Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by JAG*, May 25, 2020.

  1. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    No, you can't
    ..
     
  2. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,182
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True, if we do not presuppose God's omnibenevolence, then there is no problem. There is no problem of evil if we consider an evil god, or a partially evil god.
     
  3. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,182
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More to the point, it shows that people calling God evil is consistent with respect to a reasonable line of argument. Your claim that to be consistent, one should point out good things that God does seems to be incorrect, in that it makes an incorrect assumption about what those atheists are trying to consistently do.

    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "solved". We can certainly think about the problem rationally (there is not a lot of empiricism going on in either of these arguments) and get sensible insights. Plantinga's argument is an example of that.

    "FAITH" has not been shown to be a good way to arrive at truths. It invites circular arguments, emotional predisposition etc., and in the world, we see faith supporting ideas which cannot be simultaneously true. If Christianity is a faith only, then how are we justified in believing it?

    Fair, then we're back at the beginning. Your original post here seems to address the general problem of evil more than the logical problem of evil, so if Plantinga didn't resolve that, what are you trying to say?

    Sure, but we have no duty to reconcile those things. As mentioned above, faith has not been shown to be a reasonable path to truth. If our only justifications are based on faith, do we not just end up not justified to believe? When a Nigerian prince contacts us with a proposition to funnel money for a significant fee, we don't have a duty to invoke faith to justify believing him, we may end up with a better solution by simply offering no belief.

    This runs into the same issue, then how are we justified in believing it? If the truth is shrouded, faith allows us to be duped by nefarious or arbitrary beliefs as well as (if not more likely that) good ones.
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,182
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did think you posted an unreasonable amount of threads to meaningfully support.

    I would suggest posting an amount that you can uphold. As argued in the certainty/probability thread, an argument that isn't supported to a considerable extent is worth no more than no argument at all. Otherwise, it seems more to be preying on human biases and unethical marketing, and that's not a good look for any idea. That's not to say defending it to certainty (which as we've mentioned is probably impossible), but it seems strange to post about very inflamed topics and not expect significant debate to even suss out what is being argued, let alone if it holds up.
     
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    5,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I'm trying to point out your (and by your interpretation at least, the Biblical) double standard. You opened this thread addressing (some) atheists who say that God would be responsible for all the evil in the world by challenging them to also accept God being responsible for all the good in the world. That's fine but on that same basis, if you're asserting that God is responsible for all the good in the world, why shouldn't you be challenged to accept God being responsible for all the evil?

    The question of free will and whether what humans choose to do with that free will is the responsibility of God for granting that free will is really irrelevant here. If you're deeming God is responsible for what people do with free will, he is responsible for both the good and the bad and if you're deeming God isn't responsible for what people do with free will, he isn't responsible for either the good or the bad.
     
    Cosmo and FoxHastings like this.
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong!

    What you wrote fit the DEFINITION of the Fallacy of an Appeal To Popularity perfectly.

    That has always been my stated position.

    Rubbish!

    There is ZERO EVIDENCE and therefore that makes that statement UNIVERSALLY accurate.

    Over 20+ CENTURIES there has NEVER been any single shred of factual evidence.

    Arguments are OPINIONS that do NOT alter the FACT that there is ZERO EVIDENCE.

    Actually the COURTS have the AUTHORITY to DECIDE this argument and fortunately they have done exactly that for us.

    The Supreme Court RULED that "creationism" is JUNK science and does NOT belong in schools.

    The CONSERVATIVE federal judge in the Dover,PA case RULED that "intelligent design" is just another BS version of "creationism".

    During the Dover,PA case it was PROVEN that "intelligent design" EVOLVED from "creationism" by showing the EVIDENCE of how "creationism" was EDITED across several versions to become "intelligent design".

    The Constitutional POWERS vested in the Judicial Branch have decided that your teleological argument is NULL and VOID.

    I will take their AUTHORITY over yours and 5 billion other theists because I UPHOLD the RULE of LAW over and above your Stone Age superstitions.
     
