Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[abaris]

You could say that, but it is actually human beings who rape and murder. What God does is use that evil to administer justice. As our Creator, it is His right to do so.

An honest question: Do you even realize that this is something to barf over?

Some god you have there, some god...

[JesusHChrist]

What is it you are failing to understand here? God repays evil with evil, and the severity of the punishment is in direct proportion to the crime. How is that not justice?

You realize that blows free will out of the water? If God could do that, he could also stop the evil in the first place.

God is not a masochist - He detests these things as well. Why do you think they are forbidden by His commandments? But if they happen, he uses them to administer punishment/justice. That is just how it works.

How about someone who murders a child? The child was evil so they deserved God "administering" justice?

I don't think you've thought this through.

[Faith No More]

What is it you are failing to understand here? God repays evil with evil, and the severity of the punishment is in direct proportion to the crime. How is that not justice?

God is not a masochist - He detests these things as well. Why do you think they are forbidden by His commandments? But if they happen, he uses them to administer punishment/justice. That is just how it works.

What I'm failing to understand is how you claim on one hand that rape and murder are justice from God but on the other hand you claim to detest these actions. Why do you detest your all-knowing god's justice? Why would an all-powerful God use methods he detests to administer judgement?

The most burning question, though, is, can we expect any internal consistency from you?

[Ravenshire]

Well an internet search can turn up just about anything, so that's not really proof. How many theists (Christians would probably be more accurate here) have you personally witnessed acting like that?

Back-peddle much?!?

Wow!

[MilesAbbott81]

I volunteer on a sexual assault response team. One of my colleagues was called to the forensic hospital one night to advocate for a thirteen-year-old rape victim. When my colleague got there, she noticed the front of her blouse was bleeding. The little girl told her the rapist (a family friend) bit her nipple off.

I wonder what a thirteen-year-old did to deserve that.

Again, I tell you children are punished for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation. It's a terrible thing, yes. The wrath of God is terrible indeed.

[Ravenshire]

The second time, there was something I thought I had to do related to my repentance (it isn't about just feeling remorse; one must provide restitution wherever possible), and He simply said "You will not do that" (it was a command, not a prediction).

And was that recently after having prayed about the restitution owed?

I'm sure whoever you owed it to is perfectly ok with the voices in your head giving you a pass.

---

So... God commanded you? I thought he was all about free will...

Except when he's not. Just like his son, he's kinda hard to nail down.

[Silver]

The wrath of God is terrible indeed.

The wrath of god is terrible and you do not think that makes him a terrible god. You do not reason very well, do you?

[Esquilax]

The problem here is that you won't allow a simple conjunction of ideas that every single other person I've ever spoken to automatically allows, that being if God exists, He is omnipotent. It's essentially part of the definition, dictionary.com stops just short: "the One Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

I'm okay with that. My problem is with the assertion that the only one allowed in the category "things that don't come from other things" is god. If god exists and is omnipotent he can be in that category, but that does not mean that the category only has god in it. That's an additional claim you're making, that requires justification.

To be clear, "god is above the rules," only applies to rules in the proscriptive sense, not in the descriptive sense. Descriptive rules, like the laws of physics, are observations on reality, which necessarily can't have things supersede them. An observation of reality that has something above it, like god, is no longer a true observation, and thus the true observation changes. So when you say "things can't come from nothing," that's not a rule that god doesn't have to follow, it's an observation that is rendered untrue by your belief in god.

Logic dictates that neither matter nor the universe would be eternal, because matter isn't sentient.

You keep making claims without demonstrating them and then expecting us just to take them as given; when did you demonstrate that the only things that can be eternal are sentient?

Furthermore, neither of those things has supernatural powers; God does, therefore He isn't subject to the same logic.

Where did you demonstrate that one needs supernatural powers to be eternal?

I feel as though this is also self-evident, and that you are simply doing anything you can to avoid the substance of my argument (that you claim isn't substance).

Sorry, but just making assertions isn't an argument, and for something to be self evident it needs evidence, which isn't provided when you just say something. Do I need to teach you the basics of epistemology before we continue?

