Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

And what was that "evil"? What was that specific act that was evil?

 

I wrote the Opening Post only to make the point that for some atheists to be consistent
they would have to reach the conclusion, on their lights, that the God of the Bible was both
evil and good. How so? Because some atheists say that the Biblical doctrine of God's Omnipotence
MUST mean that He causes ALL things. My response is if He causes ALL things then He ALSO causes
ALL the GOOD in the world. This is COMPELLINGLY true. This MUST be true. This is not arguable.

You of course understand the above is not my view as a Christian. My view is that God causes all the
good things and fallen sinful mankind causes all the evil things.

 

Then you are lacking in the same consistency that your demand of atheists.

 

you wont get anything constructive when your arguments are bang on and pose such a huge threat to their fragile belief system

 

FishinD,
That is not correct. If you wish to be correct and accurate
you need to say rather "There is not one shred of evidence
of {God's} existence. Not a single one. Nothing" that convinces
you personally. If you said that you would be correct. But you
cannot speak for humanity. There are literally billions of Theists
in the world {projected to be 5.7 billion Theists by the year 2050}
that DO believe that there is evidence for the existence of God.

Here are Peter Kreeft's 20 Arguments For The Existence Of God.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Peter Kreeft is a highly respected theologian with earned degrees from
a highly respected secular university.
Peter kreeft: Education: Calvin College · Calvin University · Yale University ·
Fordham University

Sure! You can discount all 20 arguments as nonsense. But the world's some
5 billion Theists DO NOT discount them as nonsense. So to billions of
other human beings, beside you, there IS a lot of evidence for the existence
of God.


`

 

Kokomojojo,
Thanks for the comment.

I am not certain that there is a lot that is "constructive" here inside
Thread World on the Internet At large. Are you? It looks to me like
that Thread World all over the Internet is rather more-or-less
a place where the cannibals gather to feed, metaphorically
speaking.

There may be some constructive exchanges that take place.
I guess there are at least some. My view is that Thread World
is a place where people can make points. People making their
points certainly does take place here inside Thread World - and
I think we have to be satisfied with making our points.

Then sometimes we get to share some interesting quotes.

For examples, like theses:

Quotes for Today:

“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

_______

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such
times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to
decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring


`

 

You're mixing the concepts of "perfect" and "evil" there. Can the world be called perfect if there is the possibility of evil, even before that evil has occurred?

Anyway, with an omniscient God, the occurrence of evil was a certainty the moment he granted free will. Such a God must have always known that would happen.

Just a continuation of the core point; God is either responsible for both good and evil or isn't responsible for either good or evil.

Atheists don't have an independent perception of God though, they can only work based on the various definitions presented by theists.

So an omnipotent, perfect, loving God would be responsible for a whole load of bad things as well as a whole load of good things? That doesn't sound like a God I'd want to worship.

 

I haven't actually studied Deuteronomy. However, my understanding is that its strongest statements about law have to do with what god required of worshipers at that time.

That was changed dramatically with the arrival of Jesus.

I think we have to be really careful with what we brig forward from the OT wrt law, whether religious or not. For example, we certainly would not bring Leviticus forward. I'm not suggesting that it has no meaning, but we do need to recognize that it was designed for those people at that time, and that they didn't draw a line between what was needed for society and what was specific to man's relationship with their god.

The reconciliation of good and evil in the OT is very different from the recocilliation of good and evill in the NT.

I try not to prostelitize, I recognize that there are important principles in the Bible, but I have stated that I don't accept the existence of an omnipotent intelligence. I'm more interested in working together on problems and accepting expert opinion as an important part of decision making - things we're moving away from rather rapidly at present.

When we base our decision making on religion, working together and accepting expert opinion become exceptionally difficult It's related to the problem of getting medical direction from those who know nothing about medicine. There becomes no basis for discussion, regardless of the certainty of Earthly knowledge and experience.

 

Take a look at it this way. A green teapot in orbit around Mars is absurd. The concept of a creator God is not.

