Intelligent Design Naturalism theism

Egnor vs. Dillahunty: 11. Is evil in the world simply the absence of good?

Spread the love

The debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty at Theology Unleashed was “Does God Exist?”. But that entails covering many topics.

Egnor argues, as transcribed below, for the widely held traditional view that evil has no creative power of its own but is simply the absence of good:

Arjuna [podcast host]: Question for both. If indeed God is indirectly or even directly responsible for evil/harm — that, if nothing else, he allowed man to mess up — best guess as to why from your perspective.

Michael Egnor: So why does God allow evil?

Matt Dillahunty: It’s easy for me. He didn’t, but go ahead. [01:45:30]

Michael Egnor: The Thomistic understanding of evil is that it’s an absence of good. It’s not a thing that exist independently in itself. It’s a deficit of goodness. God’s creation necessarily fall short of goodness because if he created something perfectly good, He would just be creating himself. So all of creation necessarily has some evil in it because it’s not perfect. It’s not God. I believe that God allows evil to accomplish good through it. [01:46:00]

News, “11. Is evil in the world simply the absence of good?” at Mind Matters News (October 11, 2021)

That good can be difficult to see, but of course, we have a very small horizon that we’re able to see. But I believe that evil is allowed, in part, to allow free human agency — to allow us to act in the image of God in the sense of being active agents with free will and that God allows natural evil as a way of challenging us, as a way of giving us burdens to bear, which builds character. It’s a tough thing. I’m not saying I like it, but I think that is a reasonable explanation for the existence of evil along with God’s existence. [01:47:00]

Note: Evil as the privation (absence) of good is a traditional philosophical position: “In the neo-Platonic tradition, from Plato, through Plotinus, and from there integrated into mainstream Christian and Islamic theology, good is the only true reality, and evil is just the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat.” – Stack Exchange


Egnor and Dillahunty also clashed over whether a cause can be outside of time.

Takehome: Many traditional philosophers have held that evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light. It has no independent existence.


The debate to date:

  1. Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
  2. A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
  3. Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.

4: Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

  1. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
  2. Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
    If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
  3. Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
    Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
  4. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.
  5. Michael Egnor explains why Matt Dillahunty is not an atheist. Not really, anyway, Egnor insists, because he keeps invoking a moral standard that can’t exist if materialist atheism is true. Egnor: I’ve encountered few people who demand as much fairness for themselves as atheists. They don’t live like atheists. They live like theists.

10: Christian Egnor and atheist Dillahunty now take questions… For example, “ What is Mr. Egnor’s best evidence of any god that would make me believe?” Key questions turned on whether abstractions like “right” or wrong “wrong” represent realities. It’s the perennial realism vs. nominalism question again.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

55 Replies to “Egnor vs. Dillahunty: 11. Is evil in the world simply the absence of good?

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    The term “evil” is the most misunderstood concept in the human vocabulary. But people love using the term.

    So it will continue being used but wrongly. Which means there will be no solution to discussions about it.

    Essentially it means anything we don’t like which is thus bad. But what we don’t like has various gradations. And the distinction has to be made between moral and physical bad things, things done by another human and things due to nature.

    One of the most common bad things brought up is raping a child. That is a moral bad thing.

    But whatever is called evil is relative with stubbing one’s toe being minor vs suffering a extremely painful tumor not so minor. But each is relative because we can think of worse or less bad.

    But the OP ends talking about logic and who is using logical fallacies.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

    Egnor seems to be trying to impose his own narrow view of what constitutes “natural”. To a naturalist like myself, Nature refers to all that exists, There is nothing “supernatural” beyond, not even God. It’s an empty set.

    Egnor just wants a supernatural domain as somewhere he can store his God and anything else he wants to hide away from the prying eyes of human science.

    The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

    What is the difference between a God who hides himself from us and one who doesn’t exist?

    Why would a maximally great God bother to hide himself from us? What could he possibly have to fear from us knowing He exists?

    Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

    The Argument from Personal Incredulity is an informal fallacy. It’s not fictitious.

    Atheists are quite happy to defend their position. it’s theists who seem to have thin skins when it comes to the logical weaknesses of their positions.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    What is the difference between a God who hides himself from us and one who doesn’t exist?

