Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered. There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil, For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if: Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices; And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil, And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly. But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known. Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28) Consider some alternatives. God could have, 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds]. 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God]. 3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments]. 4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]). 5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices]. 6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices]. 7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative]. 8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice]. 9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good. 10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given]. But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe, and in the sea of humanity, and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time, and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity, and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others, and for this life, as well as eternity, is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life, who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions, not only in this life but for eternity. And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace. And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God. This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to,
As I said. It’s an article of faith to belive that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Unless God sits down beside you for a cup of copy I’m not sure the forensics you have to disprove faith. Even in that case you’d be relying on 5 senses that you have no way of proving are the only senses by which God could reach you. What you have is a limited grasp of how the Universe works. The day will comes when faith will no longer be necessary. That itself, however, is an article of faith. Addressing your lasts statement. “Certainty” implies an ability to know everything...Your faith is strong indeed if you belive this.
Historical accounts from many directions produce strong evidence of many past events and persons considered factual. Otherwise, history itself would be worthless.
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
If that were the case, then we would all be nothing more then animals. I believe that's the point of the whole argument.. I, for one, an NOT a monkey's uncle.. :)
I know that sounds awfully simplistic, but true none the less.
The Bible also suggest that Jesus was walking through walls after his resurrection and that he flew off into heaven after which angels came and spoke to a few people about it. The Bible also says that during the time of Jesus, Moses (who had been dead for some 2500 years at that point) was seen with Jesus and a few of his disciples were witnesses to the event. None of this is provable or has any way of being disproven, really. Believing these accounts is faith. It’s why Jesus says to Thomas, “you belive because you have seen blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”.
No, exceedingly rare mass extinctions are not like home invaders raping families (though still relatively rare among 8 billion people), not only in scope but that former are what you cited as being distinct from the acts of man. There have been numerous times in history that civilizations have been wiped out by natural catastrophes.... you are also suffering under Detection Bias
Still exceedingly rare in the span of human history (you are also suffering under Detection Bias), yet the main point was that you are simply in no position all all to assert such was needless, meaningless.
If God punished entire societies by wiping them out, then why stop there?
You really are asking, why does God act as He does, and use your own ignorance as an argument against an omniscient being. The answer to why my own father did things was not comprehended by me when I was young, only to be understood by me later on as wise. And the Bible both teaches that God judges sin, usually after much long-suffering, but that also He has a purpose in allowing it.
Which applies to America. As with Amorites of old, (Genesis 15:16) the the iniquity of the Americans is not yet full, as hard as that is for us to accept.
Why destroy, e.g., Pompeii - incl. innocent children - but not serial killers long before their crimes enter into the double-digits?
You mean why did He wait to destroy Pompeii, and thereby save innocent children from further abuse and becoming like their fathers? Or why did God not send down lightening strikes to just zap the wicked, and create a giant welfare system for the kids. Or do such acts of power that the wicked would be compelled to obey? And the list goes on.
I can provide reasonable answers, but once again, until you can accept that an omniscient being who knows all that can be known, past present and future, and in accordance with that has a purpose for all His actions and inaction, being able to make all to to ultimately work out for what is Good, then you are only going to continue in your what aboutisms.
Would that somehow limit Man's highly touted "Free Will?" But somehow destroying entire cities like Pompeii and Herculaneum is permissible / doesn't abrogate our Free Will?!
Nope, not at all. Free will (besides not meaning free from all motivating influences, but having the ability to make choices) has an expiration date.
YES! And your retort, please? WHY this inequality? Why immediate "slapping-down" when violating the "laws of electricity" - wouldn't that negate our much-touted "Free Will?" - but no immediate slapping-down of, e.g., serial murderers?Which means that once again, on one hand the atheist charges God for the evils resulting from man's disobedience to God, from conscience to express revelation, and then finds fault when He does manifest judgment.
Nope, not at all. Free will does not mean one does not have motivating consequences for actions, positive or negative, with consequences that are either immediate or eventual, or that consequences are the same in every realm. You can still choose to touch a 600 volt rail line despite knowing the consequences, and a person can choose suicide. And a person can drink and drive dangerously, or become obese thru unhealthy living, etc. knowing there are risks of negative physical effects. And one can also see Divine punishment for sin as being a risk that is worth taking.
In all this one still has the ability to choose is not removed, though to varying degree they are influenced by consequences, assured, likely or possible.
