Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eric Metaxas on the unlikelihood of our existence

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yes, that Eric Metaxas:

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Further to: Anything to get rid of fine tuning:

“Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.” Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56

See also:Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments
StephenB, The wiki article about the 3rd century theologian Origen Adamantius is very interesting wrt Christianity and reincarnation. Releated to the subject is his belief in the pre-existence of souls. This section of the article deals specifically with Origin's view on the "transmigration of souls".Box
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Box @ 540: Many years ago I asked a professor, who specialized in eastern religion, a simple question, wrt to Nirvana, “what’s in it for me?”. He was unable to answer my question.
I would answered, "bliss." He probably should have known that answer. :) At any rate, I don't buy into the destruction of individuals either. I believe individuals are part of the core ontology of reality. All points of consciousness are facets of one diamond, if you will.mike1962
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
keiths:
Phin: My answer is that the questions are fundamentally flawed. Any concept of a God who is worthy of the label, by definition, transcends human experience and understanding to the point that it is utter nonsense to suppose that a human is capable of even beginning to evaluate God’s reasons, motives, or methods.
keiths: In that case you have no basis for making any assertions about God. Yet here you are, claiming that God is perfectly loving and all-powerful.
I do have a basis for making assertions about God: It is called Revelation. Though I am not qualified to evaluate God's reasons, motives, or methods, I am equipped (as are you) to listen to Him. God has revealed Himself in His creation, in His Son, and through His Spirit and Word. Listening to God is an act of humility. Attempting to evaluate Him is an act of pride. I only claim about God what He claims about Himself, and I only know what He claims about Himself by humbling myself to listen to Him.
keiths: 3. Why do you continue to believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God when there are much better explanations available?
Phin: But perhaps I missed where you provided better explanations for the origin of these? - Matter - Physics - Time . . .
keiths: We’ve been over this already. Even if you assume that those require a God as an explanation, they don’t require a perfectly loving, all-powerful God.
Yes, we have been over this. And you've never explained how creating something from nothing is within the reach of a cause that is somehow less than omnipotent. If creating the universe out of nothing doesn't point to an all-powerful God, please tell me what would? As before, you've elided my list to leave out the parts that would point to an all-loving God. (That may be convenient to your argument, but anyone paying attention will note the repeated attempts to dodge this evidence and recognize that these are not the tactics of someone who feels their position is the stronger one.) The story of Jesus and His sacrifice as recorded by eyewitness accounts is chief among these. But even if you are not willing to accept what has been said of Jesus and God or what has been demonstrated of His love through His own life and death or through His intervention in the lives of others, how do you convince yourself that something can come of nothing without an omnipotent (or close enough to be indistinguishable from omnipotent) act of will? You keep claiming there are better explanations, but why aren't you presenting those better explanations regarding the list I have provided? Be honest. You don't like thinking about that list. You don't like being presented with that kind of evidence. You don't like being reminded that you have no better explanation for these things. Rejecting God out-of-hand leaves you with no explanation at all. None. But to admit this would be to admit that you may not be as intellectually fulfilled as you want others to think you are. Real intellectual and spiritual fulfillment are only a humble step away. There's nothing but pride keeping you from taking that step.Phinehas
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
F/N: before we forget it, let us remind ourselves from Alinsky's notorious rules for radicals, to understand another facet of what is going on in the kulturkampf:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
Remember that next time you see ridicule, mockery, strawman twisting to facilitate same, and ad hominems coming from those who refuse to address foundational issues in fundamental terms. KFkairosfocus
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
5th, busy here but spotted your comment. I'd also say that the idea of God knowing ahead of time is flawed, it is relative to us. On the premise that he is every-where and every-when, his knowledge is direct, as opposed to causally deterministic, ahead of time, Laplace demon type knowledge . . . we are really free and responsible. There are of course onward deep things on that too; I have been pointing out that the matters in hand have many fundamental issues involved that need to be addressed seriously on that level. Of course those who refuse to do so show that they suspect such a level would not serve their purpose. Revealing, by implication. KFkairosfocus
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
KeithS said, He knew what every person would do before he created him or her. He created them anyway. He is responsible. I say, Your parents knew before you were born that you would do things that were wrong at times. They had the power through birth control or abortion to prevent you from ever doing anything wrong whatsoever. Are they responsible for the wrong you have done in your life? If not why not? They had the knowledge and the means to prevent at least some evil from entering the world. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
An omniscient God knows how you would respond in any situation without having to test you.
