Christian Paradox

[Eilonnwy]

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.

Nice strawman, but no. I never once said that, and Adrian and TheVoid adequately responded.

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?

And this is what you do when you get backed into a corner, you get skeptical of skepticism. I don't have to back up my statement with evidence, I'm not making an evidentiary claim here! When you say I must accept your claim that God has benevolent reasons for evil, you have to back it up. When I say I won't accept a claim without reliable evidence that's insight to my methodology. It is in fact, a methodology that works.

When it comes to understanding the world presuppositions are useless, it's the evidence that matters. People used to believe the sun was carried by a chariot based on presuppositions, it was the people willing to investigate and accept a new idea that lead to the discovery of the solar system. If we based our life on presuppositions from an ancient book we wouldn't even know that much!

Everything we know about the world is based on evidence. Just as we know how to make the computer you're talking to me on, create global systems of communication, medicine, clean water, more food production, transportation, space travel. All this is the sum total of our ability to make claims and back them up based on evidence and results. These same methods have helped us to understand the universe, evolution and everything else you deny because you prefer to read the one book your were raised to believe was true as true.

The world we live in speaks for itself. The methodology speaks for itself.

You accept a book uncritically and when people try to show you why those methods are flawed, why they are so open to misconceptions and falsehoods you get suddenly skeptical of the one method that does work. You work yourself around in circles, I sometimes think you don't know what's up and what's down.

[Purple Rabbit]

I'd like to ask any agnostics or atheist, who have previously believed in a God, what Paradoxes in Christianity, or any religion, could you identify that caused reasonable doubt?

Top 6 for me:
- problem of evil
- the concept of unverifiable submission
- alleged absolute divine moral
- no answer from god in prayer
- the story of abraham sacrificing izaak
- the heaven being above thing

[Xyster]

I was religous once... Then I was on the fence for a while and had a disscussion with a highly religous person and what he said made no logical sence. So I talked to my best freind that has become a bible thumper in the last few years. He told me to read the bible and the truth will be revealed. Well the bible that I read had a preface to it with a history of the bible. Where i learned how most of the bible was composed of stories that were from scrolls and such that were written hundreds of years after the fact. Then with more research I discoverd all the immoral things that this tyrant... ooops I mean loving god did. Then looked how religion controls the masses with fear tactics that clearly contradict its self. (hell)

God says he loves us..... But sending anyone to hell would make him a liar... By the verry definition of love that is in the BIBLE.. Corinthians 13:4

All the immoral items in the bible leads me to belive the the book was not inspired by any god but written by man (and a primitive ignorant warlike man at that) to controll the masses.

If the bible was inspired by a god it would be a test in Gullibility...and the belivers will be deemed unworthy

[rjh4 is back]

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?

I see nothing in your definition of omnibenevolence that requires one who is omnibenevolent to not even allow evil to occur. Do you see yourself as having to stop or alleviate any and all pain, or suffering, or evil you see going on around you for you to be considered benevolent? I doubt it. Given that, it does not appear reasonable to conclude that just because God is omnipotent and, therefore, has the ability to dispense with all evil, that God is somehow less than omnibenevolent because He allows evil. So when you say: "If God is omnipotent then he could easily achieve his goals without evil but chooses not to, meaning he is not omnibenevolent." I say that the conclusion, "meaning he is not omnibenevolent", does not necessarily follow from the premise "If God is omnipotent then he could easily achieve his goals without evil but chooses not to".

Also, I see nothing in your definitions of omnibenevolence and evil that indicates that bringing about consequences to an action is somehow evil or precludes omnibenevolence. The Bible is clear that the reason that the world has suffering and pain and death is a consequence of sin. Evil from a Biblical point of view would be doing anything that is disobedient to God Himself. But I do not think it at all follows from a Biblical point of view that the consequences that we suffer for our disobedience or the disobedience of others is evil or that somehow God is not omnibenevolent because He makes us suffer consequences or because He allows our actions to affect others. So I think you are applying a standard for omnibenevolence that is simply not a Biblical one and does not even agree with the definition you provided.