    Cosmo, Market Junkie and FoxHastings like this.
  7. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We can certainly still presuppose His omnibenevolence. His eternal attributes may contradict each other, but that’s exactly what makes God ultimately incomprehensible when considered from a standpoint of totality.
     
  8. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    When I said this:
    JAG previously Wrote:
    "There is to much going on here right now for me to have
    time to compose 1/2 way intelligent responses to what is
    being posted"___JAG . . .

    . . I was mostly referring to what was going on in my life,
    and not only to what was going on here at PF.

    Regarding the threads I posted:

    {1) I posted the threads in order to make my points and ideas
    available to anyone who might be interested in reading them.

    (2) I am here inside Thread World NOT to "debate" what I post
    unless I come across a response that personally interests me.

    (3) My view is that there is very little actual serious debate that
    occurs here inside Thread World on the Internet At Large.

    {4} The vast majority of what is posted is not a serious and
    charitable approach to discussion and I usually do not respond
    to it,

    {5} Quite often the response that is made to an Opening Post has
    absolutely nothing to do with the Opening Post. It is clear and
    obvious that in these cases the poster did not even read, much
    less "deep read", the Opening Post. Instead its obvious that they
    merely glanced at the title, and perhaps at the opening paragraph,
    and then posted comments that were, in my view, not interesting.

    {6} It is very difficult to write 1/2 way intelligent responses to
    comments that one finds to be un-interesting. I avoid doing
    that.

    Thanks for your suggestion Swensson. I do not generally plan
    on upholding what I post. 98% of what I post is only to make
    points and share ideas.

    (1) The word "arguments" is a $5 word for "reasons." It sounds more
    "academic" and "intellectual" to say "Here are my arguments"
    than it does to say "Here are my reasons."

    (2) In atheists vs. Christians threads, here inside Thread World,
    reasons given are most always ignored by both sides, as both
    sides "post past each other" on their way to making their next
    post. I find this approach to be un-interesting.

    There are millions of articles on the Internet, Posting articles on the
    Internet that present ideas is not "preying" on anything. The vast
    majority of all my Opening Posts are no more than any other
    Internet article. The reader is free to read them, or not to read
    them. To comment or not to comment. To be charitable or not
    to be charitable. Thread participation is 100% voluntary.

    Miscellaneous Points:
    {1) Each person can decide for themselves why they post
    on the Internet.

    {2) The motive of posting to share ideas, and "debating"
    only when one finds a comment personally interesting
    is not wrong or bad or strange. Especially not if this
    motive is announced clearly and up-front.

    {3} If readers find the topic worthy of "debate" they can
    "debate" it with other readers, other than the poster
    who posted the article.
     
  9. Market Junkie

    Market Junkie Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Never heard of this kreeft character, but his list reeks of desperation.

    Would be so easy for the alleged all-powerful god to bail out (pathetic) desperadoes like kreeft

    Just bring, say, Hawk (a.k.a. Stephen Hawking) back to life so that he can walk onto a stage at, say, MSG and tell the world how real and awesome the alleged god is

    Should be a piece of cake for an alleged all-powerful god that allegedly created the universe (LMAO), eh


    Blind faith is for suckuz...
     
    FoxHastings, Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  10. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Right.
    What I wrote was right.
    What was right {correct} within what I wrote?

    {1) It is correct that you personally can make the claim that there is
    not a shred of evidence for the existence of God and the truth
    of Christianity -- that convinces you personally.

    {2} It is correct that you cannot speak for humanity.

    {3} It is correct that you are not the Final Authority that has the power
    to issue a proclamation proclaiming there is not a shred of evidence
    for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

    Moreover . . .the following is also correct:

    Regarding the issue of authoritative proclamations about evidence:

    {A} There is no such thing as The International Authority That Has
    The Power To Decide What Is, Or Is Not, Valid Evidence.

    {B} You have no power and no authority to issue any proclamations
    regarding the validity of evidence.

    {C} You do not have the power or the authority to decide for the world's
    some 5 billion Theists that there is no valid evidence for the existence of
    God.