What your objection could be is that while consequences of ignoring gravity or touching a high voltage line are manifestly immediate, that of eternal consequences of sin are not. However, consequences of violating basic natural laws often need to be immediate if man is to live to even be able to make moral choices. And God executing immediate consequences for disobeying moral laws would place most in a straitjacket (most persons are grossly ignorant of their sins of commission and omission), while even God immediately striking down cold blooded murderers removes the responsibility of man to deal with such (and God does ordain just CP by the state).
Moreover, even the devil exists as an alternative for man to choose. Go back to my OP questions.
And yet, as seen in the exodus of Moses, under the most direct leader ship of God for a very rebellious nation (a context usually ignored in describing God in the OT as harsh), making believing in God so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and doing manifestly supernatural mighty miracles to their benefit, and quickly punishing sin - did not overall make the subjects true believers, which are those who honestly seek Him, and therefore appreciate the revelation.
but no immediate "slapping-down" of mass murderers - some of whom get off scot-free and/or whose crimes are even ever detected by law enforcement?
Your assertion of getting off scot-free is another example of the atheist's moral argument against the God of the Bible by rejecting what that Source states. Which means that there is no getting off scot-free apart from full pardon.
Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)
Why are some good deeds not immediately rewarded, including the sacrifices of properly raising children? Just because some consequences of choices and actions are not immediate does not mean there are no consequences.
Please stop DESCRIBING what I'm asking, and instead just answer it!
I have, but the reason for your objections flows from your rejection of the premise of omniscient being who knows all that can be known, past present and future, and in accordance with that has a purpose for all His actions and inaction, being able to make all to to ultimately work out for what is Good. Your argument against Him essentially presumes He is not as revealed in the Bible.
You may argue against the existence of God, but an omniscient and omnipotent Being who by His very nature of knows all that can be known, including what every effect has and will be for every one of man’s choices and of His own - not only for this life but for eternity - and motives, and can make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, as promised, cannot be morally judged regarding His choices by finite and exceedingly ignorant specks in this darkened corner of the universe, existing on earth in but a moment of time.
At least this thread has manifest some of the atheists on this officially pro-God (of the Bible) forum! Now I have scraping and painting to do while sunny days remain.
But as William Lane Craig says, there's a huge amount of historical circumstantial evidence that serves as a foundation for that faith.
In other words, our faith isn't based on rumors or unfounded tales. It's based on the historical accounts of men who were there when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.
Jesus didn’t come in a vacuum. There are prophecies that pointed to him but all of that is based on the idea that God took the Hebrews out of Slavery from Egypt on a promise he made to a man 400 years earlier. No evidence of that, it’s faith. I agree that the faith is based on what believers think is a historical event but I’m not sure the “evidence “ for all of these events is something that could conclusively convince someone who has no faith. Ultimately, faith is needed to believe these events. Again, I take your point but that’s because I have faith.
so my asia trips came to a hault!!
That said, given the New Testament's accounts and OT prophecies, I find my faith in Jesus easy. The historicity and self-evident dependability of the Bible make it easy and what He does in my life day-to-day makes it easy.
But; are you a COUSIN?
(Some religions say brother and cousin are interchangable.)
I’m darned near costed out of driving myself to Utah (the closesgt thing to Heaven that I know.)
Making it to town and back makes me want to fix the flats on my old bicycle.
Mine are done on an overflight from space - courtesy of GoogleEarth©.
Due to the vast changes in SE Asia in the last 50 years, I can barely find the location(s) that I used to go to in Bangkok.
I hear things I have never noticed when reading with my eyes.
I have read the entire Bible more times from beginning to end than I can count. When you read it from beginning to end instead of skipping around, you begin to recognize the Bible's narrative flow and narrative voice (such narrative voice being consistent from beginning to end, from Genesis to Revelation).
The consequences of violating some basic natural laws is immediate death. The consequences of violating some other basic natural laws are often no worse than, e.g., a painful sting. God could likewise mete out punishments commensurate with the magnitude of the misdeed, or "dose" them so as to ensure that the perpetrator survived (in time to repent).
Problem solved!
And God executing immediate consequences for disobeying moral laws would place most in a straitjacket [...]
More so than natural laws already "straightjacket" us?! How would God executing immediate consequences for disobeying moral laws have a more "straightjacket"-like effect than imposing immediate consequences for violating physical laws?
And one can also see Divine punishment for sin as being a risk that is worth taking.
The mere prospect of some much-postponed (post mortem) Divine punishment for being, e.g., a serial killer wouldn't be nearly as effective in curbing crime and saving the innocent lives of the serial killer's subsequent victims as an instant "slapping down" (notice I didn't say: execution; you want, as you said, to allow the sinner the opportunity to repent before his death).
