Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

No, you can't
..

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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


`

 

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!

 

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}
`

.
`

 

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

 

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...

 

* 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



`

 

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.

 

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?

 

* 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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yes, but there are indeed general attributes of “God” that are known on a universal level.

 

Oh, wheat are those?

 

Such as?