Think keith- that is only your opinion.
If God is omniscient, he knew they would sin before he created them.
And that is also only your opinion. An omniscient God would know ALL possible outcomes and leave it up to the person to make the choice. THAT is the test, duh.Joe
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Box @ 540
Many years ago I asked a professor, who specialized in eastern religion, a simple question, wrt to Nirvana, “what’s in it for me?”. He was unable to answer my question.
You haven't read Dean Radin's research papers and books like Supernatural about Yoga Sidha and other exotic stuffs? bornagain77, can you please help him with rigorous scientific papers of Radin ? :-)Me_Think
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
Mike1962, You are correct of course. My broad sweeping statement refers to Hinduism, Buddhism and all eastern religions which share a concept similar to nirvana.
In the Buddhist context nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished.[2] In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with the divine ground of existence Brahman (Supreme Being) and the experience of blissful egolessness.
This wiki quote don't quite grasp the extremity of the concept of Nirvana. In short, I agree with StephenB that these 'drop in the ocean' concepts are equal to the destruction of individuality. Many years ago I asked a professor, who specialized in eastern religion, a simple question, wrt to Nirvana, "what's in it for me?". He was unable to answer my question. Christianity, I believe, is unique in its emphasis on freedom and (enormous) responsibility of the individual.Box
December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
Box: I strongly detest the attacks on personhood and consciousness by ... eastern religion.
Can you unpack that for me? "Eastern religion" is a fairly wide highway. Just curious.mike1962
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
StephenB: On the first question, I don’t believe that we existed in a past life, and even if we did, I don’t think we could learn from the experience unless we could remember it. Since most advocates for reincarnation seem to hold that we don’t remember such events, I find it implausible that anything could be learned from it. There would have to be some continuity of memory or a way in which we could recall our moral successes and failures, who we hurt or helped, and why?
I believe that our present condition is comparable with amnesia. The idea is that in between lives – in the hereafter - memory is restored and integrated in order to learn.
StephenB: This brings us to the question of how we obtain virtue. Advocates of reincarnation seem to argue that we grow in goodness through the experience (sometimes actively, sometimes passively) of many lifetimes and primarily through the power of intelligence.
I hold – like you - that all aspects of a person should be involved.
StephenB: However, our individual identities are real: We do not lose our identity by being a “part” of some larger or more comprehensive kind of being.
This is an important reason why I feel connected to Christianity. I strongly detest the attacks on personhood and consciousness by materialism and eastern religion.
StephenB: Reincarnation, however, seems to indicate a final resolution by which individuals merge into “being,” as if they were a mere part of something more real than themselves or having more substance than they do. To me, this kind of destiny destroys individuality and the inherent dignity of the human person. We can’t love God if we “are” God or a “part” of God. There must be a distinct “you” and a distinct “me” for love to bloom.
I couldn’t agree more. Those merging ideas are sickening.
StephenB: Finally, we come to perhaps the most controversial subject of all, namely suffering. While I understand much of the logic that supports reincarnation, there is one aspect of this world view that troubles me greatly. It is the idea that people who are born in great poverty, distress, or suffering deserved their fate because of something they did in a past life. Frankly, I think this is a very cruel teaching. We may well blame someone who has brought on his own suffering by refusing to live his life according to the natural moral law—but we cannot reasonably hold him accountable for something he likely didn’t do at some other unlikely time or place, especially if he can’t even remember doing it. Worse still, is the idea that evil and suffering are an illusion. It just doesn’t offer any comfort for those who are truly in agony.
I fully agree. This does not represent my idea of reincarnation. Reincarnation should be a tool to provide diverse experiences for humans to help them traverse the trajectory from ignorance towards wisdom. In my book someone is born in great poverty because that is an experience that will help his/her development – maybe in a former (or future) life things were opposite (great wealth). Obviously experiencing two opposites (may) lead to wisdom.
