tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post1277564388634054864..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's responseStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger446125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21737751669891803732014-03-17T03:35:35.698+00:002014-03-17T03:35:35.698+00:00All this over some guy who Christians can't ev...All this over some guy who Christians can't even prove to have done anything supernatural and who even failed at being the Messiah (the reason why Jews reject Jesus) I really am left in a of amusement. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55331524744617004802014-03-17T03:15:22.833+00:002014-03-17T03:15:22.833+00:00Stephen what if you say that God is "good&quo...Stephen what if you say that God is "good" but that he is omni-manevolent instead of omnibenevolent? Would this counter all classical theists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83777891107070854362014-02-01T10:31:46.707+00:002014-02-01T10:31:46.707+00:00Anonymous
How does one "repeatedly and precs...Anonymous<br /><br />How does one "repeatedly and precsely demonstrate" the existence and reality of mass exactly?<br /><br />I would really like to have an example...Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31157260961253207102013-12-24T16:44:32.749+00:002013-12-24T16:44:32.749+00:00Philip Rand said: "You believe "mass&quo...Philip Rand said: "You believe "mass" exists right?<br />Thing is, can you touch mass? Can you see mass?<br />You can't!!!!!"<br /><br />Mass is a property of matter that can be repeatedly and precisely demonstrated. <br />The spin of elementary particles is totally beyond the reach of our unaided senses. Countless repeatable experiments show it is real. <br />God is rather different. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5747216949156340522013-12-19T07:07:48.123+00:002013-12-19T07:07:48.123+00:00So Michael...you would change the way you live if ...So Michael...you would change the way you live if the right type of God was discovered?<br /><br />How exactly?<br /><br />Does this mean that the God question is more an ethical question rather than an empirical question?Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88890325701515124722013-12-17T19:34:35.545+00:002013-12-17T19:34:35.545+00:00Depends on which god it was.Depends on which god it was.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30483889198593474432013-12-17T07:21:54.846+00:002013-12-17T07:21:54.846+00:00Michael...
My main point from my opening sentence...Michael...<br /><br />My main point from my opening sentence was that even if God was proved to exist...<br /><br />Would it affect the way you live your life?Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79821810533261762512013-12-16T17:03:27.162+00:002013-12-16T17:03:27.162+00:00" even if we could determine if God existed (..." even if we could determine if God existed (and we can't)"<br /><br />We can't because when someone operationally defines "god" and it is put to the test - it fails. Believers won't accept this outcome - so they redefine "god" again and again, but they end up with nothing left. <br /><br />Some who think they are philosophically sophisticated try to convince us they believe in a god based solely on faith - not a shred of evidence. Maybe I'm unsophisticated, but this just seems patently false. <br /><br />Russell, I can't quite make out your use (abuse?) of all the Bible quotes - other than a vain attempt to add authority to what are otherwise unfounded assertions. Of course, the Bible is not a historical document and the stories are just stories - no better than any other folktales written to impart morals. They tell us something about humans, but nothing about gods. michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1797117326382917612013-12-16T15:25:22.792+00:002013-12-16T15:25:22.792+00:00"I said in mine heart concerning the estate o..."I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts." Ecc 3:18RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14008628216597758602013-12-16T15:19:51.873+00:002013-12-16T15:19:51.873+00:00The evil God challenge is really just an argument ...The evil God challenge is really just an argument based on a false presupposition.<br /><br />God has established laws, laws of physics, He is then voluntarily constrained to act within those laws for our own benefit (to preserve moral autonomy and free will).<br /><br />In a materialistic universe, we have to be imbued by materialistic or physical impulses (there is no other way), replying to me that "God can do anything" is a cop out, it is a way to shut down intellectual debate (ironically what atheists accuse Christians of).