    It does not.
    Why does it not?
    Answer: Because:

    Me correctly saying that the world's some 5 billion Theists who DO
    believe there is evidence for God is not an argument for the existence
    of God. What is it then? Answer: Nothing more than a statement of
    fact that YOU do not have the power or the authority to proclaim to
    some 5 billion other human beings what is, or is not, correct regarding
    the validity of evidence. THIS is the ONLY "argument" that I am making.

    So?

    So the "fallacy of an appeal to popularity" is 100% irrelevant to me
    merely making the statement that you have no authority to dictate
    to Theists regarding what is, or is not, valid evidence.

    If you want to make the claim that there is not a shred of evidence for
    the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, then you need to make
    it clear that "There is not one shred of evidence for God's existence and
    for the truth of Christianity that convinces you personally" If you said that
    you would be correct.

    But you do not have the power or the authority to decide for the world's
    some 5 billion Theists that there is no valid evidence for the existence of
    God.

    Just as I have no power or authority to decide for the world's atheists that
    there ARE valid arguments for the existence of God. I can present my case
    if I want to -- and they are free to decide for themselves if the arguments are
    valid or invalid. The same principle applies 100% to you too.

    No, not rubbish.
    It is not rubbish to point out to you that you simply DO NOT have any power
    or authority to issue proclamations proclaiming to the world that there is no
    such thing as valid evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

    You have no more power and authority than do all your other fellow human beings.

    Do other human beings have the power and authority to issue a proclamation to
    you that says Yes there IS in fact much valid evidence for the existence of God?
    Obviously not. No they do not. So? So neither do you have such authority.

    If you wish to be correct, you have to announce that your belief that there is
    no valid evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity -- is ONLY
    your personal opinions based upon your present understanding of the evidence.

    That is incorrect.
    Why is that incorrect?
    Because you are not the Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Factual Evidence.
    Just as no other human being is either.

    Repeating it does not make it true.
    Using a lot of CAPS does not make it true.
    I can say the reverse of what you said:
    Arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity are not mere opinions and they
    do present some facts and they do demonstrate that there is at least some valid evidence supporting
    the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

    The courts have not decided it for us.
    The belief in Intelligent Design is the personal belief of some 5 billion Theists here on Planet Earth
    and what we Theists believe about Intelligent Design is NOT subject to being ruled on by courts.

    The courts can prevent Intelligent Design from being taught in schools -- that is a totally different
    subject than what I am talking about in the post you quoted. I am talking ONLY about the personal
    beliefs of some 5 billion Theists --- and NOT talking about teaching Intelligent Design in the public
    schools.

    The courts can NOT eliminate Intelligent Design from off Planet Earth. It is here to stay. Theism
    is growing rapidly worldwide and is projected to have 5.7 billion believers by 2050.

    ______

    Derideo, a prayer for you:

    May the Lord bless and keep you.
    May the Lord make His face shine upon you
    May the Lord be gracious unto you.
    May the Lord turn His face toward you
    May the Lord always bless you and give you peace
    {based on Numbers 6:24-27


    `
     
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kneejerk DENIALISM and REGURGITATION of the prior DEBUNKED illogical fallacies effectively DISQUALIFIES you from any further meaningful interaction as far as I am concerned.

    Have a nice day!
     
    FoxHastings and Cosmo like this.
  12. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Peter Kreeft is a distinguished Christian scholar who has earned degrees from
    secular universities, for example Yale University.

    His list of 20 Arguments For The Existence Of God has been assembled with
    careful scholarship and is worthy of your consideration.

    There is no desperation in Peter Kreeft's list of 20 Arguments, rather they reek
    of faith, hope, and love and confidence in the Lord and confidence that there is
    at least some reasonable evidence supporting the existence of God and the truth
    of Christianity.

    Peter Kreeft isn't pathetic and he isn't a desperado.
    Do you have any reasons why you say Kreeft is pathetic and a desperado? You
    said you "never heard of this Kreeft character." So? So how do you know he
    is pathetic and a desperado --- if you have never heard of him? What makes
    you think that? Why did you say that?