StephenB: Granted, this abbreviated response cannot possibly do justice either to the subject of reincarnation or Christianity. Still, those are my thoughts for the moment.
Thank you very much Stephen, I have learned a lot about Christianity.Box
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
According to Keith's view of God and the universe, humans and animals should only have pleasure sensors. Pain sensors are not needed in this moronic world view. Since we have pain sensors, God does not exist or he is either stupid, evil and weak. Or something. Keith, you think too highly of yourself and your personal wisdom and understanding of reality. Just relax and smoke some weed or something.Mapou
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Keiths
It’s a cruel teaching indeed, much like the silly Christian teaching that everyone deserves eternal punishment simply for being born with “original sin”, inherited from Adam and Eve.
Why is the teaching of original sin silly?StephenB
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
StephenB,
While I understand much of the logic that supports reincarnation, there is one aspect of this world view that troubles me greatly. It is the idea that people who are born in great poverty, distress, or suffering deserved their fate because of something they did in a past life. Frankly, I think this is a very cruel teaching.
It's a cruel teaching indeed, much like the silly Christian teaching that everyone deserves eternal punishment simply for being born with "original sin", inherited from Adam and Eve.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
keiths:
What is wrong with an honest search for the truth?
Priceless.Mung
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
drc466:
There’s a qualitative difference between forgiveness granted in the afterlife and lack of consequences for actions here on earth.
Says drc466. And you know this how?
God does not tell us everything that occurs after death, although the Bible indicates that the rewards we receive and cast at His feet are related to our actions in life, which may or may not have relevance to Justice served.
Why should anyone take the Bible's word for it? The Bible is notoriously unreliable and self-contradictory. Not surprising, when you consider how it was put together.
Re Robot Slaves: Your logic that God could create only those people who would never choose to sin is sophomoric... It can be condensed down into a single instance of “God should have created Adam as a person who would have chosen NOT to eat the apple”. Of course, if God by definition creates someone He knew WOULDN’T sin, He in effect makes that choice for them.
No, because in my scheme God chooses whom to create, but he allows them to choose their own actions freely. If you think that God is denying free will by creating some people and not others, then you are admitting that God is already denying free will to the zillions of people he never creates.
You are trying to equate foreknowledge with responsibility, but if you give God the responsibility for man’s choice, it then becomes NOT man’s choice.
You think joint responsibility is impossible?
Re Value of Faith: No evidence of God would equal “blindly believing” – Romans is very clear that Creation is sufficient evidence to those who will see.
Romans was written in a pre-scientific age. The Bible gets a lot of stuff wrong, and that is one of them.
“Who needs faith?” makes it clear that you’ve left your supposed “I’m just using what theists believe” position (see Strike 1 above), as the Bible is very clear on the value of Faith to God. You are again imposing YOUR views on God.
Remember, you were asking me what I would do if I were omnipotent and perfectly loving. I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of people believing stuff about me without evidence. It is you who are imposing your views on God by trying to saddle him with the Bible.
God didn’t “[wipe] out 220,000 people in a single tsunami” – nature, as a consequence of man’s sin, did.
I look forward to your scientific explanation of how man's sin causes plate tectonics, earthquakes, and tsunamis.
“Evidence” cannot come to a metaphysical conclusion, and logic is only sufficient where complete knowledge of all factors are available. Since, by definition, you cannot comprehend God, or His motivations, and have selected a limited # of factors to build in to your “logic” (just like the wind analogy), your conclusion cannot be logical, or “evidential”.
By that reasoning, you aren't entitled to claim that God is perfectly loving or all-powerful. You've shot yourself in the foot. Apologetics is clearly not your talent, drc466.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
keiths: The fact that evil is subjective doesn’t prevent us from condemning it. Not that anyone OUGHT TO condemn evil. Did you condemn the tsunami you keep going on about?Mung
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
I see the keiths daily hilarity show continues. keiths:
No, it doesn’t depend on my definition of evil at all. I am not a theist.
ok children. can you say non sequitur? keiths:
For the nth time, my argument doesn’t require an objective standard of evil.
