Christian Paradox

[leo-rcc]

Not analogous at all. God exists and has revealed to His creation, particularly mankind, what God expects of us and the consequences of failure to meet the expectations.

Really? How did he do that? I haven't gotten a memo on this subject, unless you mean that storybook. So how did Buddhists get this revelation? Or Hindu's?

He has also revealed to us that we, ourselves, fail to live up to God's standard but has provided a solution so that we do not have to suffer the consequences (Jesus, God with us, came to earch, lived a perfect life, and died in our place. If we trust in Jesus and what He did, then we do not have to pay the price ourselves).

This might very well be the most revolting part of Christianity. It is basically saying that you are an insignificant worm, who is guilty of a crime without ever having a say in the matter, and you just have to not only accept that a scapegoat is being used without your consent, you even have to rejoice in this beautiful sacrifice this god is making for you. And if you don't you must face the consequences of not loving this bully.

So God reveals all of this to you and you do not take advantage of the solution.

He hasn't revealed anything of the sort. If anything, if that is indeed the message of your almighty god you can keep him.

[A897]

Not analogous at all. God exists and has revealed to His creation, particularly mankind, what God expects of us and the consequences of failure to meet the expectations. He has also revealed to us that we, ourselves, fail to live up to God's standard but has provided a solution so that we do not have to suffer the consequences (Jesus, God with us, came to earch, lived a perfect life, and died in our place. If we trust in Jesus and what He did, then we do not have to pay the price ourselves). So God reveals all of this to you and you do not take advantage of the solution. Who then is to blame? The one who set up the rules and has the authority to do so, or the one who hears and knows what the rules are and fails to follow them? I would say the latter.

what is god's standard by the way?? worshiping him?! we get caught up by evil or not the point still remains that god created evil with motive of distracting human! if he has such high standards he shouldn't have brought himself low by creating evil himself! Well jesus didn't reach out for muslims! and where was he at the start of human civilization??

[Ace Otana]

I'm back!

what God expects of us and the consequences of failure to meet the expectations.

Sounds very much like human behaviour which is something you wouldn't really see from a so-called "perfect being". God sounds like a dictator all ready. Too human.

He has also revealed to us that we, ourselves, fail to live up to God's standard

That's probably because we've grown up. Your....(cough)....umm gods standards seem to unreasonable and how should I put this?.....Too stupid for us to follow.

If we trust in Jesus and what He did, then we do not have to pay the price ourselves).

Huh? Price? Last time I checked I don't owe anyone. Oh wait you're talking about the sin thing. That thing that I am some how responsible for long before I was born. Right I got ya now.

So God reveals all of this to you and you do not take advantage of the solution.

Nope. YOU reveal all of this bollocks. I have yet to see this god reveal anything.

The one who set up the rules and has the authority to do so

Oh so god made these rules. All this time I thought it was you nut jobs. Well then, god is a total dick and I'd rather burn than worship such a villain. Anyway, so far this god of yours seems very human like in character/behaviour. I smell something fishy. I dunno, his behaviour resembles more that of a human than of a supreme being.

the one who hears and knows what the rules are and fails to follow them?

Not following a rule is often a smart thing. If a rule was made that you had to pluck your eye out would you? Your....um I mean....GODS rules are too strange and most unreasonable. I don't like dictators.
"If your people do not follow the rules you laid out, then maybe it's you who is in the wrong". Rules only make sense when they are made through reason. To send someone to hell for lack of belief is totaly without reason. What harm is done to anyone who lacks belief in such a human like god?

[theVOID]

Specifically, from a Christian perspective given the propositions:

1.God is omnipotent.
2.God is omnibenevolent.
3.God is omniscient.
4.Evil exists

We can draw the conclusion:

5. God has a benevolent reason for the evil that exists.

If God has a benevolent reason for the existence of Evil then it must be because he is unable to achieve his goals in an omnibenevolent way, meaning he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent then he could easily achieve his goals without evil but chooses not to, meaning he is not omnibenevolent.

Your concept of God is either Omnipotent OR Omnibenevolent - it would be illogical for him to be both.

[rjh4 is back]

Specifically, from a Christian perspective given the propositions:

1.God is omnipotent.
2.God is omnibenevolent.
3.God is omniscient.
4.Evil exists

We can draw the conclusion:

5. God has a benevolent reason for the evil that exists.

If God has a benevolent reason for the existence of Evil then it must be because he is unable to achieve his goals in an omnibenevolent way, meaning he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent then he could easily achieve his goals without evil but chooses not to, meaning he is not omnibenevolent.

Your concept of God is either Omnipotent OR Omnibenevolent - it would be illogical for him to be both.

Before I try to address what you are saying, I need to know: How do you define "evil", "omnipotent", and "ominbenevolent" in your post above. You seem to be assuming we look at these the same way. But I doubt we do. See my previous response to E regarding "evil" and that if you take this as meaning what E thinks it means, the whole thing is unintelligible.

