Christian Paradox

[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.