I've already mentioned it in this thread; God has spoken to me, literally speaking. That is my personal proof.

How do you know it was god? How can you possibly hold up an experience that I haven't had, and expect me to take it as proof? You're not the only one who claims their god speaks to them, you know.

Possible was good enough for people to believe in relativity, wasn't it? You say it was based on established science, well what do you call the law of the conservation of energy? Is that not science, and is my "hypothesis" not based upon it?

As I've said before, conservation of energy requires physics to exist, which they didn't before the big bang. They don't apply there.

I will include the above idea here. You're relating my argument to such things as "space wizards" when I am basing my hypothesis on actual science (conservation of energy). It's not only childish and a poorly veiled insult, it's demonstrably wrong, as I've just accomplished.

So, do you just forget other parts of my argument when it comes time to speak on bits that I've already covered? Because I've addressed why conservation of energy is irrelevant here already, like three times now.

Because I believe in possibilities that make sense, not things that are obviously impossible. We're not living in the stone age anymore; retarded theories like a flat earth and whatnot no longer have their place.

Here's the problem: your understanding of the facts is extremely limited, and not reflective of what we understand right now, and you won't go look at the current science because you've convinced yourself that you already know everything you need to. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect; you don't know the extent of your own ignorance on this topic, and so you overestimate your own competence in it because you don't know how much there is yet to learn.

And how many things have you demonstrated for yourself to make "self-evident" that you currently believe in? I could name hundreds, probably. Your strict interpretation of the language here is illogical; you are obviously using it to suit your argument.

I only believe things that actually do have evidence. Silly tu coque fallacy aside, if you can show me something that I believe in without evidence, I'll just stop believing it. That's what rational people do.

I can also say there is no explanation, currently, for why pigs haven't yet taken to flight. Is it then correct for me to say they're going to, somehow?

Um, there is an explanation for why pigs don't fly: they have no mechanism that is conducive to flight. If they gain such a mechanism in future, then the explanation will change. There's a difference between an unknown, and the idea that things may change in the future. This ugly conflation does little but make you look silly.

If you can't explain the origin of matter, or even come close, then I say your science is unreliable at best, which it has proven itself to be so often in the past.

Tell me more about how unreliable science is, while typing on a machine made by science that allows you to communicate instantaneously across the world.

Science doesn't know everything, but what it does know, it can demonstrate. Religion claims to know everything, but it can't demonstrate anything, and it's never been proven to be right on anything.

It is quite obvious that science is your god - perhaps you should examine its credibility before placing such faith in it.

Oh wow, a lazy equivocation from a creationist! Who would have thought?

And scientists are, incredibly often, stupidly wrong. You laud scientists, evidence and testing as though it is the final authority on anything at all, when it has proven itself over and over to be wrong, which even a cursory Google search will prove to anyone willing to look.

Being wrong is the first step to becoming right. Being wrong isn't the issue, how you react to being wrong is: when scientists are wrong, they change their views, try to figure out why they were wrong, and attempt to become right. When religion is wrong, it just pretends that it isn't. The intellectual honesty to admit when you're wrong is not a weakness, and the fact that you would prefer constantly demanding that you're right no matter what, over just admitting when you're wrong, is incredibly telling.

And by your logic, science still has a better track record than religion does: religion has never been right, on any of the claims it has ever made that we've eventually discovered the answer to. At least science isn't 0 for 0.

So perhaps the better question is, who says your way is the right way? Why must my arguments be judged by your standards in order to be correct? Not that I discount science on certain things, but you speak as though it and its processes are perfectly infallible. I would call that fiat.

But my standards are simple executions of basic epistemology; I'm only asking that you provide some reason for believing what you say, instead of just saying it and then demanding that we take it as self evident. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. You could use my standards to demonstrate any other thing, they aren't ridiculously high... you're just not able to meet even basic burdens of proof.

You just contradicted yourself in the first two sentences. If I say He didn't need to come from anything, you can't say He came "from" nothing. That isn't my argument and you know it, or you simply haven't been paying attention. I said God has always existed, therefore He never came from anything, nor can the verb "come" be applied in any form.

