You are only proving my point that the logic with those who hide behind the "free will" argument. If your angle is "freedom", then problem stands:/shrug
* Is God willing to prevent evil and cruelty, but not able? Then God is not omnipotent.
* Is God able, but not willing? Then this God is malevolent. The angle of not "appreciating good" and "less freedom" doesnt stick as this conditions says we already dont have said freedom. Per God's intentional design, he intentionally made cancer, rape, cruelty and knew it was going to happen. Thats not "freedom."
* Is God both able and willing? Given God is sitting on their ass with cancer, rape, worse..... ya, again pretty malevolent.
* Is God neither able nor willing? Then this being is not the all powerful God hes hyped up to be.
Under the "freedom" angle the above still stands as said God isnt actually all powerful all knowing, OR God is those things and chose in his malevolent nature decided to intentionally design something to be flawed and cruel.
Are you saying that God couldn't conceive of a system that evil doesn't exist and yet people still have ultimate freedom? Remember, God is supposed to be infinitely smarter and more powerful than any human could ever be. So surely he could create a world that is both free of evil and free. While allowing people to appreciate goodness or.. have we stumbled into a limit on god? Besides, presumably, evil would be absent from heaven. Do people in heaven have less freedom and appreciation for good than people on earth?Lol, have you ever thought that the limits are on the human side? Youre basically asking for a reality where no humans dont exist.
Flaws are what make things interesting. For the second part, you're basically asking for less freedom. If there were no bad, we wouldn't be able to apreciate good.
No, I'm pretty certain we could still appreciate good things if childhood cancer didn't exist. In fact, I think it'd be super easy, barely an inconvenience to do so.S were back to wanting an almighty babysitter.
/shrugSounds like you are the one brushing off the argument as your post still dodges the massive flaw in your argument that many addressed.
You call it hiding behind the free will argument, but thats just a way to brush off the argument. You dont want a benevolent god, you want a babysitter.
Oh absolutely. The bible is very consistent in multiple passages that life begins at first breath.And also that a fetus is considered the man's property, and not a living being.
I fail to see how a human choosing to be evil disproves the existence of a benevolent god.Because God could choose to be both good and active against any kind of human suffering he so chose. God could choose to create food for the hungry--even for some subset of the hungry, say believers--but magic food is not observed. God could stop any wars or violence he so chose, but this magical intervention is observed precisely nowhere. God surely knows how to cure cancer or can do it directly, but a cure for cancer has not been given, nor have magical cures of any kind ever been observed.
S were back to wanting an almighty babysitter.
You are only proving my point that the logic with those who hide behind the "free will" argument. If your angle is "freedom", then problem stands:So you want God to be a tyrant that instantly casts you into hell for the slightest offense instead of being extremely patient with our foolishness.
* Is God willing to prevent evil and cruelty, but not able? Then God is not omnipotent.
* Is God able, but not willing? Then this God is malevolent. The angle of not "appreciating good" and "less freedom" doesnt stick as this conditions says we already dont have said freedom. Per God's intentional design, he intentionally made cancer, rape, cruelty and knew it was going to happen. Thats not "freedom."
* Is God both able and willing? Given God is sitting on their ass with cancer, rape, worse..... ya, again pretty malevolent.
* Is God neither able nor willing? Then this being is not the all powerful God hes hyped up to be.
Under the "freedom" angle the above still stands as said God isnt actually all powerful all knowing, OR God is those things and chose in his malevolent nature decided to intentionally design something to be flawed and cruel.
S were back to wanting an almighty babysitter.
It's called free will my guyokay but what about all the stuff that free will doesn't apply to?
/shrugYou mean the babysitter that punishes you if you don't worship them?
You call it hiding behind the free will argument, but thats just a way to brush off the argument. You dont want a benevolent god, you want a babysitter.
So you want God to be a tyrant that instantly casts you into hell for the slightest offense instead of being extremely patient with our foolishness.You literally didnt read my post. As this line of logic still avoids what several people have pointed out.
I encourage anyone who thinks God is either benevolent or omnipotent to go check out Dan MacLellan.i don't think you've read the bible have you?
So much for what modern Christianity takes as a give , has absolutely zero backing in the Bible. (Anti gay, life starting at conception, god being omnipotent, god being the only god, and much more)
God uses people to fulfill his plans, which we cant understand. We just have to trustI mean, these kind of issues have been debated and agonised over by religious people for centuries. It's not true that they just dismiss them as 'mysterious ways' and get on with it. Belief often comes with a lot of questioning, challenging, and frustrating bafflement at a lot of aspects.
Thats what Ive heard from people.
The process of belief is often poorly understood. Which is why a lot of Internet atheists waste their time on a 'facts and logic' approach. As if these questions, contradictions and puzzles had never occurred to religious people, and all they need to do is to point them out and 'prove' that religion is dumb and only ignorant idiots subscribe to it.I don't expect religious people to immediately deconvert and have their entire worldview shaken when you point out logical flaws in their beliefs, but it is pretty frustrating when they don't appear to care about the logic at all . They're always pressing atheists for "proof" against their God. And if proof only exists in math and logic, well then there ya go. "God" is a concept that disproves itself on account of being so completely self-contradictory and absurd. Theology doesn't do anything but dig the hole deeper.
