(May 24, 2017 at 8:36 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 1:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. God is just and I don't know how you got that from anyone's answer. Why do you say "picking them"? In your scenario, you said Jamal rejected God because of his experiences. 
2. Why "for his own reasons" again? God could easily have created a universe without suffer. Obviously that was not his goal. Free will and the ability for people to love each other and love him seems to take precedence. 
3. There is no logical problem with the concept--let's call that the intellectual Problem of Evil (PoE) (which has largely been abandoned by professional philosophers). You objection is based on empathy/emotions or the emotional PoE. I fully agree and understand that this is one of or the biggest obstacle for an open-minded person to have when considering the God of Christianity. However, I do have a couple of points about a Christian perspective on this issue (adapted from a podcast I listened to):

a. The chief purpose of life is knowledge of God, not happiness. 
b. We are in a state of separation/rebellion against God and his purpose-spiritual evil can prevail for a time. 
c. This life is but a blip when considering eternity and God has that perspective that we often don't see/remember.
d. The knowledge of God is of immeasurable importance--and far outweighs finite suffering.

Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

I found this one on the same site you referenced: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H8 

You can read the whole article, but Section 8 has some quotes and analysis. 

Rowes argument is a probabilistic argument and not making the claim that there is a logical problem. There is no logical problem. From the opening paragraph of your article:

Quote:The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the existence of evil (or certain instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes evidence against the existence of God, that is to say, a being perfect in power, knowledge and goodness. Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being. Such arguments are not to be confused with logical arguments from evil, which have the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible—and not just unlikely—that God exists.

So, my points a-d apply to Rowes' argument.

(May 25, 2017 at 9:46 am)Drich Wrote:

(May 23, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Aroura Wrote: How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

BECAUSE FREE WILL IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE!!!! IT IS A GREEK CONSTRUCT LATER ADDED TO "CHURCH DOCRTINE!"

Let's play pretend.  Sure let's pretend you know the difference between the Christianity set up in the bible and the one set up by men via things like 'church doctrine.' Let us also assume that you understand that church doctrine is often rife with contradictions, such as free will. But if you take what God actually says over that of what man says God said.. you get a completely different understanding of Christianity...

...also rife with contradictions.

---

(May 25, 2017 at 10:35 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 8:36 pm)Aroura Wrote: Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

I found this one on the same site you referenced: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H8 

You can read the whole article, but Section 8 has some quotes and analysis. 

Rowes argument is a probabilistic argument and not making the claim that there is a logical problem. There is no logical problem. From the opening paragraph of your article:

Quote:The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the existence of evil (or certain instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes evidence against the existence of God, that is to say, a being perfect in power, knowledge and goodness. Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being. Such arguments are not to be confused with logical arguments from evil, which have the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible—and not just unlikely—that God exists.

So, my points a-d apply to Rowes' argument.

Did I miss where it said it was largely abandoned by professional philosophers?

(May 24, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

---

SteveII Wrote:[to Harry NEvis] Well, instead of sitting on your hyper/pseudoskeptical ass and simply asserting millions of people's experiences are not real, why don't you find someone who has experienced suffering and God's peace and ask them. Find an article somewhere and post a comment.

He says, with no consciousness of irony, while dismissing the experiences of the 5 billion people who aren't Christians....

Ad populum, appeal to pity, and plain old wrong.

I am not sure that most other religions have a personal God wishing to have a one-on-one relationship with you. Setting that aside, how do you know that the experiences of a personal relationship is the same or similar between religions? Christians believe that we have the knowledge of God imprinted on our souls (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). Experiences in other religions would have this common denominator.

I can see how a skeptic would not be able to distinguish between different religions, but that in no way implies that a Christian can't have an authentic experience that give him/her warrant to think their belief is true (properly basic).

(May 26, 2017 at 6:48 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

---

He says, with no consciousness of irony, while dismissing the experiences of the 5 billion people who aren't Christians....

Ad populum, appeal to pity, and plain old wrong.

I am not sure that most other religions have a personal God wishing to have a one-on-one relationship with you. Setting that aside, how do you know that the experiences of a personal relationship is the same or similar between religions? Christians believe that we have the knowledge of God imprinted on our souls (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). Experiences in other religions would have this common denominator.

I can see how a skeptic would not be able to distinguish between different religions, but that in no way implies that a Christian can't have an authentic experience that give him/her warrant to think their belief is true (properly basic).

Christians can't claim that any other religious believer can't have an authentic experience.  You're all on the same sandy footing.

(May 26, 2017 at 7:36 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(May 26, 2017 at 6:48 am)SteveII Wrote: I am not sure that most other religions have a personal God wishing to have a one-on-one relationship with you. Setting that aside, how do you know that the experiences of a personal relationship is the same or similar between religions? Christians believe that we have the knowledge of God imprinted on our souls (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). Experiences in other religions would have this common denominator.

I can see how a skeptic would not be able to distinguish between different religions, but that in no way implies that a Christian can't have an authentic experience that give him/her warrant to think their belief is true (properly basic).

Christians can't claim that any other religious believer can't have an authentic experience.  You're all on the same sandy footing.

I am still not sure the precise nature of other religion's claims to a personal relationship with God. As I mentioned, if all a religion is describing is a personal awareness of God, I will grant that is not only possible, I would say it is true (as the Romans verses mention). So if that is the case, what's left is to examined the religions for evidence, internal consistency, predictive power, and answers to life's basic questions (including foundations for morality, purpose, value, and the future).

