All of that is bullshit assumption without a shred of evidence to back it up. Don't call people ignorant while using ignorance as your only argument. I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but prove that God exists, or stop assigning your beliefs to him/her.

(May 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm)gringoperry Wrote: I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but prove that God exists, or stop assigning your beliefs to him/her.

For the purposes of this thread's discussion, God is a given. The existence of God is debated on other threads.

(May 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm)gringoperry Wrote: I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but prove that God exists, or stop assigning your beliefs to him/her.

For the purposes of this thread's discussion, God is a given. The existence of God is debated on other threads.

No it isn't, otherwise people on THIS THREAD would not challenge my arguments with statements such as "I didn't realise you were a theist". (paraphrased). If we allow the assumption that God exists; on this or any other thread, then the atheist has to always concede the argument. That, to me, is intellectually unfair. Let's, for once, turn that argument around. How about theists argue under the assumption that God does not exist.

Quote:For the purposes of this thread's discussion, God is a given.

Sorry,you don't get to decide the rules. I did not and do not accept that condition.

(May 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm)padraic Wrote: Sorry,you don't get to decide the rules.

Agreed I do not decide the rules. It's not about rules, its about respect not only for the OP but for members who try to stay on point. The issue being this: theistic explanations of why God allows natural evils. Any such explanation must begins with the premise that God exists. Questioning that premise is fine, but there are other threads for that discussion.

(May 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I’m not trying to be flip or diminish the true anguish of tragic and unfortunate fates but pain is a given; suffering is optional. Pain provides useful sensory feedback about bodily harm. In that respect pain is a blessing. Suffering, on the other hand, is the emotional response to that pain based on our judgment about it. Athletes endure pain willingly as part of training. That would not qualify as suffering. We suffer when we believe our pain is pointless, unfair or unnecessary. In a theological context, the natural events that cause pains are in some sense just or serve God’s purposes.

Very well said. (This is my attempt to kudos it twice.)

(May 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm)gringoperry Wrote: I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but prove that God exists, or stop assigning your beliefs to him/her.

For the purposes of this thread's discussion, God is a given. The existence of God is debated on other threads.

You have probably already observed this often enough to know, but that is the atheist's fall-back position when his counter-argument begins to sustain too many holes; he drops it like a hot potato and runs back to his uncritical mantra, an ignoratio elenchi that exhibits a curious incapacity for the logical principle of arguendo.

---

---

(May 16, 2012 at 9:01 pm)gringoperry Wrote: No, it isn't—otherwise people on THIS THREAD would not challenge my arguments with statements such as "I didn't realize you were a theist" (paraphrased).

And why did I say that? To underscore the fact that your very contention was presupposing some God other than the one being assumed for the sake of argument. Since the God that your contention presupposed was not the God of the Bible (because with that God an unbeliever would never be standing at the gates of heaven, much less arguing with him), you were thus invoking some other God—which would be a strange thing for an atheist to do, who does not believe in any God. Hence my statement: "I never took you for a theist."

(May 16, 2012 at 9:01 pm)gringoperry Wrote: If we allow the assumption that God exists, on this or any other thread, then the atheist has to always concede the argument.

That is so false it is actually ridiculous. For example, the existence of God can be assumed for the sake of argument when discussing whether or not he is a moral monster. Just because the atheist accepts for the sake of argument that this God exists, it does not follow that he must concede the argument; in fact, most atheists I think would disagree with you, saying that assuming this God for the sake of argument actually HELPS their argument.

---

---

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: If we state that God transcends or exists independently [of the universe], then why is it not fair to state that he would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering.

Such a statement is not so much unfair as it is invalid. When we are assuming for the sake of argument the God of the Bible (and we are), it is an invalid straw man to state that God "would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering." His existence apart from the universe does not preclude his control of and activity within the universe. It does not follow either rationally or theologically from what is revealed about God in the Bible (e.g., Col. 1:15-17), such as his sovereign will and purpose in all things. "In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other" (Eccl. 7:14; cf. Isa. 45:7; e.g., Amos 3:6). In his hand is "the life of every creature and the breath of all the human race" (Job 12:10).

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: He transcends and is omnipresent, which by default places him as part of the cause of pain and suffering (such as the aforementioned fire).

I agree that the fire does not happen apart from God's sovereign will, but you said this implies "that God IS the fire" (Msg. 41). That is what I disagreed with (due to its pantheistic connotation, which is antithetical to the nature of God).

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: When pain and suffering is involved God magically appears transcendent and/or independent, but when goodness [and] charity is involved he is [right] in the middle of it. This is unreasonable in light of an omnipresent creator, because it implies that he opts out of it (which I'll get to).