I don't really care: you're unable to demonstrate what you're saying regardless of how you want to phrase it.

You claim I must show evidence while claiming you can use future evidence which, by definition, does not exist and so can't be shown, either. Intellectual honesty goes both ways.

But I'm not making a positive claim like you are. I'm saying we don't know, and stopping there. Future evidence will fill in what I believe on this issue with something, but you already have something you believe on this issue. That requires evidence; you don't need evidence if you're not making a claim.

Moreover, I am not saying I lack any knowledge.

Yes, I know you're incapable of admitting that you don't know. You'd rather pretend that you do. But I wasn't talking about you specifically, now was I?

I know my argument is true because it make perfect sense, and it is based on an existing law of science accepted by the entire scientific community. If you want to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, perhaps you should get your facts straight.

The fact is that your argument "makes perfect sense" only within the context of your incomplete knowledge of the existing laws of science, and your inability to recognize that your knowledge on that subject is incomplete.

My certainty is not based on supposition, but on scientific fact, the standard upon which you base all of your arguments.

So, you don't know what presuppositionalism is, and yet you decided to talk about it anyway. This is kinda the big problem with you: you don't know what you're talking about, and you think it's okay to talk about it before you do any research.

Up until now, I thought we both agreed something cannot come from nothing.

No, we've never agreed upon that, mostly because you haven't even attempted to demonstrate that it's universally true, particularly beyond our current state of the universe. We also never agreed upon it because you then continue to say that god doesn't need to follow the rule, thus making the rule untrue by definition; remember, descriptive versus proscriptive rules.

Perhaps I am wrong, and there's no way I'm going to search this thread up and down looking for the answer. I will say, though, that if you DO believe something can come from nothing, then you either have access to proof the rest of the world doesn't, or you are literally out of your mind. Using non-existent, possible future evidence isn't reasonable at all.

Yet another area where you clearly don't know what the current science is, before you tell us what the current science is: look up virtual particles.

Besides, our knowledge of reality is very limited, we haven't even ventured outside of our solar system yet, and so the fiat assertion that "something can't come from nothing," everywhere, over the entire universe, has not been demonstrated to be true, and I do not need to accept it. That's your positive claim, don't shift the burden of proof.

Very well, that's a valid argument, but I was also being somewhat facetious. Basic human rights are universally self-evident.

They're self evidently preferred over not having them, not self evidently demonstrable. They are, after all, conceptual properties, not objective features of the universe.

The people who came up with such silly theories were also, more often than not, scientists.

No, all of those examples came about before the advent of the scientific method, but the point is that they also weren't silly: from the perspective of the people back then, with the knowledge they had available at the time, they were perfectly reasonable conclusions to come to. They really were self evident: the earth looks flat until you get up high enough, the sky looks like a dome until you get up beyond the atmosphere... the point is that they were both obvious, and wrong. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the amount of evidence that you have now, is all the evidence that there is to have.

God is the one "theory" that has existed longer than any other theory, and it has yet to even come close to being proven wrong.

Individual components of the god claim have been proven wrong every single time we've tested them. It's just that when that happens, there's a cadre of religious apologists who dedicate themselves to moving the goalposts, reimagining the god claim so that it becomes consistent with the new knowledge. You can't just pretend the god claim you have now is the same one they had at its inception.

Case in point: god used to live above the firmament, the physical dome that was the sky. When we found out the sky wasn't a dome, then god lived in the heavens... until we went to space, and now it's some other dimension or realm beyond the physical.

I'd say it's more convenient for you, actually. It's much easier to sit back and say someone's logic makes no sense without giving any justification as to why it doesn't make sense; you can just sit back and say "prove it" until you're blue in the face. Must be the life!

Yeah, I don't have to prove you wrong, that's a shifting of the burden of proof.

You call it a fallacy, yet you haven't expressed a single flaw in my logic, you simply say "there's no proof." That's not even an argument, that's a no-brainer!

Uh, I just did express the flaw: "You don't have an answer, but I do," does not entail that your answer is right. Neither does just saying that it's self evident, by the way.

