god can do the one, he can do the other. Gestapo guards can make anyone say and do anything, even kill others. Therefore such a god can make us say and do even more than they.
I've said what needs to be argued in greater depth if I had the time. I've made a good number of arguments here. Keep in mind that an argument doesn't need to be convincing in order for it to be a good one
LINK.
Yes, yes, yes, there is so much to say, and not enough time. Regardless, here are several of my comments put into one response below (along with a link):
According to theology we will be punished because of our sins. But the supposed remedy is not offered equally to the human race. Think how long the gospel took to reach China and India. To believe that not one person in those areas for more than a millennia would've been saved, defies all sense of credibility. It smells just like all other apologetical obfuscationism, the goal of which is to hide the truth of the matter. God is unjust.
Whether there is such a god is the question. Using god to obliterate the near certainty that there would be one person in the billions and billions of people who never had a chance to hear and respond to salvation is arguing post hoc.
We're talking in terms of probabilities. If there is a god who so orchestrates human life on this planet then it entails a lot of metaphysical machinery, including, I think, the wholesale denial of free will. If god can do this it raises the issue of why he couldn't do this with everyone, such that he orchestrates human life so that no one refuses salvation. The powers that you might allow this deity in the one scenario also entails him doing it in this alternative scenario, which shines the light on how it is an ad hoc hypothesis called upon to defend the indefensible.
One of the criticisms of Molinism is that it doesn't do the work it's supposed to do. If god can so control human lives such that he can control them, then, well, he controls them. He can get us all to do what he wants. At that point we don't have anything one might call free will in any relevant or significant sense. So the Molinist just uses different nomenclature to describe the same phenomena. Determinism is determinism no matter the name, if the result is the same.
The whole artifice is contrived and ad hoc when it comes to the specific case of sequestering billions upon billions of people who never would have embraced the gospel even if they heard it. We're speaking of that specific overly complicated case. Now you introduce another ad hoc idea to further dispute the previous claim of mine that it practically eliminates free will, by saying such a god cannot control people just by manipulating our circumstances. Upon what basis do you assert such a bold thing when you've already granted a god can do what the previous ad hoc hypothesis asserts?
I'm almost as sure as sure can be, that if a god can do the one, he can do the other. Gestapo guards can make anyone say and do anything, even kill others. Therefore such a god can make us say and do even more than they.
I've said what needs to be argued in greater depth if I had the time. I've made a good number of arguments here. Keep in mind that an argument doesn't need to be convincing in order for it to be a good one
LINK.
0 comments:
Post a Comment