Not only unreasonable but also unbiblical. God exists transcendentally but is active right in the middle of both prosperity and calamity. "In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other" (Eccl. 7:14); "I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things" (Isa. 45:7); "If disaster overtakes a city, is the LORD not responsible?" (Amos 3:6). For example, in 2 Kings 19 God reveals that when the Assyrian king Sennacherib laid seige against Jerusalem it was God who had long ago ordained and planned it and was now bringing it to pass (v. 25; cf. Isa. 10:5-16).

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The only reasonable position (which I suspect is closer to what you feel) is for God to be aware of the pain and suffering and mourn it, but recognize its necessity for some "transcendent" reason.

No, that is consistent with Open Theism, which I reject as unbiblical.

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(May 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm)Ryft Wrote: You did. Here. This time. But you peruse these forums just as I do; you know how pervasive the appeals to emotional arguments are (e.g., hand-wringing about all teh baybeez) and that there is almost never that acknowledgment. But it is to be expected: if your argument has no logical punch, deflect using an emotional one.

I do agree; but I do not believe it is possible to present an example of unnecessary pain and suffering without resorting to presenting an example which is emotional in nature.

That is most unfortunate, since getting emotionally worked up about X does not somehow prove that X is gratuitous. It ignores and fails to eliminate the possibility that something can be both emotionally disturbing and nevertheless be warranted or have a purpose (i.e., not gratuitous).

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: My main issue with the concept of God in the context of pain and suffering, is based upon moral responsibility for positive action. I would argue that the more power you have the greater your moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering becomes.

I will grant causal responsibility, but moral responsibility? To whom could God even be morally responsible? (Be mindful of the question-begging fallacy in your response.)

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: As the ultimate power—some say omnipotent power—leads to an ultimate moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering.

If God has a purpose in X coming to pass, then why would he prevent it? That is incoherent. You need to wrap your head around the God your argument is contending with; namely, given the attributes of God, gratuitous evil or suffering is impossible—the two are mutually exclusive entities in the same way that an immovable object and an irresistible force are.

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Like Epicurus, we have to question: If God is able but not willing, then the failure to act is considered malicious.

If God is able but not willing... to what? Prevent some gratuitous evil or suffering? Do not jump the gun and assume the very thing to be proved (that gratuitous evil or suffering exists at all). That needs to be established—validly—before questions can be asked about it. And remember, emotional foment over X does not establish that X is gratuitous; nor does ignorance about its purpose establish that it has none.

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The question, of course, is based upon the assumption that God is a perfectly moral being, since many consider him to be the objective source of moral goodness.

God is not "a perfectly moral being." That assumes a moral order above God to which his nature and character conforms, which is not only question-begging but also antithetical to biblical theology. For example, A, B, and C are moral goods; God perfectly does A, B, and C; Therefore, God is perfectly moral. But how was the moral quality of A, B, and C determined apart from God? It begs the question against God being "the objective source of moral goodness." Rather, God is a perfectly holy being whose nature and character is the ground of moral order; the moral quality of A, B, and C is determined by the degree to which they conform to the nature and character of God.

(May 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm)gringoperry Wrote:

---

(May 16, 2012 at 3:47 pm)Godschild Wrote: By the way you describe your life you do not exist.



You have proven my point in your statement, if you are powerless to enforce judgement then there is truly no judgement, the only thing you can give is an opinion, which holds no water with One who omnipotent.

Those ants you think you have so much power over might surprise you, God has power over all mankind, let's see how you fair with army ants.



Not sure what you mean by "family-to-be who have strayed," I'm talking about my relatives. As far as my spiritual family that is a given.

I'm not preaching that is against the rules, what I'm doing is stating the facts as I see them, if you choose to ignore them that's your God given right. I've come here to learn and learning I am doing.




Your denial of God does not have any bearing on His existence, it has no bearing on the fact He is your God.




All I see is you running your mouth and senseless babble coming forth, and in that you have lowered yourself and raised up God.



God has not left us, He does exist outside this universe, however He works within it for our good. I'm not a deist because I know my God and accept what He as done for me.

---

No aliens, thus no knowledge of them, God shares His knowledge and will with those who chose to believe and serve, and that is quite an awesome thing.

---

All of that is bullshit assumption without a shred of evidence to back it up. Don't call people ignorant while using ignorance as your only argument. I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but prove that God exists, or stop assigning your beliefs to him/her.

So you believe it's OK to keep me from believing in the God who has freed me from a life like your's. I don't think so. By the way why are you so interested in someone proving God exist, when you can not prove He does not exist, is your conscience bothering you to the point you need to know.
Assumption's part of an argument when something is assigned to God, and it does not matter that you believe to the contrary, it is what it is.
I'll never give up what I know is the truth, even if it kills me.

