Eric Metaxas on the unlikelihood of our existence

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 9, 2014

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

keiths: As a Christian, how would you answer my two questions? 1. Pearls 2. Swine Now, why do you think I OUGHT to answer any of your questions and why do you think I OUGHT to defend my faith to you? Why do you say that I OUGHT to "stand and deliver" and OUGHT NOT "avoid the questions"? For someone who claims to not need to ground his OUGHT in anything but his own moral subjectivity you sure act like the rest of us OUGHT to be bound by your own personal subjective likes and dislikes. Why?Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

So keiths still hasn't figured out that intelligent design theory does not preclude the existence of evil designers?Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Keiths
Your knowledge of tsunamis is little better than that of StephenB, who thought they were some kind of weather phenomenon.
Keith, the liar cannot help himself. I said that weather forecasters are involved in the warning process.StephenB_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

keiths:
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?
God's answer is still the same: Who are you to question me? The moment you put yourself in a position to evaluate God and His choices, you've already seriously misunderstood who He is and who you are. You've already displayed a shocking lack of humility. You've already completely underestimated His power and knowledge. You've already vastly overestimated your ability to comprehend. You've already tried to take on the role of God, and you simply are not even close to being qualified. You are not qualified to evaluate the Evaluator. You are not qualified to judge the Judge. If you think otherwise, He has a few questions He'd like to ask you first. You can find them in Job 38-41. Good luck. You may not like this answer, but there it is.Phinehas_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

The fifth monarchy meister:
Mapou said God can only create the physical, not the spiritual. and I challenge the resident fundamentalists or anybody else to show scriptural support where God claimed to have created anybody’s spirit/soul The Bible says. quote: For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1:17) the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise. (Isa 43:21) Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD: (Psa 102:18) The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Pro 16:4) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:36) yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Co 8:6) You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit. (Job 10:12) But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand. (Job 32:8) Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Psa 51:10) and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecc 12:7) And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. (Eze 11:19a) The oracle of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: (Zec 12:1) etc etc etc end quote You can if you like choose to ignore these and the many more like them or twist their meaning to suit your own desires but please don’t claim to hold the “True” biblical position. peace
First off, there is no peace between you and me. I don't like you and your kind. Second, I'm not the one doing the twisting, you are. Third, most of the verses you list above do not even mention spirit or soul. Fourth, you are accusing God of creating evil spirits. You're lucky God is merciful, otherwise he would zap you silly arse out of existence wherever you are. :-D Now, let's take a look at some of the verses you quoted, the ones that mention the word spirit and that appear to support your claim that God created our spirits.
The oracle of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: (Zec 12:1)
According to Scholar's Gateway, the Hebrew word '???????' which is translated as 'formed' also means 'to bind', 'to frame' or 'to be distressed'. The same word is used in Genesis. I know which translation I choose but feel free to claim that it means 'created'. That is the beauty of free will.
and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecc 12:7)
What spirit is this verse talking about? Is it the spirit of God or the spirit of man? The same Hebrew word 'ruch' can be used for both, you know. It is the same 'ruch' that David used when he wrote "Do not let thy spirit depart from me."
But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand. (Job 32:8)
Using Scholar's Gateway and Young's literal translation we get a completely different meaning:
Surely a spirit is in man, And the breath of the Mighty One Doth cause them to understand.
I could go on and on but I suspect I'm preaching in the wilderness. In conclusion, I do not call upon God to bestow his peace upon you but to confound you because you are a false teacher, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Adios.Mapou_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Box, that would require omniscience or near omniscience, where (just to illustrate) infinity - a finite number --> infinity, i.e. there is a qualitative difference between the finite and the infinite. But what is feasible is to create a creature that can [potentially] access the result of that infinite wisdom. That's you and me.
Prov 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. 7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.
KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Box #406: What is the Christian position on this? If God would have created beings equal to Himself, then there would be no problems like “sin”, “the fall”, “Hell” and so forth. So why didn’t He choose that option – if that option was indeed available? Why create beings who are clearly inferior to Himself?