I haven't had to deal with the rabid extremism and political ambition that seems to infect a lot of Protestant sects in the US.Congrats.
I don't expect religious people to immediately deconvert and have their entire worldview shaken when you point out logical flaws in their beliefs, but it is pretty frustrating when they don't appear to care about the logic at all . They're always pressing atheists for "proof" against their God. And if proof only exists in math and logic, well then there ya go. "God" is a concept that disproves itself on account of being so completely self-contradictory and absurd. Theology doesn't do anything but dig the hole deeper.
Congrats.
Is this really true of all religious people?Probably not the vast majority of them, to be honest. The same way the vast majority of atheists are apathetic. I'm just talking about the evangelical/fundie types that we're surrounded by here in America, and especially internet religionists.
I don't think that faith is susceptible to 'proof' either way.Why not? What's the point of theology then?
Probably not the vast majority of them, to be honest. I'm just talking about the evangelical/fundie types that we're surrounded by here in America, and especially internet religionists.
Why not? What's the point of theology then?
To debate, discuss, explore. It's nearer to philosophy or literary analysis than it is to scientific investigation.Idk, man. Theologians, religious philosophers, and apologists have been clinging to Aquinas' five proofs for centuries trying to reconcile the contradictory nature of "God" with logic and reason. Science isn't really about proof either.
Idk, man. Theologians, religious philosophers, and apologists have been clinging to Aquinas' five proofs for centuries trying to reconcile the contradictory nature of "God" with logic and reason. Science isn't really about proof either.
Idk, man. Theologians, religious philosophers, and apologists have been clinging to Aquinas' five proofs for centuries trying to reconcile the contradictory nature of "God" with logic and reason. Science isn't really about proof either.
Aquinas worked from the prior assumption that God exists. Theologians haven't been 'clinging' to his proofs for centuries. They are subject to debate and questioning. This is what I mean about religious belief being an ongoing process with many challenges, questions, schools of thought, and putative answers. It's a journey for most people. A difficult journey. Not every believer has the fixed certainty of the Megachurch preacher.You're right, since his proofs are found wanting they have to keep coming up with more and more nonsense to pile on top. Like the popular modern theologian Paul Tillich, who defines God as "ground of being"/"being itself", in order to play with words and thereby convert atheists by definition. Are we going to sit here and pretend this Jorbpson level equivocation is actually super smart philosophy?
You're right, since his proofs are found wanting they have to keep coming up with more and more nonsense to pile on top. Like the popular modern theologian Paul Tillich, who defines God as "ground of being"/"being itself", in order to play with words and thereby convert atheists by definition. Are we going to sit here and pretend this Jorbpson level equivocation is actually super smart philosophy?
Most people are religious because they were born into it, not because they're on some spiritual journey.
I don't feel obliged to subscribe to or endorse anyone's philosophy.
My point is that Internet atheists will do the 'facts and logic' routine like they expect religious people to eventually concede 'wow, that never occurred to me! Since you put it like that, it is all a bit silly'. When, in fact religious people have been aware of and have wrestled with these problems for centuries.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
I think you're massively overestimating the amount of thought the average person puts into this. On the internet people who seek these debates out often have put thought into, but the vast majority of people definitely fall closer to his earlier "mysterious ways" stereotype than your assumption that they have actually thought about these things. Some have sure, most have not.Perhaps you're right. I'm sure it is that way for a lot of people, and they will be even less susceptible to a 'facts and logic' attack. I'm not trying to antagonise anyone here or deny their experience of some pretty awful manifestations of belief. My experience of religious people is that they do contemplate these things and also find the 'mysterious ways' answer troubling and inadequate, but not in a way that shifts their core faith.
The only way he's able to save people is with blood sacrifice? I've also heard the talking point "God doesn't send people to hell, you send yourself to hell because you rejected salvation", which just means there's some weird karmic magic system that exists outside and possible above God.As stated by Amos in The Expanse, it's abuser logic.
Theologians haven't been 'clinging' to his proofs for centuries.Serious theologians, maybe not. But I'd say very close to 100% of theistic arguments I've ever seen are variants of the first cause, natural law, or teleological arguments. Either those or moralistic arguments (i.e. "how can you be a good person without subscribing to a divine authority?")
Either those or moralistic arguments (i.e. "how can you be a good person without subscribing to a divine authority?")These type of people scare me the most.
Same. It's alarming to think that someone is only being moral because of religion and that without it they would be committing heinous acts.If you're only a "good person" because of the promise of reward and/or threat of punishment, then you fundamentally are not a good person.
Adam and Eve brought evil into this world by making a selfish choice because God gave us free will. God allows us to suffer the consequences, but that was not his intention so he provided a way to deal with sin. If you don't somehow know how, it's through faith in Jesus Christ.
This life is short and temporary. Look beyond it for answers. Or just continue being human. It's up to you.