If you're calling me a liar, point out one thing I've said that is a lie.

No, I'm saying you're wrong, and either too proud or ignorant to understand the very basic logical flaws in your position.

And I don't "need" to do anything. You demanded proof that is impossible to provide, I provided proof of logic that you refuse to address, and we're back where we started. Hopefully someone reading all of this crap will get something out of it, because I certainly am not, and it is apparent you aren't, either. Why even bother continuing?

How about you bother doing some research before you decide you know everything already?

More poorly veiled condescension, though I seriously doubt you are putting in any effort to conceal it. I am aware of the fault in the argument here, and gravity was not a good example, but surely the point still comes across, no? Perhaps not.

You have no idea how many times we've heard the "just a theory" rhetoric, when a scientific theory as it's defined renders that point moot. Just reading below, it's really clear that you don't understand the scientific lexicon, so you aren't off the hook, there.

Let me use another theory, then, say evolution. Obviously there is no "law of evolution," because the phenomenon has never been observed or tested or proven.

So, first of all, "law," no, that's not a thing. Theories do not graduate and become laws once they've been observed; a theory is the highest thing there is, in science. Seriously, look up what a scientific theory is before we continue, it'll clear up a lot of misconceptions before we even get into this.

Secondly, evolution has been observed, tested and proven. Here is a series of examples of it being observed, and if you want to see it in a laboratory setting I'd direct you to Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiments, and to the concept of Nylonase. How you respond to those will tell me a great deal about what kind of evolution denier you are: this is one of my favorite topics, so I'm happy to roll on this issue with you.

Do you believe in that? Perhaps not. Even if you don't, it's a favorite of atheists, so I should hope you are at least consistent in pointing out to them that they have no right to assert it as fact. Nowhere else to go on this particular point, really.

See above: evolution, as it is actually described by the mainstream scientific community, is so well demonstrated and observed that it's actually more solid a theory than, say, gravity.

The comparison is not valid, because the Greek gods are obviously myth, at least from a creationist standpoint, which is the standard you must apply to this particular argument we are having. Just because they share a title doesn't make the comparison accurate (it's not even in the ballpark of reasonable, sorry).

You don't actually know what it is I'm objecting to here, do you?

My point is that "god" does not necessarily imply "omnipotent." From my perspective, all your gods are myths; whether they're real or not, the fact is that there are some gods that people believed in that weren't omnipotent, and some that were, and therefore I can't assume omnipotence just because you say god.

And again, you are still grasping at straws in your insistence that I must include omniscience and omnipotence as traits not inherent to God, when everyone but apparently you agrees that God, if He exists, must be omnipotent to create the universe. And, by the way, it is still a straw man that ignores the crux of my argument.

But your reasoning for why you think god must be omnipotent is an argument from ignorance: just because you can't imagine another way to make a universe other than omnipotence, doesn't mean there isn't one.

That's not true, I simply refuse to keep repeating myself. Either attack the logic in the argument or stop arguing, because "prove it" is getting extremely old.

Logic is not argumentation. To be valid, logic requires observations. You have provided no observations, and thus have provided no valid logic.

You know what the big problem here is? You can't provide any alternative whatsoever, and you can't even come close to doing so. Therefore, you demand proof for things that can't be proven and label it an argument. It's one gigantic cop-out. You're not even really arguing with me, you're just shaking your fist at the sky and making unreasonable demands. Good luck getting the ruler of the universe to capitulate.

Again, I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right, and the only thing you've done so far is demand that everything you say be taken as self evident because you said so.

I laughed at the first part, but the rest is just nonsense. Creation of the universe could be a trivial matter? Gimme a break!

Your incredulity is not an argument.

No it isn't. I'm not asking for any kind of evidence, I'm simply asking for anything resembling a reasonable hypothesis. There are no reasonable hypotheses explaining the origin of matter. If you can't even come up with that, then why should I be required to come up with actual evidence? At least I have a supposition that makes sense! Yet, you equate it with fantasies like "space wizards" and blah blah blah I've said it before.