    Here is the opening paragraph over at the website listing the 20 Arguments:
    Start quote.
    In this section you will find arguments of many different kinds for the existence of God.
    And we make to you, the reader, an initial appeal. We realize that many people, both
    believers and nonbelievers, doubt that God's existence can be demonstrated or even
    argued about. You may be one of them. You may in fact have a fairly settled view that
    it cannot be argued about. But no one can reasonably doubt that attention to these
    arguments has its place in any book on apologetics. For very many have believed
    that such arguments are possible, and that some of them actually work.
    End quote.
    http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

    Peter Kreeft is a Christian scholar and a Family Man with a wife and children.
    Here is a little bit about him:

    Start quote.
    Peter John Kreeft (/kreɪft/;[3] born 1937) is a professor of philosophy at Boston
    College and The King's College. A convert to Roman Catholicism, he is the
    author of over eighty books[4] on Christian philosophy, theology and apologetics.
    He also formulated, together with Ronald K. Tacelli, "Twenty Arguments for the
    Existence of God".[5
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft
    End quote.

    Fideism is blind faith.
    Fideism is often used to mean that there are zero evidences for the existence
    of God and the truth of Christianity. My view is that there are some arguments
    for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity that DO achieve the level
    of both high Probability and high Plausibility -- but they can never achieve the
    certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 or the certainty level of this syllogism:

    {1) All men are mortal.
    {2} Socrates is a man.
    {3} Therefore Socrates is mortal.

    Also all evidences that do achieve Probability and Plausibility will be saturated with
    human subjectivity, and NOT be 100% objective evidence as is 5 + 5 = 10 and the
    Socrates syllogism. That means that humans will disagree on the question of
    just how Probable or Plausible is each individual argument?

    ____________


    Bible Verses For Today:

    "Therefore since we have been justified
    by faith, we have peace with God through
    our Lord Jesus Christ."__The Apostle Paul
    {in Romans 5:1}

    "So in everything do to others what you would
    have them do to you."__The Lord Jesus
    {in Matthew 7:12}
    `

    .
    `
     
  13. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Derideo,
    Thank you for your careful consideration of the points I made in
    my response to what you wrote.

    I guess this is "goodbye" then? Okay.
    It was good chatting with you.
    Take care.

    You too.

    Thought For Today:
    "Love is patient, love is kind . . . love is not rude, it is not
    self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of
    wrongs . Love always protects. . . Love never fails."
    The Apostle Paul 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8
     
  14. Market Junkie

    Market Junkie Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113

    :rolleyes:

    Damn, jag, I'm a lil disappointed that you didn't post a prayer for me too

    That De has all the 'luck' … lol

    So pathetic desperado kreeft was born in '37, eh.

    Guess he'll soon find out if he was right about his fantastical hypothesis that some creator-god exists... :tombstone:
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  15. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    * I HAVE been challenged several times.

    * I have already given my best answers to your questions.

    * We are starting to repeat ourselves in this thread {that's okay though}

    * I think we have come to the end of what we can achieve here.

    * I appreciate very much your interest in the Opening Post and
    your comments.

    * I have presented my best answers.

    * I have presented Plantinga's Free Will Defense.

    * You were not convinced. Sorry. That means you will have to remain
    un-convinced.

    * I have nothing else to offer you on this issue {at the present time}

    * The Opening Post, evidently, did create some interest in the subject
    for some people. Perhaps they will start other threads on different aspects
    and ramifications of this subject? That'd be good.

    * You are repeating the questions {which is okay, I do not mind that, its just
    that I have no other answers than the ones I previously presented to you.}

    You say "you're ignoring the significance of accepting God being directly
    responsible for some evil things too."__HonestJoe

    I can give you only the same answer I previously gave you, which was this:

    "I'm not ignoring it. I just don't believe it. The Bible teaches clearly that
    it was fallen humanity that was directly responsible for all the evil in
    the world. You know what it teaches:
    {1} God made a perfect world.
    {2} God made man.
    {3} God gave man a Free Will.
    {4} Man used his Free Will to choose sin.
    {5} Sin corrupted man and brought such as Aging, Cancer, and Death into the world.
    {6} Sin corrupted the world and brought such things as Earthquakes and Tsunamis into the world.