KF #420: God is a necessary and eternal being. A creature is necessarily contingent. It is impossible to create a necessary being (...)
Makes perfect sense. IOW God cannot create a being that necessarily exists, because such a being cannot not exist. Allow me to rephrase my question: Can God endow a creature with wisdom and moral insight equal (or near equal) to His own?Box_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

F/N: I trust it should be clear as to why I insist that a world-foundation issue has to be addressed on foundational concerns, using key aspects of comparative difficulties analysis. If you don't try here on and noting the tip sheet at the end of the article from an intro to phil course. Without that foundational answer, the debates thereafter will be hopelessly confused. Those who duck and dodge dealing with the foundations first are in the position of trying to build a house without foundations on sand next to a flood-prone river. KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Box, pardon, you caught my eye. God is a necessary and eternal being. A creature is necessarily contingent. It is impossible to create a necessary being -- as long as there is not utter non-being, i.e. in any possible world, a necessary being will exist (e.g. it is impossible to have a world in which 1 + 1 = 2 fails, etc); where if ever there was an utter non-being, there would thereafter never be anything as non-being has no causal powers. Think a chalk board with a big empty circle, then erase circle, board, and space in which it exists, to non-being. This may seem strange at first, but that is because of the defects of our education and general level of awareness in our day. I again point here on, for a 101. And so obviously, God cannot create a creature equal to himself, that is a contradiction in terms. KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

PS: The omnipotence of God patently does not extend to the logically incoherent or impossible, or to an absurdity out of balance with other facets of God's character, such as absolute goodness and wisdom. In short, strawman tactic rhetoric meant to twist the concept of omnipotence into a seeming absurdity fails. That God is supremely able does not mean that in that ability he acts in a foolish or evil manner, just the opposite, he acts for the good with utter wisdom. Anything that would tax God with folly or evil, on its face, is fallacious. I again point us to Tom Morris on Our Idea of God, for a useful 101 for those interested in serious insight not making silly talking points: http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Thomas_V._Morris_Our_Idea_of_God_An_IntroductioBookFi.org_.pdfkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Re KS, 329:
I am arguing from the theist’s assumption of omnipotence, whatever the theist means by that. Again, the question is whether each individual theist’s conception of God is coherent and supported by the evidence. I am not a theist, so the problem of evil does not affect me.
Elsewhere he indicates that he is a subjectivist on morals, which is of course consistent with the evolutionary materialism or fellow traveller views he espouses. The view cannot bear scrutiny. As as been pointed out from 125 on, the immediate problem is that the problem of evil is one facet of a broader problem, evil and good, in turn an expression of the issue that morality is a fundamental binding principle in the world. So if an atheist or the like holds that evil is real and objectionable, then s/he immediately has to account for the IS at world foundation level capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. If on the other hand, such an atheist or the like wishes to deploy OUGHT rhetorically, s/he faces the issue of exploiting the pain of others to promote a worldview that cannot stand on its own merits. And, that particularly has no basis for saying that to kidnap, torture, sexually assault and murder a young child is wrong. Apart from the monstrous nihilistic principle, might and manipulation make 'right,' 'rights,' 'truth' and so forth. Which, should give us all pause in light of a long, bloodily destructive and chaotic history of such nihilism. Accordingly, I beg to remind us yet again: >>>>>>>>> The exchanges since about 120 above would be funny if they were not so sadly revealing of what has been going on. I note:
KS, 157 etc: I’ll be surprised if you can do it. I’ve never met an omnitheist who could give a plausible answer to the problem of evil.
But of course, he so assumes that he is lord of the matter that he obviously did not bother to make acquaintance of a linked 101 summary of a major, even epochal answer to the problem of evil, that has been on record for some 40 years now. One that moved off the table the logical form of the problem, and put the inductive form in due proportion suitable for answering through Judaeo-Christian, redemptive theism. Where, the existential form is pastoral in nature and is also addressed by way of a video dealing with rape. In addition, KS has -- now, sadly predictably -- dodged the underlying issue that the reality and objectionableness of evil point precisely to the need for an IS capable of grounding OUGHT. And, indeed, are evidence pointing to God. And, oh yes, those who would indict Christendom, or at least those troubled by arguments from the evils of theistic cultures, might find here on helpful. So, now, let us roll the tape on what KS obviously refused to pay attention to before running on with his drumbeat of long since sell-by date talking points: ______________ >>125 kairosfocus December 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm F/N: Those who struggle with the problem of evil and seek a reasonable worldview level answer (as opposed to those simply playing talking point games), may find here a first help. I note, that evolutionary materialism first faces a problem of a basis to ground objection to evil, as a manifestation of the IS-OUGHT gap and the need for a world foundational IS capable of sustaining the weight of ought. Cutting to the chase scene, there is only one serious candidate, the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. Boethius — awaiting unjust execution [--> and notice, the pivotal significance of another unjust execution at the heart of the Christian Gospel, and the answer it provides to evils . . . ] — aptly put the matter:
“If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?”
If you doubt the force of that, consider this from Dawkins:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it difficult to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it or the purpose behind it might be. The desire to see purpose everywhere is natural in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts – an animal whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own goals and aims . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. ["God's Utility Function," Sci Am 1995.]
So, KS et al have a choice: ground the reality and objectionable nature of evil, requiring an IS that grounds OUGHT, or else stand exposed as playing with the pain of the suffering in order to push a world view and agenda that cannot even soundly ground OUGHT. KF PS: Notice, too, the continued pattern I highlighted earlier as to how threads are pulled off track — this one SHOULD be on a scientific issue, fine tuning, and there is a different thread that was set up for issues such as this.>> ______________ I predict, on track record, that KS will again ignore or pretzel-twist the matter into a strawman caricature. Let us hope that, at length, he will finally prove such wrong. KF PS: While we wait, we might want to view Koukl's lecture, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifl9z_wy-OM >>>>>>>>> There will predictably be no answer, just more evasions, as has become habitual with KS and ilk. But that does not mean that we, looking on, do not now have a duty of care to act on being forewarned. KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Mapou said God can only create the physical, not the spiritual. and I challenge the resident fundamentalists or anybody else to show scriptural support where God claimed to have created anybody’s spirit/soul The Bible says. quote: For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1:17) the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise. (Isa 43:21) Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD: (Psa 102:18) The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Pro 16:4) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:36) yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Co 8:6) You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit. (Job 10:12) But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand. (Job 32:8) Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Psa 51:10) and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecc 12:7) And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. (Eze 11:19a) The oracle of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: (Zec 12:1) etc etc etc end quote You can if you like choose to ignore these and the many more like them or twist their meaning to suit your own desires but please don't claim to hold the "True" biblical position. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