    Ask yourself the question, if God was as obvious as you seem feel is necessary, would a meaningful life be possible?

    Do you want a God that comes down every Friday and punishes the wrong doers and rewards those who do His will? After about three weeks of that it would be hard to find a wrong doer and the rest would be automatons being rewarded not for virtue or courage by selfishness and cowardliness.

    God reveals enough of Himself to make this life meaningful. He has created the best of all possible worlds. Right now I am glancing out the window at one of the most amazing design systems in the universe. Clouds drifting by bringing water all over the planet. The Earth is fine tuned so this is possible. Science verifies it.

    Aside: what is the logical weakness of the theist position? I’m not aware of any.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I think, privation, perversion or frustration of the good out of its proper, often intelligible end is a more effective phrasing in today’s age. Absence of good would strictly require absence of existence, as this is a good. KF

  5. 5
    ram says:

    Evil is suffering. Good is pleasure.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Ram, not all pleasures are good, as even the hedonists admit; an issue of moderation and the long term obtains. KF

  7. 7
    ram says:

    KF: Ram, not all pleasures are good, as even the hedonists admit; an issue of moderation and the long term obtains. KF

    I didn’t write “pleasures”. I said pleasure, but yes, I certainly agree. Moreover, the first duty to others that is encumbant on every human is to minimize suffering that one causes to others. Intentionally causing suffering to others is evil except as defense of self against evil. Yes, this can be tricky, and I do not seek to minimize the issues and complexities surrounding it with regard to human relations. But a good rule of thumb for Jerry, to whom I was addressing, is that harm/suffering is the fundamental definition of evil, and one should minimize the harm/suffering done to others.

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    Jerry,

    God reveals enough of Himself to make this life meaningful.

    Where in the revealed Word of God, do you find support for this concept?

    I can sympathize with Woody Allen when he wrote

    “I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”

    Then, you write

    He has created the best of all possible worlds.

    You keep repeating this, but if this is in fact true, why doesn’t Genesis 1 :31 read “God saw all that he had made, and it was perfect”?

    -Q

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Where in the revealed Word of God, do you find support for this concept?

    I did not say revealed Word of God. I said revealed. Fine tuning of the universe and the earth reveals something. There are many others.

    But I am definitely not referring to scripture which would not be accepted by any atheist. So that is out.

    As far as the best of all possible worlds is concerned, why would God create anything specifically deficient for His plan?

    Did he not want to make His creation the best to meet His objectives? To create anything less would be an absurdity. I assume He knew what He was doing.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Jerry @9,
    You raise an important point about where we can go to understand anything about God.

    Deists try to develop a theology solely from observations and logic. Certainly, there are some things we can deduce from the Creator, including that one exists. But beyond that observation, it’s easy to become confused or misled.

    And that’s why God intervened, providing scriptures through the inspiration of the prophets, so we can have an accurate understanding of what God desires to communicate to us.

    Why is such revelation necessary?

    It’s because accurately deducing rules from behaviors or observations is surprisingly difficult. I’ve demonstrated this problem on a chessboard with a mysterious new chess piece.

    Another example is the puzzle Petals Around the Rose:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRCqb9YVNdY

    This delightful and very smart girl solved it in 9 minutes and earned the title “Potentiate of the Rose.” I earned this title myself without cheating, but it (depressingly) took me three times as long! However, the girl did get an additional clue, which was not supposed to be given.

    Supposedly, Bill Gates got very frustrated when he couldn’t solve it and some of his associates could!

    So, let’s see whether you can solve this puzzle faster than the smart little girl. The answer is given after 9 minutes, so beware! If you watch the solution, you will be FOREVER ineligible for the title.

    -Q, Potentiate of the Rose (PotR)

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    How about it, Jerry?

    -Q

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    How about it, Jerry?

    How about what?

  13. 13
    ram says:

    Seems like Jerry is confusing the creator’s “best possible world” with the “best world for the present time.” Obviously this isn’t the best possible world. Rebellion, suffering and death exist here.

    This world is a stepping stone. Much better world to follow. At least that’s what the major religions say.

    –Ram

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Jerry @12,

    See Querius @10. It’s the question in the last paragraph.