[Eilonnwy]

I don't see how. The charge was essentially that there is a logical contradiction in the Christian world view given propositions 1-4. Conclusion 5 resolves that.

Conclusion 5 assumes you know something about which you say you don't know something in that same breath. You can't explain it, so you assume there is a good reason for the contradiction despite not being able to explain it.

You can't explain something you can't explain.

No wonder you are an atheist. You presupposed God does not exist from the outset. To you, God is a mere proposition. Doing so puts you as the prime authority for your world view; makes you autonomous from God Himself. But, in the end, your world view is unintelligible.

No, I came to that conclusion after long arduous process of questioning and looking for answers regardless of where the answers lead me. I was raised Catholic, how many times do I have to say this? I lived my early life "presupposing" God did exist. You make it seem as if I'm as close minded as you.

Furthermore, you often bring up presuppositions as if they make everything valid. You presuppose God exists so your response to say, a Bible verse is accurate and write off my interpretation as a flaw in my presuppositions. In essence, saying that since we have our own presuppositions we come to different conclusions and that's that.

Speaking as someone who has changed her worldview consistently to fit with the evidence, I don't presuppose any worldview is completely 100% accurate. I attempt to believe in what I think to be most accurate but I'm acutely aware of what I don't know and if better evidence shows God exists, with good reliable evidence of a falsifiable proposition, I'd change my mind. However, YOU have stated you ignore evidence that doesn't fit into your worldview. You let your presuppositions dictate your worldview to the point of being completely unable to consider anything else and change your mind. You're the ignorant one, and I hate to throw ad homs, but to state you ignore evidence that clashes with your worldview is the height of ignorance. There's no other way around it. You're so close minded that you project close mindedness on other people in order to make it okay to believe what you want.

Worldviews aren't equally valid based on presuppositions. There are ones based on a complete lack of evidence, and while they have every right to believe it, that doesn't make them correct. You can believe God has a "good" reason for evil, but you have no evidence, no justification, just an assumption you make in order to fit propositions you also make on no evidence, no justification, to make it seem correct.

That is unintelligible

Yes I am the prime authority of my worldview, it's MY worldview. There's nothing wrong with me taking ownership of something that is mine to begin with.

Remember, E, I am arguing from a presuppositional view that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God (God's revelation of who and what He is to His creation). So given that the Bible says that God is good (in fact, He is the standard of Goodness) and is all powerful, the conclusion follows from the propositions given the presuppositions.

Yeah, so you make up an answer to suit your needs. This is not the way to find out what is true about the world.

You assume (a) omnibenevolence and (b) omnipotence to be true and create a third proposition to satisfy (a) and (b) without considering for a second that either (a) and/or (b) could be completely wrong. This method of deciding what is true flies in the face of sound reasoning. If science operated this way we'd still be living in caves.

So, from my point of view, I am saying you should accept, without evidence, that God has a reason and it is good.

I will never accept anything without reliable evidence. I may not be perfect in this, but I do my best to consider the most reliable evidence before believing in something. Your way of thinking closes people off from questions. First, I must accept something uncritically and second to question is to test god. That's a dictatorship, and I believe that to be deeply immoral. If this is the way God operates, he's a dick. Luckily, I don't think such a supreme dick exists.

You seem to have an aversion for accepting God based on God's revelation alone.

YES OF COURSE I DO!

How the hell can you determine what cryptic revelation is true if people can have different interpretations based on your beloved presuppositions? There are people dying every fucking day because someone believes they know what God is telling them and they are right. Over 2000 people died on 9/11 because some hijackers believes in God's revelation. Step outside your Christianity for two fucking seconds and consider how impossible it is to determine which revelation is true. There are hundreds of religions all claiming revelation and somehow your version is right? It's absurd to the highest degree.

If I accepted truth based on revelation it's just a matter of which one got to me first. If I was born in the Middle East, I'd have the revelations of Allah. If I was born in Asia I might be Hindu or Buddhist. All claim spiritual revelations that are clearly distinct from one another. They cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.

You need to have proof that it is really from God. So you put God to the test, i.e., some logical or evidentiary test, and from the results, you decide. So then you are saying that you are a higher authority than God himself and/or logic or evidence is a higher authority than God himself. So, I do think you should change your presuppositions altogether.

Yes, I need proof before I decide what to base my entire life on. If my soul needs to be saved so desperately, isn't it good that I be so careful which one I choose? Based on your methods, Mormanism is just as valid a choice as Catholicism or Islam. All of which have different prescriptions for saving my soul and refuse saving if I accept a religion not their own.

I require evidence in accordance with the scientific method because it's the best way of determining what is most likely to be true. If God can't meet such simple standards, why should I assume the Christian god exists? If I just choose whichever one I prefer I essentially choose what reality is.