keith:
No, I say that it isn’t a problem for me since I am not a moral objectivist. Is that really so hard to understand?
It isn't a problem for anyone, keith. Only immature jerks try to make it a problem and here you are. Christians know better than to question God. Grow up already. How could God judge us if we didn't have pain and suffering? What would be the impetus for learning if this was a perfect world?Joe_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Your knowledge of tsunamis is little better than that of StephenB, who thought they were some kind of weather phenomenon.
My knowledge is better than yours. Elephants knew of the impending doom. Uneducated islanders knew enough to get to high ground. And I understand that bothers you.
Tsunamis can travel far outside of the radius in which the earthquake can be felt.
Evidence please. You are too well known for your fabrications to be trusted.
Also, do you think a person who doesn’t understand the link between tsunamis and earthquakes (like StephenB) deserves to die?
Darwin Award. Ignorance kills...
And is that your idea of God’s perfect love?
Hump that srawman, keith. Hump it .Joe_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Why can’t God establish harmony from the beginning?
Why are you a little whiny baby?
Again, if you and I, out of love for our fellow humans, wouldn’t hesitate to act in order to save millions of them, then why does God refuse to act? Why does God’s supposedly “perfect” love seem so shallow compared to ours?
Unlike God we cannot grant eternal salvation you immature jerk.Joe_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Keith: How do you know that awareness must be acquired through suffering, and that God is incapable of granting it any other way?

Box: Awareness is harmony. Suffering is disharmony. The direction to harmony is pointed out by suffering.