[...] (most persons are grossly ignorant of their sins of commission and omission) [...]
A heretical claim! Are you saying that we are culpable also for sins of which we, ourselves, are ignorant? Where is your much-touted "Moral Sense" and "Free Will" now?
Be that as it may: I am prepared to stipulate that you are perhaps right, but: All the more reason for God to immediately discipline them! Thank you for providing more support for my argument!
[...] while even God immediately striking down cold-blooded murderers removes the responsibility of man to deal with such [...]
AGAIN: The administration of Divine punishments could be as carefully dosed as needed / appropriate. The perp could thus remain alive (if warranted) so as to provide him with sufficient opportunity to repent - if that's so important to you. Problem solved!
[...] like God appearing daily and doing manifestly supernatural mighty miracles to their benefit, and quickly punishing sin - did not overall make the subjects true believers [...]
That's one of the things that makes the story of Exodus so implausible! I always imagined Scotty and a six-man security team beaming down before their eyes, and phasering the lot of them, with Edward G. Robinson then nonetheless sneering and saying, "Nyah, nyah! Where's your God now, Moses?"
Actually, I of skeptical of your claim: Most people throughout History have accepted that, e.g., jumping off of a tall building or cliff results in near-certain death. So when it comes to natural laws, the immediate meting-out of the consequences have succeeded in making "believers" of most everybody on the planet! I think that instant Divine Justice and/or the performance of "manifestly supernatural mighty miracles" would have the same effect, and make believers of nearly everyone.
Your assertion of getting off scot-free is another example of the atheist's moral argument against the God of the Bible by rejecting what that Source states. Which means that there is no getting off scot-free [...]
Are you again being deliberately vague by not emphasizing that, for you, "not getting off scot-free" means "facing Judgement in the Hereafter" - which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is not be nearly as effective in saving innocent human life and administering justice as an immediate "slap-down" (non-lethal, if you wish)?
I have, but the reason for your objections flows from your rejection of the premise of omniscient being who knows all that can be known, past present and future, and in accordance with that has a purpose for all His actions and inaction, being able to make all to to ultimately work out for what is Good. Your argument against Him essentially presumes He is not as revealed in the Bible.
Your most-grievous instance of fallacious reasoning yet!
You are essentially saying that I have to first accept your version of God and/or your interpretation of the teachings of the Bible before arguing against them. Circular reasoning!
You are insisting that I have to first accept your (specious) premise that the manifestly apparent contradictions in your reasoning ("God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent" PLUS "God does not interfere in our sinful ways - except for Pompeii and Herculaneum - because it would lessen our much-touted Free Will" PLUS "That we often suffer immediate effects when violating natural laws is somehow necessary AND does not impair our Free Will, but instant justice for sin would confound God's plan" PLUS etc.) are somehow not inconsistent before daring to criticize your interpretation of God's Divine Plan as "inconsistent."
Got it!
You may argue against the existence of God, but an omniscient and omnipotent Being who by His very nature of knows all that can be known, including what every effect has and will be for every one of man’s choices and of His own - not only for this life but for eternity - and motives, and can make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, as promised, cannot be morally judged regarding His choices by finite and exceedingly ignorant specks in this darkened corner of the universe, existing on earth in but a moment of time.
You have made God (via his Plans) so inscrutable as to be manifestly unlovable.
At least this thread has manifest some of the atheists on this officially pro-God (of the Bible) forum!
Are you maintaining a list of them?
Just because I don't accept YOUR VERSION of the Bible etc. does not mean anything.
Regards,
If one views human existence on this planet exclusively as a test of faith, injustice etc. tolerated by the Creator is a logical explanation for allowing all sorts of mayhem.
This is not an "answer" - but I suppose that it is a rhetorical question, which might be regarded as an answer... of sorts. (I hate people who answer questions with further questions!)
Evidently, he was comparing this Universe with the concepts he had in his mind. So?
Apparently, the "idea of a straight line" that Lewis had in his mind was straighter than the application of so-called "Divine Justice" he saw in the world.
No big deal! I can conceive of a line straighter than any found in the Natural World. I can conceive of an enchilada bigger than any found in the Natural World. What of it?
From that, it does not necessarily follow that there must be some Supreme Being.
Regards,
I’ll check in later; the reason I was tentative with Asimiov is that it sounds enough like ChatGPT that it might’ve come from somewhere else, and I didn’t want to jump the gun.
Have to lift (deadlift day!) and then finish planning a vacation in October.
FReegards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.