"I think elves exist, because elves are awesome and I prefer to live in a world where elves exist than not."
That is the logical conclusion of your argument.

You may be right about Mother Theresa. I have no love for the Catholic Church and the whole issue of sainthood as practiced by the Catholic Church is useless. But I do not see how what Mother Theresa did or did not do has anything to do with the original case. People can always take something approved by God and turn it into something awful.

And if God was omnibenevolent and omnipresent, you'd think he could do something about that.

When you say something is "morally wrong", that also presupposes an objective, universal standard of what is right and wrong. If that is not so, it leads to something that is unintelligible.

Consider some act A. Person 1 thinks the act is "morally wrong" but person 2 thinks the act is "morally right". So, based on your point of view, act A is considered evil by person 1 and good by person 2. So what then is the "problem of evil" from your point of view? Since act A is both good and evil, depending on the person, is God supposed to allow or stop the act relative to the stated "problem of evil"? How is a Christian supposed to respond to the "problem of evil" when this is what you mean by it? The statement of the problem is not even rational or intelligible when one looks at what you mean by "evil", i.e. given your presuppositions.

You completely ignored my statement about disease and children dying before they even have a chance to live, as part of the problem of evil. Oh well.

We're now going off into a moral debate. The simple fact is that in order to state evil exists you have to accept the proposition that things you find morally reprehensible. I can agree with that, therefore evil exists. We don't have to get into the nitty gritty of what evil specifically is unless you want to.

In short, I do find what we consider evil to be subjective in the same way I consider morals subjective. They have to be without a supreme being, and I believe history proves my case. Slavery was considered moral, now it is not. Subjective morality in action.

[rjh4 is back]

Conclusion 5 assumes you know something about which you say you don't know something in that same breath. You can't explain it, so you assume there is a good reason for the contradiction despite not being able to explain it.

You can't explain something you can't explain.

Ah. You mean like concluding that life must have formed from non-life in a naturalistic manner without being able to explain how this could/did happen.

I will never accept anything without reliable evidence.

Now there is an interesting statement. I assume that you accept this statement because you said it. What is the "reliable evidence" that supports this statement? What is the reliable evidence that you first used to determine that what you thought happened in the past actually happened in the past? The fact is that the statement is false. To make sense out of any fact or to have a world view (which everyone has regardless of whether or not they can articulate it) to begin with, one must rely upon some presupposition that one accepts without reliable evidence or proof (something that at least you take as self-evident). Just try to create a world view that does not begin with something that cannot be proved by something else using "reliable evidence" (i.e., that begins with something that can be proved using "reliable evidence"). It is impossible. You would then need "reliable evidence" for the "reliable evidence" ad infinitum.

So for us to really discuss, compare, and contrast our world views, it really comes down to a discussion of presuppositions. Otherwise, we will always be interpreting the same "facts" through our respective presuppositions and not understanding why the other comes to a different conclusion. So thinking about this, can you articulate your presuppositions?

[theVOID]

Specifically, from a Christian perspective given the propositions:

1.God is omnipotent.
2.God is omnibenevolent.
3.God is omniscient.
4.Evil exists

We can draw the conclusion:

5. God has a benevolent reason for the evil that exists.

If God has a benevolent reason for the existence of Evil then it must be because he is unable to achieve his goals in an omnibenevolent way, meaning he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent then he could easily achieve his goals without evil but chooses not to, meaning he is not omnibenevolent.

Your concept of God is either Omnipotent OR Omnibenevolent - it would be illogical for him to be both.

Before I try to address what you are saying, I need to know: How do you define "evil", "omnipotent", and "ominbenevolent" in your post above. You seem to be assuming we look at these the same way. But I doubt we do. See my previous response to E regarding "evil" and that if you take this as meaning what E thinks it means, the whole thing is unintelligible.

Omnipotent
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

Omni-Benevolent
Unlimited or infinite benevolence, All Good, (Devoid of evil, ruin , suffering, pain)

Evil

1 Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune
4. Bad or blameworthy by report
5. Characterized by anger or spite

Agree with Oxford?

[Tiberius]

Ah. You mean like concluding that life must have formed from non-life in a naturalistic manner without being able to explain how this could/did happen.

Nobody has concluded this. It has been theorized, and many theories have developed that attempt to show how it could have happened. So I disagree that we haven't been able to "explain" it. We've got some pretty good explanations; having a demonstration where we replicate the same results is a different matter.

[theVOID]

Last I read there are over 20 hypothesis on Abiogenesis that are compatible with various supposed atmospheric compositions in the early earth as well as the main laboratory experiments that have demonstrated the viability of basic chemical reactions causing components essential for life, such as all 20 of the known amino acids, Ribonucleotides that self replicate into strings of RNA etc etc.

The proposition that this is viable is very well supported, though we will likely never know exactly which circumstances lead to the initial formation or even if only one explanation actually happened and not a series of conditions in multiple locations.