    -Q

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    Ram @13,

    So true. Jerry says he doesn’t base his assertion on any scriptures, but instead imagines that somehow God is constrained to create the best possible world. We have no idea how such a statement can be justified, since neither science, logic, or scripture leads to it.

    Accepting such an assertion leads to all sorts of problems. An older, simpler version is

    Can God create a rock too large for Him to lift?”

    -Q

  16. 16
    Sandy says:

    Jerry is confusing the creator’s “best possible world” with the “best world for the present time.”Obviously this isn’t the best possible world.

    Yes it is.You don’t understand the fundamental role of free will of humans in shaping the world. God has done His job building best possible world but humans are co-creators of this world (their choices have real influence for better or for worse)

  17. 17
    ram says:

    Sandy: You don’t understand the fundamental role of free will of humans in shaping the world.

    Humans didn’t create this world where competition, suffering and death exist. Is it human fault when lions eat gazelles? I’m not saying that the Creator was wrong to make this world as it is. The Creator has plans. But this world is not the best possible world. I would guess the world of the Angels is a lot better than this one. All Bliss All the Time.

    –Ram

  18. 18
    Sandy says:

    Humans didn’t create this world where competition, suffering and death exist

    Yes they did by disobeying God the Earth ( with all plants,animals,humans) was modified /damaged . The action of man had as result the leaving of Holy Spirit from the “kingdom of man” followed by an internal ontologic fall doubled by a real external fall of nature and entire cosmos. What we see know is the result of sin of man not the original creation of God.

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Sandy/18

    Yes they did by disobeying God the Earth ( with all plants,animals,humans) was modified /damaged . The action of man had as result the leaving of Holy Spirit from the “kingdom of man” followed by an internal ontologic fall doubled by a real external fall of nature and entire cosmos. What we see know is the result of sin of man not the original creation of God

    Nothing happens but by God’s will.

    If human beings are capable of disobeying God then that is how they were designed – by Him.

    God, being omniscient, would have known right from the start how Adam and Eve were going to behave.

    They were told that they should not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why not? Why should they have been denied such knowledge? We are not told.

    Adam was warned that on the day he at the fruit of the tree, he would die. That didn’t happen. So God lied?

    Not only were Adam and Eve tossed out of the Garden of Eden for their so-called offense, the whole of humanity was sentenced to suffer in perpetuity for their offense – the offense of curiosity. How is that just? We punish offenders for what they do, We don’t punish their descendants in perpetuity for an offense they did not commit.

    The whole narrative of the Fall is incoherent and unjust. Were I still a Christian I would consider it blasphemous as it paints God as a cruel, vindictive and unjust tyrant which is not at all how we now like to think of Him.

  20. 20
    Sandy says:

    If human beings are capable of disobeying God then that is how they were designed – by Him.

    Yes and no.
    Yes this is how they were created by God as free beings .Yes giving free will to humans involves a real risk in creation( for people to reject God )but in the same time involves a wondeful goal of God :a relationship of love between 2 free beings (God -human soul). Love is not possible between beings that are not free .
    I guess God has decided that giving free will worth it for those people who will chose Him freely(even if involves the risk of being rejected by some people) .

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Seversky: the whole of humanity was sentenced to suffer in perpetuity for their offense – the offense of curiosity.

    That’s the part I’ve never understood either. God packaged up some knowledge in one source, decided it was verboten but left it dangling around. What’s the point of that? To tell Adam and Eve to not question, not be curious, only obey and do what you’re told?

    It sounds like a parent who leaves some treats out and tells their very young child don’t eat those or I will punish you. I’m a parent and I learned to put away things I didn’t want my child to consume. Why tempt him if I knew it was wrong? I didn’t feel the need to prove to a two-year old that they couldn’t follow instructions. I knew he couldn’t follow instructions.

  22. 22
    ram says:

    Sandy @18,

    You acknowledge then that this world isn’t the best possible world.

    –Ram

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    Seversky @19,

    Nothing happens but by God’s will.

    So, why does the Lord’s prayer say, “Thy will be done” if nothing happens but by God’s will? God created humanity with true free will, which we can use to follow God’s will or not.