    Question: Can any of that be demonstrated true using empiricism? Answer: No
    Christianity is a faith. Not an intellectual system"___JAG

    What does that mean? It means that I cannot give you what you would consider to be
    logical, rational, empirical evidences to demonstrate to you the truth of {1) -- {6} up there.
    It will have to accepted on the basis of faith, or NEVER accepted at all

    Perhaps you will say, "I will NEVER believe it based on faith."
    If you do say that, then my response is "Okay."


    _____________

    Thought For Today:
    "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone that
    comes to Him, must believe that He exists and that He rewards
    those who earnestly seek Him." Hebrews 11:6



    `
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
  16. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Straight from the heart:

    May the Lord bless and keep you,
    May the Lord make His face shine upon you
    May the Lord be gracious unto you.
    May the Lord turn His face toward you
    May the Lord always bless you and give you peace
    {based on Numbers 6:24-27}

    Not this time {see just above}

    You also get a Bible verse.

    "For you know the grace of our LORD Jesus Christ,
    that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became
    poor, so that you through his poverty might become
    rich."__2 Corinthians 8:9

    You're on a roll . .

    Not pathetic but rather accomplished and successful.
    Not a desperado, but rather a gentlemen and a scholar.

    Yes Dr. Kreeft will relatively soon discover the answer to
    your question.

    Maybe you will also?

    A man age 60, if he lives to be, say, 89 years old, has
    only 348 months left to live. and he will find out about
    the answer to your question.

    A man age 70 that lives to be 89 years old, has only
    228 months left to live.

    And Time flies . . .

    By the way, General Time and General Death have never
    lost a battle. There will come a time, when you will be on
    your last battlefield, if you die from natural causes. Your
    last battlefield will be your hospital bed, when the doctor
    shakes his head and walks away, and you are left alone
    to face General Time and General Death. They both
    are cold heartless efficient torturers and killers that have
    no mercy and offer no grace. There may come a time
    when that prayer up there will be dear to you and you
    may remember it.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
  17. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,976
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    upload_2020-5-28_13-53-32.jpeg
     
  18. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14,545
    Likes Received:
    10,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly! The concept of god is nothing more than a Rorschach test of what's inside someone mind, so how can anyone talk about god without defining it?
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  19. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,976
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    upload_2020-5-28_15-13-49.jpeg
     

    Attached Files:

    FoxHastings, Cosmo, Pisa and 2 others like this.
  20. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    * Reasonable only if their atheistic presuppositions are correct.

    * They may not be correct.
    * There could be a God.
    * This God could be the God of the Bible.
    * Plantinga's Free Will Defense could be the absolute truth.

    * There could be a huge amount of knowledge that we do not now know
    Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God."
    "We now see through a glass darkly"__The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 13:12 {KJV}
    "Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror"__The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 13:12 {NIV}

    * We are starting to repeat ourselves. {but its not a problem}
    * Is there anything in my Opening Post that you believe
    is not true?
    * My Opening Post seeks ONLY to establish this:
    "So if God is Omnipotent and CONTROLS and CAUSES . . .ALL . . things,
    therefore all the hundreds of millions of acts of kindness that occur worldwide
    every year are ALSO caused by God --- and everything else that is a good thing."__JAG
    * That's it. Nothing else. {In this thread and in this Opening Post.}

    "what those atheists are trying to accomplish"__Swensson
    * The world of atheism is large enough so that, in my view, it cannot
    be known what atheists are trying to accomplish.
    * Again, I wrote my Opening Post ONLY for specific atheists that I know
    personally that did not want to give the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
    the credit for all the good things, rather only the evil things.