Keith: Why can’t God establish harmony from the beginning? And how do you know this?
Like I said, God cannot create beings with ready made full awareness – equal to Himself. I 'know' this, because it wouldn't make sense for God not to endow His creatures with ready-made full awareness - and let them go through all the suffering for no reason at all - if that is an option. Simularly, God cannot create a wise man. Wisdom has to be acquired through learning. How do I know this? It is in full accord with our experience.
Keith: You’re speaking as if your belief system is a given, but it’s not. You’re perfectly free to modify your beliefs in response to reason and evidence.
Of course. I think that my belief-system holds up to scrutiny by reason and evidence.
Keith: Also, believing in God doesn’t require you to trust in him. After deciding that God exists, why wouldn’t you examine the evidence in order to decide whether he should be trusted?
Of course. However, after examining the evidence I see no reason not to trust Him.Box_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Box:
What is the Christian position on this? If God would have created beings equal to Himself, then there would be no problems like “sin”, “the fall”, “Hell” and so forth. So why didn’t He choose that option – if that option was indeed available? Why create beings who are clearly inferior to Himself?
Those beings likely inhabit countless other realms. I can conceive of no reason that God oughtn't make full use of His potential-actualizing, unlimited, creative abilities, and in unrestrained fashion.MrMosis_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Keith S @ 409
Also, believing in God doesn’t require you to trust in him. After deciding that God exists, why wouldn’t you examine the evidence in order to decide whether he should be trusted?
I guess I am wondering what sort of definition of "God" could be put forth such that it's even possible in principle to not "trust" him in any meaningful way. Depending on what you mean by trust perhaps. But given that the foundation of any good definition of God is Being Itself, or more properly, Subsistent Being Itself, I can't imagine that it would do one a whole lot of good to bother not trusting Him.MrMosis_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

Box:
What is the Christian position on this? If God would have created beings equal to Himself, then there would be no problems like “sin”, “the fall”, “Hell” and so forth. So why didn’t He choose that option – if that option was indeed available? Why create beings who are clearly inferior to Himself?
I have already answered this question in this thread. Most of Christianity have no answer to your question because they insist on parroting one another with nonsensical dogma such as omnipotence and omniscience. They are doing the work of the Devil, IMO. The true Biblical position is that only the physical can be created, destroyed or modified. God can only create the physical, not the spiritual. Spirits, which have moral agency, cannot be created destroyed or modified. They just are. The spirit you had at birth is exactly the same spirit you now have as an adult. God only created our bodies which serve as receptacles for our spirits. God is not responsible for our moral behavior. Otherwise, free will, sin, punishment would be meaningless. God created us in mortal bodies because he could not be sure that we would be good. In fact, Genesis clearly says that he regretted it. This immediately destroys the omnipotence/omniscience arguments and turns those who preach this nonsense into false teachers. They need to repent from this crap. It's evil. I challenge the resident fundamentalists or anybody else to show scriptural support where God claimed to have created anybody's spirit/soul.Mapou_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