    If human beings are capable of disobeying God then that is how they were designed – by Him.

    Yes, because Love can exist only with free will. “God so loved the world . . .”

    God, being omniscient, would have known right from the start how Adam and Eve were going to behave.

    In Torah, God describes himself as I AM (YHVH in Hebrew). God created time, so He is outside of time, existing in the past present and future simultaneously. However, God’s knowing our choices has no effect on our free will to choose.

    They were told that they should not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why not?

    This would provide Adam and Eve with a single choice to follow God’s will or to go their own way. The result of their choice (by deception) was the multiplicity of good versus evil choices.

    Why should they have been denied such knowledge? We are not told.

    They were told that God gave them ALL the trees for food, which would include the Tree of Life, but just not the one tree that was not given to them. This was the only way that they could rebel against the instruction of God, and nothing evil would occur to them.

    Adam was warned that on the day he at the fruit of the tree, he would die. That didn’t happen. So God lied?

    Spiritually, Adam and Eve did die that day. They became estranged from God and their bodies became mortal, eventually dying as well.

    Not only were Adam and Eve tossed out of the Garden of Eden for their so-called offense, the whole of humanity was sentenced to suffer in perpetuity for their offense – the offense of curiosity. How is that just?

    No, their offense was to disobey God, not for being curious.

    We punish offenders for what they do, We don’t punish their descendants in perpetuity for an offense they did not commit.

    Not punishment, but consequences.: the consequences of evil always hurt the innocent as we all know. As a result, God wrapped himself in a human body, was tortured to death in order to take this punishment on Himself! Now, we have a choice. We can choose to accept God’s forgiveness and receive eternal life, or not.

    The whole narrative of the Fall is incoherent and unjust. Were I still a Christian I would consider it blasphemous as it paints God as a cruel, vindictive and unjust tyrant which is not at all how we now like to think of Him.

    Our God died for us–and you. The picture you paint of God is the lie that Lucifer fed Eve and Adam. For the Narcissism, desire to be like God, and destructive hatred of humanity and all God created, resulted in God creating the “Lake of Fire” to punish Satan and his angels eternally as they richly deserve for all the suffering and heartbreak that humanity has had to endure.

    But you don’t have to go there with them.

    -Q

  24. 24
    Querius says:

    JVL @21,

    That’s the part I’ve never understood either. God packaged up some knowledge in one source, decided it was verboten but left it dangling around.

    It was not knowledge, it was a type of fruit like cherries, for example.

    So let’s say you have a beautiful Bing cherry tree in your backyard. You love your children, so you tell them that they can freely eat the fruit of the cherry, but they must not chew on the pits because it can make them sick or even die from doing so. This is actually because cherry pits release hydrogen cyanide when chewed.

    But your kids don’t know what hydrogen cyanide is (not having taken chemistry classes at this point), so you warn them not to chew on the stones (or put whole cherries in a blender). Tell me, does that make you an evil dad, demanding that they won’t question you, be curious, or only do what they’re told?

    Just wondering.

    -Q

  25. 25
    Querius says:

    Jerry @12,

    It case you missed it, the question that was posed to you is in Querius @10 in the last paragraph.

    -Q

  26. 26

    @seversky The knowledge of good and evil, refers to conceiving of making a choice, in terms of using the facts of what is good and evil, to evaluate the options with.

    So then choice becomes to be conceived as like an automated chesscomputer calculating a move, instead of it being spontaneous. The result of the choice becomes a forced consequence of the values of good and evil that are used to evaluate the options with.

    Which means both the human spirit, people’s emotions, as well as God the holy spirit, are thrown out from choices.

  27. 27
    ram says:

    Seversky @19,

    What do you care? You’re just a troll.

    And everyone knows it.

    If you were a real philosopher, interested in genuine dialog, you would have much more intelligent things to say.

    But you never do.

    You just seem like a butt-hurt sophmorist who likes to troll “believers.”

    Well, okay.

    I hope you’re getting what you crave out of your participation here.

    Blessings on Truth seekers here and everywhere.

    –Ram

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    Seversky and JVL,

    If you’re serious about your questions regarding God and faith, let me respectfully urge you to consider a wonderful presentation, transparent and gutsy, on this subject:

    https://youtu.be/LUNFT6buDaE?t=3244

    -Q

  29. 29
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Egnor seems to be trying to impose his own narrow view of what constitutes “natural”.