@ChadWooters:

I believe you've just defined "being fair minded" as "agreeing with your interpretation". Needless to say, that makes your argument a petitio principii and essentially vacuous. That you cannot see other perfectly legitimate interpretations is a failure of your imagination. Your attempt to rule only your interpretation as "fair minded," thus implicitly calling other interpreters cuckoo for cocoa puffs is simply a symptom of the failure of your exegesis. But, I think the subject is likely beyond your comprehension at this stage of your development, and I'm not interested in spending any time furthering that development. I have more important things on my plate.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: If we state that God transcends or exists independently [of the universe], then why is it not fair to state that he would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering.

Such a statement is not so much unfair as it is invalid. When we are assuming for the sake of argument the God of the Bible (and we are), it is an invalid straw man to state that God "would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering." His existence apart from the universe does not preclude his control of and activity within the universe. It does not follow either rationally or theologically from what is revealed about God in the Bible (e.g., Col. 1:15-17), such as his sovereign will and purpose in all things. "In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other" (Eccl. 7:14; cf. Isa. 45:7; e.g., Amos 3:6). In his hand is "the life of every creature and the breath of all the human race" (Job 12:10).

I would dispute your accusation of creating a strawman because the quote is in context of your assertion that god is both omnipresent and neither existentially part of creation when it comes to causation of pain and suffering(which is what we're discussing). He either is part of the causation, or he isn't, and frankly equivocation on the matter that he can be both doesn't wash.

You attributed falsely, the question "Where is God" when it comes to pain and suffering as a locational question, and dismissed it as irrelevant, but it is far from irrelevant to the subject matter since the essential question is "Why does God will pain and suffering" upon his creation.

There simply is no room for prevarication on the matter, he is either responsible, partly responsible, or not responsible, and verbose expositions that fail to address these options, or at least clarification on how it may be a false dichotomy leads us to consideration the matter is being prevaricated upon.

If we remove the unnecessary verbosity of the response, are you saying that Yes, God is responsible for pain and suffering, and the real question should be "Why?"

It is typically Christian, in a faith that covers hundreds of opinions on the same biblical meanings, to being misunderstood, whether reasonable or not, and perhaps is a case of being misunderstood, the error lies in a failure to communicate your position on the matter.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote: I agree that the fire does not happen apart from God's sovereign will, but you said this implies "that God IS the fire" (Msg. 41). That is what I disagreed with (due to its pantheistic connotation, which is antithetical to the nature of God).

Again, I am having to probe you for your own position. I'll make it simple, so that no reading between the lines is necessary, and avoid the use of the word "Where" so you don't confuse yourself with a request to provide locational co-ordinates for his exact position, since I am aware of the claim to omnipresence.

Given the human perspective, what is God's role in inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering upon mankind, when he is in a position to prevent such things.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: When pain and suffering is involved God magically appears transcendent and/or independent, but when goodness [and] charity is involved he is [right] in the middle of it. This is unreasonable in light of an omnipresent creator, because it implies that he opts out of it (which I'll get to).

Not only unreasonable but also unbiblical. God exists transcendentally but is active right in the middle of both prosperity and calamity.

This is the clarity that was required previously. I am going to "appeal to emotion" again, because the quoted biblical references speak on incidents which reveal a purpose for his actions, but in cases where we can see no reasonable purpose for the infliction of pain and suffering, which are beyond human ability to avoid, what is your position on his reasoning?

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The only reasonable position (which I suspect is closer to what you feel) is for God to be aware of the pain and suffering and mourn it, but recognize its necessity for some "transcendent" reason.

No, that is consistent with Open Theism, which I reject as unbiblical.

My apologies, we have not conversed before, so much of this discussion revolves around my ascertaining your own stance on matters. My suspicion was wrong and I appreciate the correction.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I do agree; but I do not believe it is possible to present an example of unnecessary pain and suffering without resorting to presenting an example which is emotional in nature.

That is most unfortunate, since getting emotionally worked up about X does not somehow prove that X is gratuitous. It ignores and fails to eliminate the possibility that something can be both emotionally disturbing and nevertheless be warranted or have a purpose (i.e., not gratuitous).

Our experiences are necessarily from observation that many things appear gratuitous.
Since this thread is based upon allowing the axiom God exists, we must bear in mind, that we are expected to worship this deity.

We can argue apologetics all day, but it still becomes additional garbage on top of "God works in mysterious ways" "Have faith", which is, and remains a complete cop out.