What argument? keiths:
If you don’t like those questions, there are new ones every day.
Yes, we noticed. It's evidence you've been reduced to simple trolling.Mung
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
drc466:
Okay, so you are accepting the theists assertion that evil exists, but denying the theists’ assertion that the existence of said evil is man’s responsibility, consistent with God’s Nature, which is Holy and Just. Gee, cherry-picking beliefs, no wonder you think you win.
How is a tsunami man's responsibility? And even for those forms of evil that involve humans, your omniGod isn't off the hook. He knew what every person would do before he created him or her. He created them anyway. He is responsible.
You get the 4 possibilities correct (I suppose technically you could add a 5th, God is neither all-powerful or perfectly loving).
I specified that the possibilities were overlapping and exhaustive.
God is perfectly loving and all-powerful. Your problem lies in a) the unfounded assertion that “because evil exists, God can’t be #1?, and b) a faulty definition of “perfectly loving”.
I haven't said that "because evil exists, God can't be perfectly loving". What I'm saying is that the sheer amount of evil and suffering in the world makes it more likely that God isn't perfectly loving, or isn't all-powerful, or doesn't exist at all. Why ignore the evidence?
If God is all-powerful, then by definition the # of people who died at Auschwitz is the exact # of people who needed to die, and the # of people who died in the 2004 tsunami is the # who needed to die. If He isn’t, then the #’s could be “wrong”.
That's silly, unless you think that might makes right. Do you?
For your 40yrs of joy/suffering question – Of course there is a difference – in one case I get (some of) what I deserve, in the other I don’t. Neither negates or diminishes the Love, and the logic is only valid if you can show the God didn’t have a reason for which path you actually did follow.
I was correcting this mistake of yours:
5) It assumes that what comes after life has no potential to outweigh what occurred in life.
As my example showed, finite pain matters even if followed by an eternity of bliss.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Box, if you are still around, here is my perspective on reincarnation and Christianity Christians accept the principle of psychosomatic unity understood as a composite of body and soul. This means that the two are really one substance; they naturally belong together. Accordingly, we believe that the inevitable separation of body and soul at death is an unnatural event. That is why Christianity holds that the body and soul will be reunited someday. Thus, we reject that proposition that the body is imprisoned in the soul or that a soul can be attached to more than one body. This brings us to the subject under discussion, which is the question about whether we can learn from our past experiences (or lives) and move forward. In this context, it seems to me that we have two questions: How can we move forward, and toward what are we moving? On the first question, I don’t believe that we existed in a past life, and even if we did, I don’t think we could learn from the experience unless we could remember it. Since most advocates for reincarnation seem to hold that we don’t remember such events, I find it implausible that anything could be learned from it. There would have to be some continuity of memory or a way in which we could recall our moral successes and failures, who we hurt or helped, and why? For me, then, growth in virtue ends at the end of our one life. While I think our goal is sainthood, I don’t think most people make the grade in this life, even those who make a strenuous effort. That is why I accept the teaching of a temporary Purgatory in the after-life, a place or condition by which we can be cleansed of small faults and made perfect. However, this purgatory is not a “second chance” since only those who have been saved can enter there. Such a place or condition is necessary, I believe, become one must be perfect to stand in the presence of God. (Not all Christians believe in Purgatory). This brings us to the question of how we obtain virtue. Advocates of reincarnation seem to argue that we grow in goodness through the experience (sometimes actively, sometimes passively) of many lifetimes and primarily through the power of intelligence. Christians believe that virtue can be understood by the intellect, but that it exists primarily in the will, the faculty by which we make critical choices about what we are going to love. This requires moral education, moral training, and moral exertion. From a Christian perspective, a good person is someone who loves what he ought to love (the good) and hates what he ought to hate (evil). We believe that this issue gets settled in one lifetime. At the same time, Christians also believe that we cannot “save ourselves.” Without God’s atonement and grace, or independent of his merits, we can do nothing. While we are obliged to practice virtue insofar as we are able, and insofar as we are obliged to call on God to help us grow in virtue, we cannot in any way take credit for the final result (salvation) or even the moral progress that we achive, since our efforts alone will come to nothing. It is only when our efforts are united to and empowered by Christ that we can attain our goal. (Not all Christians believe that we can achieve merit or that our growth in virtue is connected to our salvation, though I do.) So, what exactly is our goal? For Christians, it is the destiny of the individual person to find happiness with God. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t belong to a heavenly family. Quite the contrary. We all connect in some way and we will continue to connect in the afterlife with God. We are, after all social animas. However, our individual identities are real: We do not lose our identity by being a “part” of some larger or more comprehensive kind of being. Reincarnation, however, seems to indicate a final resolution by which individuals merge into “being,” as if they were a mere part of something more real than themselves or having more substance than they do. To me, this kind of destiny destroys individuality and the inherent dignity of the human person. We can’t love God if we “are” God or a “part” of God. There must be a distinct “you” and a distinct “me” for love to bloom. Finally, we come to perhaps the most controversial subject of all, namely suffering. While I understand much of the logic that supports reincarnation, there is one aspect of this world view that troubles me greatly. It is the idea that people who are born in great poverty, distress, or suffering deserved their fate because of something they did in a past life. Frankly, I think this is a very cruel teaching. We may well blame someone who has brought on his own suffering by refusing to live his life according to the natural moral law—but we cannot reasonably hold him accountable for something he likely didn’t do at some other unlikely time or place, especially if he can’t even remember doing it. Worse still, is the idea that evil and suffering are an illusion. It just doesn’t offer any comfort for those who are truly in agony. Granted, this abbreviated response cannot possibly do justice either to the subject of reincarnation or Christianity. Still, those are my thoughts for the moment.StephenB
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
keiths: Under moral subjectivism, each person’s internal sense of morality is his or her final arbiter, not power.
If you don't have the power to enforce your personal morality what does it matter? I've been reading here, and some thoughts: where does this sense of objective, absolute morality come from in the first place? Either it is merely subjective, bequeathed to us by blind evolutionary forces, and thus, by corollary, not objective, and is merely another means for, what, survival? Or it does come from an objective source, something that is grounded in the uncreated, eternal ontology of The Whole of Reality, whatever that might be. If merely the first, I don't see how anyone can complain about anything on the basis of fairness when things don't go their way and expect anyone to give a rat's arse. There is no such thing as fairness since fairness requires an objective standard, which is what is under consideration. We are left with only subjective distaste, revulsion and repugnance, and finally silence after one is dead. And thus rape, murder and slavery are no more "evil" than lions eating gazelles. But it seems to me that something nags at the heart of everyone who is not a sociopath (those poor souls who simply don't "get it") that there really really really is good and evil. That rape and murder really are evil in a sense rooted in the ontology of base reality itself, whatever that is. This thing called morality is yet one more thing that makes humans different than the rest of the animals. Vastly superior intelligence (I've never seen a chimp build a skyscraper or send a rocket into space), music, art, language, and .... morality. We don't merely quarrel and fight like apes, we argue based on supposedly objective standards, or at least we try to. Which leads to... The weird thing about morality is this: we are able to consider at all that it may be objective and absolute. Were did that come from? This ability to think of something that might be grounded in the fundamental reality. You can call it an illusion, but an illusion of what? I'm not an orthodox Christian by any means, my views are closer to WJM's, but I do like what C.S. Lewis said. If there were no absolute "something" to this whole morality question, we wouldn't be considerating absolute morality in the first place. In a reality where there is no eyes, nobody would be arguing over "sight" and "blindness", for they would have no meaning. Yet, we (and least I can, and others claim to) sense that "absolute morality" has a meaning. If reality had no absolute morality, then the very concept of absolute morality would be meaningless. But it isn't. A mirage looks like water when it isn't, but we think it does because water actually exists somewhere. If in asserting an absolute morality exists, I am seeing a mirage, what is the mirage representing? What is the illusion of? Lewis considered this one of the clues to meaning in the universe. I think he was right.mike1962
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Phinehas:
God’s answer is still the same: Who are you to question me?
keiths:
I’m not questioning God. I’m questioning you. You believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God. How do you answer my two questions?