    Nice projection.

    To a naturalist like myself, Nature refers to all that exists, There is nothing “supernatural” beyond, not even God.

    That is not how natural is defined, though

    Egnor just wants a supernatural domain as somewhere he can store his God and anything else he wants to hide away from the prying eyes of human science.

    And you are also ignorant of supernatural.

    What is the difference between a God who hides himself from us and one who doesn’t exist?

    God is revealed in God’s Creation.

    Atheists are quite happy to defend their position.

    And yet they can’t. Strange, that.

  30. 30
    Sandy says:

    You acknowledge then that this world isn’t the best possible world.

    This world is the best possible world with free human beings because:
    1.God doesn’t joke.
    2.Free will have Real consequences in this world.
    3.You jave no arguments and knowledge to judge how would be a better world.
    4. What are the logical consequences regarding to God if this is not the best possible world? (Maybe your god is too weak?=false god)
    5. What are the logical consequences regarding to you if your god is so weak then you are weaker but if you are weak and understand better than your god how should be built a better world then you must be god. HAHAHA! You should be ashamed to create such a weak world.

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    Sandy,

    Reminds me of a book I read in college titled, “Your God is too Small” by J.B. Phillips.

    -Q

  32. 32
    ram says:

    Sandy, Jews and Christians believe the earth became cursed. Genesis 3:17,18 indicate that God cursed the planet after Adam and Eve rebelled. So according to that, the current state of earth is not the best possible world, and that eventually God is going to make the planet much better than it is. (Rev 21.) So for Christians, at least, this planet is not the “best possible world.” It’s a cursed world. There’s a much better one coming.

    Also, do angels have free will?

    –Ram

  33. 33
    Sandy says:

    God cursed the planet after Adam and Eve rebelled. So according to that, the current state of earth is not the best possible world,

    Wrong again. Christ as a God deified the humanity this means that Christ brought much more than Adam lost. You have a childish view of reality. The reality is not like a hollywood movie that can have 100 different scripts.

  34. 34
    Querius says:

    Sandy,

    Wrong again. Christ as a God deified the humanity this means that Christ brought much more than Adam lost. You have a childish view of reality. The reality is not like a hollywood movie that can have 100 different scripts.

    Yikes!

    I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. What did Jesus say about himself? What did Jesus teach us about humanity?

    -Q

  35. 35
    Sandy says:

    Son of God unifying divinity and humanity in person of Jesus Christ made humanity indestructible to any other damages from devil.

  36. 36
    Querius says:

    Ok, Sandy. But what were the actual teachings of Jesus on the subject?

    -Q

  37. 37
    Sandy says:

    Read St. Athanasios the Great, John of Damascus .

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    Sandy @37,

    Read St. Athanasios the Great, John of Damascus .

    Yes, I certainly will.

    But my question to you was what were the actual teachings of Jesus on who he was and on humanity.

    Thank you,

    -Q

  39. 39
    ram says:

    Sandy: You have a childish view of reality.

    Well, I beg to differ. You haven’t been around.

    Sandy, I’ve been to Brazil several times, and witnessed small children forced into prostitution and all kinds of abuse just to eat. If you think our current world is the “best of possible worlds”, I feel sorry for you. You are either a sociopath or an idiot.

    –Ram

  40. 40
    Sandy says:

    and witnessed small children forced into prostitution and all kinds of abuse just to eat.

    You think of a world that is filled by robots that are programmed to do “good” but that world is not a world of free humans. This world is better than any fairytale world full of automatons . This is the risk assumed by God of giving free will and reason. I guess you didn’t think of a world in what Hitler would have won the war. You would have speak german now and you would be alive only if you were arian.;)

  41. 41
    Querius says:

    Sandy @35,

    Once again, what did Jesus himself (not St. Athanasios the Great or John of Damascus) say about himself? What did Jesus himself teach us about humanity?

    -Q

  42. 42
    Sandy says:

    @Querius
    Well …tell us your ( most certainly wrong )understanding about humanity that Jesus “taught” you.