I've heard it posited, that such suffering prepares us for eternal life, which does nothing to explain Act X in context of our experiences.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(May 16, 2012 at 5:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: My main issue with the concept of God in the context of pain and suffering, is based upon moral responsibility for positive action. I would argue that the more power you have the greater your moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering becomes.

I will grant causal responsibility, but moral responsibility? To whom could God even be morally responsible? (Be mindful of the question-begging fallacy in your response.)

Precisely. If, as you say, God is not morally responsible, then morality is a relative matter rather than objective. To mankind, he appears immoral through his causal responsibility.

We may claim that whatever God does is inherently moral, but only from the perspective of the deity.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote: If God has a purpose in X coming to pass, then why would he prevent it? That is incoherent. You need to wrap your head around the God your argument is contending with; namely, given the attributes of God, gratuitous evil or suffering is impossible—the two are mutually exclusive entities in the same way that an immovable object and an irresistible force are.

In short, if God is true, God is (from humans relative perspective), a complete asshole.
From the human perspective, and given God is a causal force to their very real pain and suffering, which makes the comparison to immovable, and irresistible contradiction a false analogy, since neither the immovable nor irresistible can experience being moved or resisted from their perspective, whereas a human can experience pain and suffering, from their perspective in a unwarranted, unnecessary manner, which is ultimately caused by God.

We have no other reference to pain and suffering, except from human experience, and your argument does nothing to deflect the apparent lack of necessity to these actions.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote: If God is able but not willing... to what? Prevent some gratuitous evil or suffering? Do not jump the gun and assume the very thing to be proved (that gratuitous evil or suffering exists at all).

Shifting the Burden of proof much?

We can consider it axiomatic that we experience pain and suffering, if only through our own experiences of it. I would like you to clarify your position that it doesn't exist, since we can observe and experience suffering on a regular basis.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote: That needs to be established—validly—before questions can be asked about it. And remember, emotional foment over X does not establish that X is gratuitous; nor does ignorance about its purpose establish that it has none.

Under the appearance that X is gratuitous, and in a position of ignorance about its purpose, then it is a positive assertion to claim one exists at all, and this is the core concept which underpins any debate between theist and atheist, in allowing for an axiomatic God on faith alone.

God has a purpose for it, fine. We do not know this purpose, fine.

These concepts themselves, must be then be established--validly--before an answer can be provided. You are skipping to the conclusion without a valid proposal that your axioms are indeed true. Otherwise any explanation becomes equiprobable without these items being established.

Since we are working on the premise that they are axiomatic for the purposes of this thread, are you basically saying that;
1. God (as proposed by the bible) is the causation for our suffering.
2. We don't know why.
3. We should worship him.

Abusive relationship if you ask me.

(May 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Ryft Wrote: God is not "a perfectly moral being." That assumes a moral order above God to which his nature and character conforms, which is not only question-begging but also antithetical to biblical theology. For example, A, B, and C are moral goods; God perfectly does A, B, and C; Therefore, God is perfectly moral. But how was the moral quality of A, B, and C determined apart from God? It begs the question against God being "the objective source of moral goodness." Rather, God is a perfectly holy being whose nature and character is the ground of moral order; the moral quality of A, B, and C is determined by the degree to which they conform to the nature and character of God.

Let me simplify your argument;

God can do what he likes cos he's God, deal with it.

"Moral Quality" is defined relatively by the recipient of Action X, not objectively since we can state without equivocation, that people do suffer, and they do experience unnecessary pain.

Ultimately your concept of morality is unconnected to our subjective experiences of pleasure and pain, which I struggle to see would be in line with golden rule morality supported by the new testament.
If God's actions are objectively moral through the nature of God which cannot experience pain or suffering through nature or character, then any claim to subjective feelings of pain and suffering become meaningless to the application of this basic biblical teaching since if these things do not truly exist then we cannot apply them to avoiding inflicting these things on others.

If you simply state that God answers to nobody because he is GOD, refuses to answer the very simple charge that from a relative basis, and I choose my words carefully. He would be a complete and utter cunt. Maybe not from his point of view, but definitely from ours.

(May 17, 2012 at 12:31 am)Godschild Wrote: So you believe it's OK to keep me from believing in the God who has freed me from a life like your's. I don't think so. By the way why are you so interested in someone proving God exist, when you can not prove He does not exist, is your conscience bothering you to the point you need to know.
Assumption's part of an argument when something is assigned to God, and it does not matter that you believe to the contrary, it is what it is.
I'll never give up what I know is the truth, even if it kills me.

That line right there is the problem I have with Christianity. You know nothing of my life, yet you assume that your's is in some way superior because you are a Christian.

I have no problem arguing from the assumption, it's when it is asserted that I believe it for doing so, that it becomes unfair.