1. Why didn’t God warn us of the impending 2004 tsunami? 2. Why didn’t God intervene to prevent Jessica Chambers from being burned alive?
If your answer is “I don’t know” or “God works in mysterious ways”, then I have a third question for you: 3. Why do you continue to believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God when there are much better explanations available? The world makes so much more sense if a) God isn’t perfectly loving; or b) God isn’t all-powerful; or c) God doesn’t exist at all. Why ignore the evidence?
Phinehas:
Right. You don’t want to question God, you just expect me to. Got it.
No, I'm asking you to question your beliefs, to see if they hold up to scrutiny.
I am not qualified to evaluate the Evaluator. I am not qualified to judge the Judge.
Are you qualified to think and to make rational decisions about what to believe and what not to? The responsibility for your beliefs lies with you.
My answer is that the questions are fundamentally flawed. Any concept of a God who is worthy of the label, by definition, transcends human experience and understanding to the point that it is utter nonsense to suppose that a human is capable of even beginning to evaluate God’s reasons, motives, or methods.
In that case you have no basis for making any assertions about God. Yet here you are, claiming that God is perfectly loving and all-powerful. keiths:
3. Why do you continue to believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God when there are much better explanations available?
Phinehas:
But perhaps I missed where you provided better explanations for the origin of these? - Matter - Physics - Time   .   .   .
We've been over this already. Even if you assume that those require a God as an explanation, they don't require a perfectly loving, all-powerful God.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Joe:
Sinners are self-created. Sinners made the choice to sin.
If God is omniscient, he knew they would sin before he created them. He did it anyway. He is responsible.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Joe:
How could we be properly judged unless we were duly tried? How could we show we belong in Heaven if we never had to do anything that demonstrated we deserved it?
Think, Joe. An omniscient God knows how you would respond in any situation without having to test you. That's one of the things that makes the story of Abraham and Isaac so goofy. Why did Yahweh need to test Abraham in the first place?keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
William responds to my bicycle example:
No, but there must be non-bicycle something around, and non-round something around, and non-wheel something around in order for those characteristics to be available to even imagine.
You're not thinking, William. The fact that God can conceive of evil does not oblige him to create evil. And even if it were somehow weirdly necessary for evil to exist as a contrast to good, why not just a tiny amount? A loving God would minimize the evil in the world. Do you think our world contains the minimum amount of evil necessary? If so, on what basis do you make that assertion? I think we should go with the explanation that makes the most sense. We should pay attention to the evidence instead of ignoring it. If God exists, we should try to learn about him as he actually is, rather than trying to shoehorn him into our preconceptions. And if he doesn't exist, we should accept that. What is wrong with an honest search for the truth?keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
WJM, to Jerad:
If morality is a subjective commodity, so what if God allows what you or keith subjectively consider to be “evil”? “What is moral”, under subjectivism, is arbited by those with the power (one way or another) to make it so,
No, it isn't. We've been over this many times, William. Under moral subjectivism, each person's internal sense of morality is his or her final arbiter, not power. The fact that a bully can make you give up your lunch money doesn't make it moral. The fact that Kim Jong-Un can force a North Korean to do X doesn't make X moral. Also, your morality is as subjective as mine. It's just that you claim, with no evidence, that your subjective morality reflects an underlying objective morality.
But, as KF is attempting to point out to you, your (and Keith’s) argument depends upon the rhetorical, emotionally manipulative use of examples that you employ as if they are universal, objective evils that even God is bound to prevent if possible.
For the nth time, my argument doesn't require an objective standard of evil. The problem of evil is a problem for anyone who: 1) believes in an omniGod; 2) believes that God is good according to some standard of good and evil; and 3) believes that the world is full of evil by that same standard. If you believe those things, then the problem of evil is a real problem for you.
You cannot have it both ways; if you hold morality is subjective, then you have no valid logical complaint against god for what we see in the world.