[rjh4 is back]

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.

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.

So Adrian and Void think we have some pretty good and well supported explanations for a naturalistic formation of life from non-life. Yet Adrian says "having a demonstration where we replicate the same results is a different matter." So we have these explanations that have not been replicated. How good could the explanations be then? We know so much information about how cells work, etc., but has any scientist been able to create even a living cell from non-living raw materials (to clarify I am talking about something along the lines of abiogenesis, not using an egg/sperm)? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. (And before anyone replies that my argument is fallacious, I am not claiming that my argumentation "proves" abiogenesis wrong, I am merely stating reasons why I do not think it is convincing and why I think my statement to E ("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.") was accurate.)

@Void

Regarding your comment on the demonstration of the viability of producing all 20 known amino acids, do such demonstrations provide also for the viability of how the L amino acids segregated enough from the D amino acids in a naturalistic manner such that life could come from non-life? Remember, the only amino acids that occur in living things are L amino acids and most reactions will produce a mixture of L and D amino acids.

[LEDO]

I think XTC covers the Christian paradox quite well. XTC lyrics

"Dear God"

, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

it's you....

Dear God

[KichigaiNeko]

could you please be more specific on the problem of evil?

Sure.

"Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

The wiki article delves into the discussion more deeply.

In essence, Christians make certain claims about God, that he is all powerful, all good, all knowing, etc... But then you get into issues, well why does suffering exist? Why does evil exist? There are many reasons I have been given, free will, preparation for heaven, the devil did it. None of these satisfactorily answer it for me.

The whole "problem of evil" thing is certainly not limited to Christians, though. And while a Christian might not have an answer that you would find satisfactory, I wonder how you address the issue.

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.

While we do not know what that reason is for any or all evil that exists, there does not appear to be any logical contradictions given the conclusion 5.

From the perspective of the unbeliever, however, proposition 4 seems to create a problem.

Saying "evil exists" presupposes an objective, universal standard for what is evil and what is good. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, most if not all of the atheists here do not think there is any such objective and universal standard for evil or good. If that is the case then, it appears then that from an unbeliever's perspective there really is no "problem of evil" to assert against a Christian. If that is not the case, then I question what this objective and universal standard for evil and good is and where it came from.

Only christians, Jews and Muslims created 'evil'....can't imagine why. There are no standards, no objectives, just a bunch of puny minded idiots trying to make sense of Life and guess what?? Life and the Universe doesn't care....the rest of us are just having a shitty day.

(apologies for the sloppy post)

[rjh4 is back]

Only christians, Jews and Muslims created 'evil'....can't imagine why. There are no standards, no objectives, just a bunch of puny minded idiots trying to make sense of Life and guess what?? Life and the Universe doesn't care....the rest of us are just having a shitty day.

Well from your point of view, then, there is no such thing as the "problem of evil" to assert against Christianity. That was part of my point. You see people will say that the "problem of evil" is one of the reasons they have against Christianity. Well, evil does not cause any problem in the Christian world view and from an atheistic world view evil does not really exist, as you pointed out. Therefore, I do not understand how the "problem of evil" can be a cogent reason that someone would assert against Christianity.

[tackattack]

If evil doesn't exist, does right and wrong exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

They exist like ideas exist... they exist in the minds of people.

Good and evil is subjective... but that doesn't mean that I don't have my own standards of what is right and wrong. I do not think that murder, rape, and torture are good things. And Kindness, love and compassion and caring in general I do think are good things. I don't need to believe in any absolute, objective morals in order to have my own standards. Why the hell would I? And if you're not arguing that I would, then who cares about absolute objective morals?

I get my own morality through my own genes, upbringing and mostly just empathy basically, as does everyone else... (or lack thereof).

EvF