  43. 43
    ram says:

    Sandy won’t answer the question: do the angels live in a better world than this? Nor will Sandy answer the question: is the Creator going to provide a better world than the current one for those who inherit salvation thru faith in Jesus Christ?

    –Ram

  44. 44
    Sandy says:

    Sandy won’t answer the question

    Are there fallen angels?
    PS: Do not compare spiritual world with our material world.

  45. 45
    Querius says:

    Sandy @42,

    Well …tell us your ( most certainly wrong )understanding about humanity that Jesus “taught” you.

    Why should I? You’re ducking the question about your claims in @34:

    Wrong again. Christ as a God deified the humanity this means that Christ brought much more than Adam lost. You have a childish view of reality. The reality is not like a hollywood movie that can have 100 different scripts.

    To which I asked you:

    I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. What did Jesus say about himself? What did Jesus teach us about humanity?

    -Q

  46. 46
    Sandy says:

    Why should I?

    🙂 Because you will be proven wrong and you don’t want that.

  47. 47
    ram says:

    Sandy @40: You think of a world that is filled by robots that are programmed to do “good” but that world is not a world of free humans. This world is better than any fairytale world full of automatons

    The Bible says eventually that those “in Christ” will exist on a new world much better than this. Nobody is an automaton. It’s those people who exercised their free will to join themselves to Christ.

    So again, there is a much better world than this current one for some humans in the future. Which invalidates any notion that “this current world is the best world possible for humans.” It isn’t. Not if you believe the Bible.

    PS: Do not compare spiritual world with our material world.

    Fair enough. But you ignored question #2: is the Creator going to provide a better world than the current one for those who inherit salvation thru faith in Jesus Christ?

    –Ram

  48. 48
    Sandy says:

    @Ram
    Heaven is the prize while this world is the contest. You can’t compare test with the prize (and tell me :”hey prize is better than test “),because there is no prize without passing the test. This is the best possible testing world without this there is no chance to go to heaven.

  49. 49
    ram says:

    Sandy, the best possible testing world. Okay then. Thanks for the clarification.

    –Ram

  50. 50
    Querius says:

    Sandy @46,

    Because you will be proven wrong and you don’t want that.

    No. Actually, I’d like to see your answers to the two questions posed in @34.

    -Q

  51. 51
    Sandy says:

    Ram
    the best possible testing world. Okay then. Thanks for the clarification.

    My clarification doesn’t help your flawed argument that this world is not the best possible world. This world is the best possible world of fallen free beings. You can’t evade objective conditions to put in place a fairytale world you might imagine.

    Querius
    Actually, I’d like to see your answers to the two questions posed in @34.

    Read @35. You will find the answers. If you not agree then you are free to prove me wrong.

  52. 52
    ram says:

    Sandy: My clarification doesn’t help your flawed argument that this world is not the best possible world. This world is the best possible world of fallen free beings.

    I’m not making an argument. I merely stated an opinion. Which I still retain. At any rate, if you think this current world is the best possible world for testing, no problem. I don’t agree or necessarily disagree with that, but at least you clarified your opinion, and have acknowledges that this is not unqualifiedly the best possible world for humans.

  53. 53
    Querius says:

    Sandy @51,

    Read @35. You will find the answers. If you not agree then you are free to prove me wrong.

    What you wrote in @35 doesn’t include what Jesus said on the subject.

    What I asked was what Jesus himself said about himself and what Jesus taught us about humanity. The answer will come from the Bible, which includes quotes from Jesus.

    -Q

  54. 54
    Sandy says:

    Querius
    The answer will come from the Bible, which includes quotes from Jesus.

    Yes please provide those quotes that contradict my comments. Come into light share the truth with us.

  55. 55
    Querius says:

    Sandy,

    I asked you two questions in response to your previous statements. It would be silly of me to try to answer those questions for you–I have absolutely no idea how you’d answer them!

    Again, my questions to you from your post in @33 were as follows:

    1. What did Jesus say about himself?

    2. What did Jesus himself teach us about humanity?

    Again, no I won’t try to answer them for you. You made your assertions, I asked you two questions, and unfortunately you’ve been evasive for some reason.

    -Q

Leave a Reply