A mirrored universe, which leads from big bang to big crunch, and then into a second universe where time is reversed, going from crunch to bang, on endlessly. It's got just as much evidence for it as your god thing, but I'm willing to bet money that it's not "reasonable" according to your arbitrary, self serving and undefined definitions of what is and isn't reasonable.

So let's save time: is there a single possibility that isn't your god that you would find reasonable?

Again, the basis of my logic - the cornerstone of it, in fact, is the law of the conservation of energy. I am not weaving a fantastical story out of thin air like J.K. Rowling, and to make such a comparison is simply careless. I'm sure must be one of your favorite lines or something, but it doesn't apply here, sorry.

If we weren't here, after my having explained twice that your conservation of energy justification is irrelevant, you might have a point. But we are here, and you're just repeating incorrect things.

No - but I am saying it's unreasonable to assume that "can create universes" would not require omnipotence.

Why?

Now we're just talking semantics, which is a total waste of time.

You're right that two wrongs don't make a right, but my point is that it is unreasonable for you to demand that I conform to your scientific standards, yet reject my argument even though I do that satisfactorily, basing my hypothesis on the observable law of the conservation of energy. By your own definition, my assumption IS a hypothesis.

Then your hypothesis is based on a factually incorrect premise about the universe, and should be discarded.

Confusing language here, not sure what you're saying.

Okay, it's simple: we literally haven't the first clue about the nature of reality beyond the big bang, but what we do know is that it's a state totally unlike our current understanding of reality, at the most basic level possible. Things that we take for granted in this universe cannot be applied to the universe beyond that initial expansion; we already know that black holes to weird things to time and space, and when we talk about the pre-big bang world, we're talking about an effect similar to, but more intense than, a black hole, applied to everything that we have ever known. So you can't say that this or that law of physics prevents the universe from coming into being naturally, because none of those laws exist prior to the universe that they exist in.

Fringe theory by definition means it is not consensus. And to be honest, there really are no theories on the origin of matter. There are some wild speculations that are completely retarded, and if you want to go ahead and offer some of those as an argument, well, at least we'd be making some progress here.

But what I'm talking about literally is the consensus, not some fringe. Have you, perhaps, studied the works of the big names in the field? They all tend to agree on this point.

Essentially, yes. Based on the observable law of the conservation of energy, the existence of the universe is an impossibility, therefore one must point to the impossible. I hate myself for saying that one more time, but there it is.

See above. You say you hate repeating yourself, but you're ignoring those parts of my argument that would prevent you from doing so.

Not going to keep saying it, so I'll abbreviate it: L.o.t.C.o.E.

It's actually getting comical: your repetition is entirely self inflicted.

"Knowledge is demonstrated" sounds nice, but it's just not true. I swear, you've got so many one-liners and punchlines you should make a living creating bumper stickers.

So, how can you know something that you can't experience? Go on, you go ahead and show me this special other way of knowing that you have, that doesn't involve outside reality at all.

Whether you wish to believe me or not, God has spoken to me on two separate occasions, and so I know He exists, therefore I know I am right and that your arguments are foolish. (I'm not saying you're stupid; you are obviously a smart person, but smart people are fools all the time)

Um, god speaking to you would be a demonstration. You just can't show it to anyone else, making it a demonstration for you, that nobody else would be justified in believing.

E) You are so angry at God for the way your life has turned out, or because He hasn't revealed Himself to you, that you turn your back on Him to spite Him, i.e. you purposefully become His enemy.

Or maybe I just don't see any evidence, and when I ask for it people only ever tell me stuff that's factually wrong, or see fit to tell me I'm just angry with god.

I don't. But why would I accept you saying God doesn't exist if He has already proven His existence to me personally? I'd be pretty stupid in that case, don't you think?

And you're incapable of flipping around what you just said and seeing how that might apply to my case?

[Ravenshire]

Yes, those are all God's "things," though if we are to believe what the Bible says, He takes no pleasure in them

I do find it odd though, that an omniscient, omnipotent gawd can't figure out a better way to get to the same result.

[Angrboda]

“The word of the Lord came to me again: ‘What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel…. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.’” (Ezekiel 18:1-3, 20)