    They continually blamed the God-That-Does-Not-Exist for all the evil
    in the world, but refused to credit the God-That-Does-Not-Exist for
    all the good things in the world ---while basing their "blaming" on the
    Omnipotence {all powerful} of the God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

    Are you scratching your head on that one? LOL

    I mean to say that Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense can
    never rise to the certainty-level of 15 + 15 = 30 -- so that you
    come to KNOW that mankind's Free Will caused ALL the evil in
    the world with the same degree of certainty that you KNOW
    the city of New York exists and with the certainty-level of the
    old Socrates syllogism:

    {1) All men are mortal.
    {2} Socrates is a man.
    {3} Therefore Socrates is mortal.

    But THAT is exactly what you want. You want your certainty-level to
    rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4.

    You will NEVER get that. You will NEVER have that.

    It is impossible to establish the truth of Christianity with rational
    argumentation. You cannot eliminate the necessity of exercising
    faith in God from Christianity without destroying Christianity.

    The word FAITH occurs hundreds and hundreds of times in the Bible and is
    presented as being absolutely essential to sustaining the Christian FAITH.

    So?

    So demonstrate with empiricism and logic that Christianity is true at the
    certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 and you then no longer have to exercise
    FAITH in God.

    It does NOT require any FAITH to believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

    These 5 Bible verses below would no longer be needed and would no longer be true.

    ■ "without faith it is impossible to please God"

    ■ "for by grace are you saved through faith"

    ■ "he that comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him"

    ■ "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"

    ■ God gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him shall not perish but have eternal life
    `
    ■ And the HUNDREDS of other Bible verses that demand faith would no longer be needed or be true.

    Swensson, eliminate FAITH from Christianity and you have destroyed Christianity.
    A question for you Swensson, why would you then even consider believing in a
    Christianity that has been destroyed because it's core principle of FAITH had been
    wrecked?
    Answer: You would NOT even consider doing that.

    John 3:16 means what it says.

    ________________

    Back to The Problem Of Evil . . .

    The Problem Of Evil is in the Realm Of The Supernatural and therefore
    it cannot be proven {demonstrated} with rational arguments that the evil
    in the world is in fact because of man's Free Will and man's choice to use
    his Free Will to Sin.

    Christianity is a FAITH, it is not an intellectual system. Rational argumentation
    cannot establish the reality of Sin -- sin can only exist if there is a God to "sin
    against." What the Bible calls "sin" can be explained in secular terms of
    :"evil" and "immorality." It demands FAITH to believe that "Sin" even exists.

    That is precisely correct. It NEVER will be.
    "If you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins"__The Lord Jesus
    {John 8:24}
    "for God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever
    believes on Him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16

    Exactly. Not only does it "invite" circular "arguments"
    but it demands circular "arguments" Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17
    You are using that word "arguments" again. And applying
    the word "arguments" to Christianity which is a FAITH.
    2 Timothy 3:16-17 IS a circular "argument."

    Christianity is NOT a "faith only" -- there are many arguments that offer
    evidence that Christianity is true. BUT . . .BUT . . . we are now back to
    subjective Probability and subjective Plausibility. How so? Well somebody
    has to make a judgement call and decide what degree of Probability and
    Plausibility EACH argument has? Who will decide that? You will.
    Give it a shot:
    http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
     
  21. Capn Awesome

    Capn Awesome Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all. Because something like bigfoot (and this is important) would leave evidence of its existence. The lack of evidence itself is very compelling when you would expect tons for a massive north American primate living in the time of cell phone cameras.
     
    Cosmo, Derideo_Te and Lucifer like this.
  22. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,976
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This debate will all become moot when an extraterrestrial invasion happens in the near future and the super technologically advanced aliens say, you humans have it all wrong, the correct God to worship is the flying spaghetti eating supreme being whose law is we of the righteous can eat anything/one that doesn’t convert.
     
    Cosmo, Derideo_Te and Lucifer like this.
  23. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, but there are indeed general attributes of “God” that are known on a universal level.
     
  24. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,976
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, wheat are those?
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  25. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14,545
    Likes Received:
    10,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Such as?
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.

Share This Page