It all boils up to the different variable like the progress of time.

If somebody spent years of party, and then death came, what is the worth of the fun times?
Both little Jamal and little Bobby got their equal share of meanings: both felt life, both felt food, both breathed, both had minds.

Time makes life a very depressive reality: it moves and never stops; it ends with death despite the painkillers we take to forget the passing of time.
Years and years of joy, will end the same as years and years of misery. That itself is what creates the reality of man on this earth.

The road is well known in terms of how it would end. Misery is more severe if time didn't exist, joy is too more fun if that happened.

(May 26, 2017 at 8:26 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 26, 2017 at 7:36 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Christians can't claim that any other religious believer can't have an authentic experience.  You're all on the same sandy footing.

I am still not sure the precise nature of other religion's claims to a personal relationship with God. As I mentioned, if all a religion is describing is a personal awareness of God, I will grant that is not only possible, I would say it is true (as the Romans verses mention). So if that is the case, what's left is to examined the religions for evidence, internal consistency, predictive power, and answers to life's basic questions (including foundations for morality, purpose, value, and the future).

And christianity would not hold up to that scrutiny any better than any other religion.

I'm not even sure why that's supposed to follow as whats left.  Maybe it boils down to basic differences between people, but, if there were a god, and if it were possible to be aware of god -and- if I was aware of god....I still wouldn't see any reason to go asking it whether or not it was kosher to boil puppies. Nor would I rule out the possibility that god is a puppy boiler whose advice on the subject is suspect.

What's left, to you.... to me, seems to be completely uninformative. No amount of checking a story's editorial competency will demonstrate that the story is really real™. Internal consistency is moot. By predictive power...we can only coherently refer to a single as-yet to occur event...and I see no way of testing -that- chestnut. The answers to life's basic questions...probably amounts to little more than our preferences.

Examine them for evidence, sure...but that's the part where they're uniformly lacking. Full of answers to life's basic questions(and most of us disagree with most of them, lol).....they all contain portents of what's to come, and most have been competently edited for content over the years.

(May 23, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Aroura Wrote: How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

Let's play pretend.  

Little Bobby is born in a nice western country.  He is never hungry, goes to nice schools, and is taught about the glory of God and Jesus.  He marries and has a wonderful, healthy family.  12 grandkids, all joyful.
He has some minor illnesses, but nothing major until whatever ends his wonderfully full life at age 89.

Little Jamal is born in a developing nation to a poor family, he is born with a major disability.  He is often hungry, but his family scrapes by.  His only education is in a hut by a foreign priest.  He's lucky to have it at all.
He also is taught about the glory of Jesus and God his entire life.  He goes to church, and is model. He volunteers in his community, shares what little food he has, etc.  He maries, has kids, and then his wife is raped and murdered and his children die of starvation in a war dropped on his country that he aboslutely nothing to do with, when he was just trying to live well and get by.
He loses his faith, and dies in a ditch at age 45.

Now, let's even pretend that all of life is a test, and God will give every person a chance, after death, to recognize his glory and accept him.  So even nonbelievers, fallen away believers, people of other faiths, etc, all get this sort of second chance to make this supposed choice.

If Jamal is so angry and upset by the fact that God allowed his family to suffer that he disavows God even after meeting him after death, but Bobby gets a straight ticket to heaven because he never had a reason to doubt OR to be upset at God, how is that anything remotely JUST?

If you only would exit the corral of mental dogmas and consider more options then you wouldn't stick to that only option.
Suppose there is God and reincarnation and the karma law and that poor child in the past life kill and rape.
Wouldn't be normal for that child to experience the same terrible feeling that he caused to other people?

Now don't come to quick conclusion once again thinking that I think that that child deserve the punishment.
That is not my job to give punishment nor to think that that child should suffer.
My job is to help that poor child to survive and do well.
At the same time if God exist and the karma exist then is in his hands to run the business to keep
justice in the universe so the people learn and the universe exist.
One more option to consider Aro would be to think that nobody really die.
Energy and consciousness are indestructible so that child will live on for ever after this terrible experience.

SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:

---

He says, with no consciousness of irony, while dismissing the experiences of the 5 billion people who aren't Christians....

Ad populum, appeal to pity, and plain old wrong.

I am not sure that most other religions have a personal God wishing to have a one-on-one relationship with you. Setting that aside, how do you know that the experiences of a personal relationship is the same or similar between religions?

How do you know they don't?

SteveII Wrote:Christians believe that we have the knowledge of God imprinted on our souls (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). Experiences in other religions would have this common denominator.

Christians who believe that people who say they don't believe in God are lying are in good company because it's not hard to find people who say the same thing who belong to other religions. Especially Islam.

SteveII Wrote:I can see how a skeptic would not be able to distinguish between different religions, but that in no way implies that a Christian can't have an authentic experience that give him/her warrant to think their belief is true (properly basic).

Just no more warrant than anyone in any other religion who claims to have an authentic experience.

---

AtlasS33 Wrote:If somebody spent years of party, and then death came, what is the worth of the fun times?
Both little Jamal and little Bobby got their equal share of meanings: both felt life, both felt food, both breathed, both had minds.

If you spend your life in earnestness and dour hard work, when death comes, what was the point of not having fun?

---

Rik is here, time for me to leave this thread.