 

There is a ton of evidence i have posted a little, you guys ignore it.

 

Sure, but how could this possibly degrade to the point of arguing about whether god made made various things we like about life on Earth?

 

On SOME atheist's view of God, Yes. That was the one and ONLY
point of my Opening Post and this thread. A thread does not always
have to have some "deep profound" theme. There can be threads that
seek to make only one simple point --- this thread is such a thread.
I think the vast majority of everybody in this thread still does not
understand the point of the Opening Post. And that's cool.
I know that you DO understand it. So that's one. And one is
enough . . ./grin

I'm not trying to be irritable or impolite when I say to you, that
this thread is not designed to get you to believe in any God.

HonestJoe,
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.


`

 

I see your point. That's an interesting question.
Does the capability of evil automatically establish imperfection? I don't know. I think you could argue pro and con
on that one. However either way you go on this question, on Christian lights, it all ends up very good indeed.

On Christianity, here is how the world ends:

"And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people,
and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their
God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or
pain, for the old order of things has passed away." __Revelation 21:3-4

So all is well that ends well.

That is 100% correct.
The best I can offer you is, again, Planting's quote below:
Before you read Plantinga, read this:
God is willing to have "acceptable losses" {some perish} in order to have untold billions inherit eternal life.
HonestJoe, "deep read" Plantinga's Free Will Defense and you will see God's "gains" and God's "acceptable losses."
Regarding "acceptable losses" remember that God will grant a "final divorce" from Him if you insist and demand the
"final divorce." God will say to you, in effect, "Thy will be done."

As Plantinga summarized his defense:[14]

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense#Further_details

Well, that is the one and ONLY point of my Opening Post and what this thread is about.

 

Based on that logic, either:

1) Heaven is less valuable than earth
2) People are free to perform evil actions in Heaven
or
3) God could have created a world, like Heaven, where people are free to commit evil, but do not do so.

 

WillReadmore,
Thanks for your comments. I read all that you wrote.

 

You would compare a teapot to a god and then claim it is just the teapot that is absurd!

 

Hold me to it!!

 

Maybe they don't on this particular forum, but on other forums
I personally know MANY atheists that read the Bible in-depth
and study it academically just as they do other subjects and they
form their own atheistic views about the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
and they post those views in threads.

All that by the way, is where . . .

I got the inspiration to write the Opening Post of this thread -- from
those Bible-reading and Bible-studying atheists on other forums
who constantly , , ,constantly , , accuse the God of the Bible with
causing evil because He is Omnipotent --- and NEVER admit that
to be consistent they have to ALSO give Him credit for all the good
things in the world --- after all He is either Omnipotent or He is NOT
Omnipotent --- and if Omnipotent and causes ALL things then He
causes ALL BOTH . . the EVIL . . .and ALL the GOOD in the world.
That is a compelling conclusion. It is not arguable. Its a factoid.

 

Cool.
/grin

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Uh, it's a very short thread so far...read back....

You'll have to put that comment in context.

 

Sure! You can discount all 20 arguments as nonsense. But the world's some
5 billion Theists DO NOT discount them as nonsense. So to billions of
other human beings, beside you, there IS a lot of evidence for the existence
of God.


`[/QUOTE]

You’re right, I do discount the arguments. As they are not scientific fact. I believe in science. Pretty sure there are also billions who agree with me as well.

 

You have not posted anything of the sort. But if you want to try now, feel free. If there is a ton of evidence, it should be easy.

 

Amen.

Religion and science don't share a definition of evidence, logic, root principles, etc. In fact, religion has no accepted method for making a decision! If it did, there wouldn't be an estimated 4,300 active and different religions on Earth today. Religion provides no way of resolving that.

And, when Christians do science, they do it exactly like everyone else on Earth does - by the rules and definitions of science.

 

Using your illogical pretext that means that YOU believe in and worship Allah, Odin, Zeus, Loki, Athena, Satan, Krishna and the thousands of other deities that MUST exist because you say they don't exist.

 

Yes, you have justified your belief in Baal!