keiths:
How do you know that awareness must be acquired through suffering, and that God is incapable of granting it any other way?
Box:
Awareness is harmony. Suffering is disharmony. The direction to harmony is pointed out by suffering.
Why can't God establish harmony from the beginning? And how do you know this? keiths:
Assuming that suffering is actually necessary, then how much of it is needed? Did every single one of those people need to die at Auschwitz? If one less had died would the project have failed? How do you know?
Box:
First of all, in my belief-system dying isn’t such a big event as it is under Christianity. Second, I can only understand that suffering makes sense generally. Obviously I don’t have the ability to calculate the exact amount of ppl or the exact amount of suffering that is needed. Like all believers I have to trust in God.
You're speaking as if your belief system is a given, but it's not. You're perfectly free to modify your beliefs in response to reason and evidence. Also, believing in God doesn't require you to trust in him. After deciding that God exists, why wouldn't you examine the evidence in order to decide whether he should be trusted?keith s_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Box:
What is the Christian position on this? If God would have created beings equal to Himself, then there would be no problems like “sin”, “the fall”, “Hell” and so forth. So why didn’t He choose that option – if that option was indeed available? Why create beings who are clearly inferior to Himself?
It's a good question. Let me add that the beings wouldn't need to be equal to God. For example, they wouldn't need to be able to create universes. It would be enough if they simply chose not to sin. Christians, why is that beyond the capabilities of your supposedly omnipotent God? And keep in mind that the free will defense doesn't help you here, because God can prevent evil without denying anyone's free will.keith s_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Mung, As a Christian, how would 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?
You've been unable to defend your faith in the past. Here's a new opportunity. Will you step up and deliver, or will you avoid the questions, like kairosfocus?keith s_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Further on #398,
Box: God cannot create beings with ready made full awareness – equal to Himself.
What is the Christian position on this? If God would have created beings equal to Himself, then there would be no problems like "sin", "the fall", "Hell" and so forth. So why didn't He choose that option - if that option was indeed available? Why create beings who are clearly inferior to Himself?Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Meanwhile, keiths continues to search for a "morally acceptable" solution.Mung_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Keith: How do you know that awareness must be acquired through suffering, and that God is incapable of granting it any other way?
Awareness is harmony. Suffering is disharmony. The direction to harmony is pointed out by suffering.
Assuming that suffering is actually necessary, then how much of it is needed? Did every single one of those people need to die at Auschwitz? If one less had died would the project have failed? How do you know?
First of all, in my belief-system dying isn't such a big event as it is under Christianity. Second, I can only understand that suffering makes sense generally. Obviously I don't have the ability to calculate the exact amount of ppl or the exact amount of suffering that is needed. Like all believers I have to trust in God.Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Box #398:
I will go with option B. In post #312 I wrote:
In short: there are vital lessons to be learned and unfortunately the only way is through evil and suffering. God is not omnipotent in the sense that He can create humans who already have those virtues.
It’s more accurate to say that God cannot create beings with ready made full awareness – equal to Himself. We have to acquire awareness through suffering.
But that raises a couple of questions: 1. How do you know that awareness must be acquired through suffering, and that God is incapable of granting it any other way? 2. Assuming that suffering is actually necessary, then how much of it is needed? Did every single one of those people need to die at Auschwitz? If one less had died would the project have failed? How do you know? If only 150,000 people had died in the 2004 tsunami, instead of 220,000+, would God's purposes have been thwarted? How do you know?keith s_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

keiths:
And I’m not looking for an aesthetically pleasing solution — I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people...
Pathetic. Really pathetic.Mung_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Mung: keiths sez the IS-OUGHT gap OUGHT NOT apply to him. He even gives an argument for why it OUGHT NOT apply to him. keiths: No, I say that it isn’t a problem for me since I am not a moral objectivist. Is that really so hard to understand? ok, I take it back. You don't have an argument for why the IS-OUGHT gap OUGHT NOT apply to you. You simply assert that it's not a problem for you because you are a moral relativist. But that's still an argument, even though it's one that is fallacious. [Hint: It's a Non-Sequitur] So please spare us the self-righteous hypocrisy. Someone who adheres to atheism/materialsm as you do really OUGHT TO be better acquainted with irony. Do I need to explain it to you? For someone who has no moral compass, you sure expend an inordinate amount of effort to never be wrong. Why is that? Why is that that atheists/materialists put so much energy into being RIGHT? Why does "THE TRUTH" matter so much to you?Mung_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

KeithS said, I don’t hate God, FMM. I just don’t think he exists. I say, could have fooled me I don't think Zeus or Vishnu exist but I don't spend a lot of effort trying to disprove their existence. You say, I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people who, unlike you, do not regard newborn babies as “evil rebels who would do worse than Hitler if they had the chance”. I say, I'm sorry I thought you were addressing Christians That absent God's grace everyone is evil is the clear teaching of the Christian scripture. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

keiths:
But to fail to prevent something is to allow it to happen. If I knew that millions of innocent people were going to die, and I could easily prevent it, I would prevent it. Wouldn’t you? It would be a moral imperative for us. Why not for God?
StephenB:
Yes, I would, but I think God should, for the most part, limit his intervention to spiritual matters.
Why? If he's omnipotent, he can handle earthly and spiritual matters with equal aplomb. Again, if you and I, out of love for our fellow humans, wouldn't hesitate to act in order to save millions of them, then why does God refuse to act? Why does God's supposedly "perfect" love seem so shallow compared to ours? And most importantly, why won't you simply follow the evidence where it leads? The idea of a perfectly loving, all-powerful God is a pleasant idea, like Santa Claus, but it is also clearly a fiction, like Santa Claus.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11, KJV
keith s_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply