Benevolent Creator God?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I don't see it that way at all.  To me, God is not only 100% compatible with science, He IS the ultimate in scientific understanding, something unattainable for humans.  The science we understand is but a tiny percentage of all there is to understand.  God = Science = Truth.   That's why it makes me bristle when leftwing atheists go on about 'science' and say conservative Christians don't believe in it.  We are ALL about it.

Bullshit 

[zwanzig]

Yeah, "we're all about science" except for the actual method which requires testing and observation before making conclusions.

[pocaracas]

Is the RCC god a benevolent god?

Of course.  And a just God.

If the RCC god is a benevolent god, then why has the result of that god's alleged meddling in human affairs resulted in so many conflicts throughout the ages?
I can start with the persecution of the gnostics in the 2nd century, follow through the Crusades and well into our century in Israel.

As far as I can tell, the way that this god decided to spread its message is far from benevolent.
Having this god pass on the message to everyone on the planet, simultaneously and then systematically continue to include all new people, would, in my opinion, have been a far better way to avoid hardship, and lead humanity into peace and understanding.

If I can think of some more benevolent way of accomplishing the desired goal, then it is my impression that either the creator god is not benevolent, thus eliminating all the large monotheistic religions, or there is no god at all.



“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius

[Ravenshire]

"Gay sex is an abomination"...

According to an organisation that has actively supported, condoned, and perpetuated torture, genocide, murder, and many other crimes.

And no, it's not a lie that Burke hates gay people.

The RCC has never supported those things.   They endorse the teachings of Jesus.  It is true, however, that some fallible humans have done some bad things, as they do in every organization.

But if bad actions of individuals invalidate a belief for you, then you should be rejecting atheism completely out of hand since no religion can ever hold a candle to the atrocities committed by atheists during the last century.  100 million people murdered.

(my bold)

So, the RCC didn't condone the crusades or the various inquisitions?!?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Of course.  And a just God.

It is neither 

[Spongebob]

@Klorophyll I'm not going to do a point for point on your last post because most of it is basically working under the grand assumption that god exists and is responsible for everything.  You haven't demonstrated it to be true, but you believe it to be true.  That's your belief but it can't be demonstrated.  Consider this, if you put value on something because its beautiful or complex or interesting, such as a flower, and you say this is evidence of god.  Understand that these values you placing on this object comes from you subjectively.  You may ignore or look over some other aspect of reality that I value.  When I explain that we understand the physical processes required to cause some aspect of reality, it means that as far as the universe is concerned it is not a miracle; it's very explainable within the laws of the universe.  What you are now saying is that god created those laws, therefore it is responsible for everything.  That's fine as a belief system but its also teleology, its circular, and it is not any sort of proof of god's existence, nor is it a convincing logical argument.  I would bet every atheist on this forum is extremely familiar with this approach and every one of them have probably considered this concept very carefully and eventually rejected it.  So you aren't introducing any new ideas here.

Regarding Einstein's theory of special relativity.  Look, I probably know much more than you do about the subject so stop assuming things.  My point is that Einstein developed his thought experiments without any mathematics or science.  Those things came later.  His ideas are what led to the discoveries and his ideas constitute his profound insight into the field.  The math and science were merely the structure those ideas needed to convince other scientists.  It should be extremely impressive to you that it took decades of technological advancement to be able to confirm some of his ideas with physical measurements.  This is often the case in major scientific breakthroughs.  In my opinion, this is the closest thing that humans get to a miracle.

Many people here though don't seem to welcome purely logical arguments.

Just because you don't understand logical arguments doesn't mean they aren't logical arguments.

---

Ah, yes, the old no true Scotsman argument.  Never fails.  If he does that he never was a True Christian.  Convenient argument.  But again, if people are truly changed, then why do they fall?  And then saying they fall because they weren't really changed, that eliminates most Christians.  I know of very few who've never done anything sinful.

---

And if a True Christian just stumbles, then realized he has sinned, why do they never turn themselves in?

I never said that.  I said people who have embraced it can indeed fail,  but it's generally  not often and not far.
I have never understood why atheists think it's worse to try and fail than to never try.

No, you said it, you're just to self absorbed to understand what you said.  Anyway, I'm done with you because you don't listen to anyone else and you just keep babbling nonsense.  Come back later with something real to say.  I don't known why some Christians can't understand that they don't know everything and it's ok to fail and then learn something new.

[Angrboda]

Why do I get caught up in these huge replies that need me to set aside some time to type up?

That's why I no longer get caught up in these debates. They're a huge time sink. I find myself spending a lot of time thinking things through in my downtime when I debate. I just don't need that.

[pocaracas]

Why do I get caught up in these huge replies that need me to set aside some time to type up?

That's why I no longer get caught up in these debates.  They're a huge time sink.  I find myself spending a lot of time thinking things through in my downtime when I debate.  I just don't need that.

After almost 10 years on this forum alone, I think I've done all the thinking I need on these matters. It's just the hassle of replying to each point so that I don't then get accused of not addressing some detail leading to the other party assuming that I agree with it.

[Spongebob]

That's why I no longer get caught up in these debates.  They're a huge time sink.  I find myself spending a lot of time thinking things through in my downtime when I debate.  I just don't need that.

After almost 10 years on this forum alone, I think I've done all the thinking I need on these matters. It's just the hassle of replying to each point so that I don't then get accused of not addressing some detail leading to the other party assuming that I agree with it.

I agree with both of you.  This is why I took about two years off of forums after spending over a decade intensely debating people like that.  At first I found it challenging and it honed by ability to think through a subject.  Plus it forced me to do more reading on certain topics so I better understood what I was talking about.  But after a while it just gets monotonous and it does take huge chunks of time if you are truly researching issues and responding sincerely.  Trolls and nutjobs just have to throw out any sort of nonsense in 2 minutes.  It may take me an hour to properly respond sometimes.  It simply is not worth it unless your collocutor is equally sincere in their intentions.  But, we often see with people like winterhold, they often appear to be more like emotionally damaged people lashing out because of some sort of personal need to be heard.  It's actually very sad.

[R00tKiT]

Why do I get caught up in these huge replies that need me to set aside some time to type up?

From now on, and to make replying easier, I suggest we adopt a different format, we will focus on one particular point until it's settled, then move on to another. In any case, it seems you have huge problem with the fact that Muhammad conducted wars; so let's focus on that and on God's benevolence for now.

Benevolent god provides message to Muhammad, apparently, in a continuous fashion for years.
Muhammad gets transformed from an illiterate merchant into a " social reformer, statesman", and military leader who eventually conquers the whole Arabian Peninsula.
Obviously, Arabia was taken by the power of illiterate merchant's diplomacy, not military might, right?
So, what is it, benevolent or military? You can't have it both ways.

Okay. So, first of all, it's not clear what's your stance on Muhammad is to begin with, do you think he should've adopted some Gandhi-like opposition? That he was wrong about resorting to force ?

Aside from that, I strongly recommend you to actually read (even just some excerpts of) his biography, especially the part after his migration to Medina, that of Montgomery Watt is particularly well-written and covers many aspects of his life. Again, whether you're a Muslim or not, we're talking about one of the most documented people -or probably THE most documented person - in the history of mankind, your simplistic assessment above is nothing more than the demonstrably wrong platitude "since Muhammad fought wars, these wars must have been about imposing Islam on people".

If you are assuming God's benevolence, then you have the additional theological question of why God would let Muhammad be the successful messenger that he was? I know this is not an issue for an atheist, but if you assume God's existence with some desirable properties, then it really should be taken into account. And, actually, God's benevolence is an important premise in any argument in favor of Muhammad's prophethood. Even the most hardened apologist can't get very far with a malevolent God.

---

@Klorophyll I'm not going to do a point for point on your last post because most of it is basically working under the grand assumption that god exists and is responsible for everything.  

And I gave the reasons why this assumption might very probably be true. There are valid arguments out there establishing the existence of a first cause. Once this preliminary result is settled, we assess whether this first cause has some properties, which we infer from its effects (the universe). 

From my experience with these discussions, non-believers just keep playing around and throwing charges of "special pleading" or "infinity is not well understood" left and right to escape the unavoidable necessity of a first cause. Even well known atheist debaters like M. Dillahunty start complaining about how difficult infinity is to dodge the arguments, whereas establishing a first cause is really straightforward.

as far as the universe is concerned it is not a miracle; it's very explainable within the laws of the universe. 

The universe's existence per se can't be explained by natural science, so you would call it a miracle? Laws of the universe only describe its inner workings... but I suspect you already know that...?

.  That's fine as a belief system but its also teleology, its circular, and it is not any sort of proof of god's existence, nor is it a convincing logical argument.  I would bet every atheist on this forum is extremely familiar with this approach and every one of them have probably considered this concept very carefully and eventually rejected it.  

Argument from authority, I frankly don't care about how much some atheist is familiar with the teleological argument. If their reasons for rejecting it are not good enough, then they have an epistamically flawed position. 

Regarding Einstein's theory of special relativity.  Look, I probably know much more than you do about the subject so stop assuming things.  My point is that Einstein developed his thought experiments without any mathematics or science.  Those things came later.  His ideas are what led to the discoveries and his ideas constitute his profound insight into the field.  The math and science were merely the structure those ideas needed to convince other scientists.  It should be extremely impressive to you that it took decades of technological advancement to be able to confirm some of his ideas with physical measurements.  This is often the case in major scientific breakthroughs.  In my opinion, this is the closest thing that humans get to a miracle.

We all know this, dude. You said Einstein didn't rely on electromagnetism and classical mechanics, when, in fact, and, OBVIOUSLY, he did, which is something you can guess by just reading the damn title of his original paper on SR. That's the only thing I was responding to, nobody here is denying that his insights led to major discoveries.