You're not getting it. My argument is not a complaint. I am simply pointing out that the omniGod hypothesis is a poor fit to the evidence. Given the amount of evil and suffering in the world, it doesn't make sense to conclude that God is perfectly loving and all-powerful. It's a simple matter of rationality: when choosing among competing hypotheses, it makes sense to prefer the ones that fit the evidence better. Isn't this obvious?
I submit that just because you and Keith might imagine that God can create an existence where evil things do not happen doesn’t mean that it is actually possible for God to do so.
Exactly! That's why it's more rational to propose that God isn't omnipotent, or that he isn't perfectly loving, or that he doesn't exist.
Fundamentally, it is simply not logically possible to generate an identifiable X into existence without an identifiable “not-X” also existent as a contextual grounding for the existence of X.
This is false, as I already explained:
That’s as silly as saying that “1+1=2? cannot be true unless somewhere else “1+1? doesn’t equal “2?. Or that God couldn’t create giraffes with long necks unless giraffes didn’t have long necks at some other time and place.
And:
Even if that were correct (and it isn’t), it wouldn’t mean that God would have to create a world in which “not-A” is true. To create a bicycle with round wheels it isn’t necessary to create one whose wheels aren’t round.
WJM:
It’s an easy target (I’m talking about the superficial kind of Christianity many grew up with at local Sunday Schools). I attacked it relentlessly for many years. I realized I was largely tilting at windmills for my own sense of personal heroism, my own self-aggrandizing narrative.
That appears to be the approach you have taken to all of your beliefs, theistic as well as atheistic. My approach is simple and rational: Given the evidence, what thesis is more likely? When you consider the evidence, the omniGod thesis looks ridiculous. It's clear that people cling to it for emotional, not rational, reasons.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
keiths:
KF, If you don’t like those questions, there are new ones every day. Today’s versions: God allowed those children in Peshawar to be gunned down at school because ________. God allowed those teachers to be burned alive because ______. Fill in the blanks. And if you can’t, or won’t, then summon the minimal integrity required to acknowledge it.
fifthmonarchyman:
Different questions same answer. Luke 13:1-9. You might not like the answer but please don’t pretend one has not been given.
Luke 13 doesn't answer the questions.keith s
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
F/N: neither evil nor sin are creations, they are perversions of what was created, abusing the ability that gives rise to the very highest virtues and capabilities: freedom to love, think, reason, and decide. Without freedom, none of these is possible and we would be in a very different and much inferior world. KF PS: Heaven would be a world in which those who have made the choice towards the light of right and truth receive the results of their choices.kairosfocus
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Sinners are self-created. Sinners made the choice to sin.Joe
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Actually the question is childish and boring. We don’t live in a perfect world and I wouldn’t want to.
Is heaven a perfect world?
Heaven isn't a world and our physical bodies do not live there. How could we be properly judged unless we were duly tried? How could we show we belong in Heaven if we never had to do anything that demonstrated we deserved it?
Do you think it’s fair/moral/acceptable to judge children based on how they respond when a gunman shoots their friends and starts their teacher on fire?
That shouldn't be the only test and the test would be to see how they respond over the years. The test is also to see how others respond too. The parents and relatives, for example.
What about the children who are locked into closets, sold into slavery, beaten, sexually abused. Are they being tested to see if they’re worthy?
Ask God. I say all those children are now in Heaven
Do you think some of them would be emotionally traumatised after what they went through even if they are in heaven?
No
Do you think all that pain and fear and suffering just disappears after you die?
Yes
And, what if they’re not all in heaven? Where are the unbaptised ones? The Hindu ones? The Muslim ones? The Zoroastrian ones? The Sikh ones? The Buddhist ones? The Jain ones? The Shintu ones? Children all over the world are killed every day by acts of evil perpetrated by adults.
They are in Heaven. That is unless there is something keeping them out.
And what about the survivors? The ones who witnessed their companions and teachers being brutally murdered? If your daughter had been at that school would you think it was a test of her worthiness?
Your emotional pleas just expose your desperation.Joe
December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
1 2 3 19

Leave a Reply