<br /><br />The human animal shares the same basic motivating principles as the animals, what the Bible calls "the sensual nature" or the "mind of the flesh" or the "carnal mind", or the "beast" (in the book of Revelation). These basic motivating principles we share with the animals are, greed, lust, pride, desire etc, it is these motivating principles we need to eat and procreate. Yet the problem is, it is also from that nature, which the Bible calls the "beast" (see book of Revelation), or the animal nature, if left uncontrolled or untempered by religion, comes all war, all violence, all man made pain and sin.<br /><br />This is why, for example, the Old Testament is full of commands by God to sacrifice the animal, yet when the Israelites sacrificed literal animals, God replied that they were totally missing the point, "your burnt offerings are not acceptable…" Jeremiah 6:20; Isaiah 1:11-15 … "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? …I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats… Bring no more vain oblations… your hands are full of blood."<br /><br />The animal sacrifice was about sacrificing the animal nature in us. That is why Abels sacrifice was accepted, he made a LIFE sacrifice (i.e gave up greed, lust, desire, pride), the same basic motivating principles we share with animals, which we are to rise above.<br /><br />Jesus obviously spoke symbolically, phrases such as "born again" (John 3:3), "living water"; as the Old Testament was written in such a way but the natural man (Pharisees) could not perceive it as the Churches cannot likewise today. "And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scripture" (Luke 24:27,32).<br /><br />Therefore, to make an Idol is to materialize spiritual mysteries. The Priests, then, were Idolaters, who coming after Moses, and committing to writing those things which had been delivered unto Israel, replaced the true things signified, by their material symbols which perpetuated ignorance, and those who trusted in them went into [spiritual] captivity through the continuation of meaningless rituals (externalized) "due to lack of [spiritual] knowledge" - like animal sacrifice taken literally and not spiritually.RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15445961134553926902013-12-16T15:17:52.205+00:002013-12-16T15:17:52.205+00:00"Then Jesus is no doubt just a metaphor, too...."Then Jesus is no doubt just a metaphor, too. And gods as well."<br /><br />God is taught conceptually in the NT, yes, i.e "God is Love", but I did specifically say the OT stories are metaphoric and allegorical.<br /><br />RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44981195878384839292013-12-16T12:03:46.156+00:002013-12-16T12:03:46.156+00:00Yes Michael why bother? A very good question inde...Yes Michael why bother? A very good question indeed!<br /><br />Because, as you intimate even if we could determine if God existed (and we can't), we would still struggle to explain why that should matter in the way it does matter to Atheists and Believers (of anything other than the prudential sort).<br /><br />This I think is at the root of the utter philosophical confusion I see in this Evil God Challenge.<br /><br />The whole Gratuitous Evil concept is a complete an utter illusion.<br /><br />And it is pretty simple to show why.<br /><br />First, here is the Gratuitous Evil proposition:<br /><br />1/ gratuitious evil=evil for which there is no adequate good reason.<br /><br />And here is Rowe's example of such a thing:<br /><br />2/ E1: the case of Bambi<br />“In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Rowe 1979: 337).<br /> <br />No. 2 is a description.<br /><br />And No. 1 is the proposition that the the description (No.2) is hinged on, i.e. epistemic equivalence.<br /><br />BUT, BUT, BUT...is No.1 a proposition based on the world? It is supposedly connected to the world with the words "no reason"! <br /><br />So clearly, what looks like an empirical proposition that connects to No.2 is in truth simply a grammatical assertion and NOT a proposition at all.<br /><br />The whole debate "hinges" on a piece of grammar...nothing empirical at all...which means that the whole Gratuitious Evil concept is illusionary...and quite empty of philosophical content if it's main objective is to "prove" that God is Evil.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4214173523479090842013-12-16T04:56:02.682+00:002013-12-16T04:56:02.682+00:00Then Jesus is no doubt just a metaphor, too. And g...Then Jesus is no doubt just a metaphor, too. And gods as well.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81040558923517417322013-12-16T01:07:42.392+00:002013-12-16T01:07:42.392+00:00In anycase, the biblical stories of intervention w...In anycase, the biblical stories of intervention would not effect the burden of moral responsibility as atheists do not believe them. <br /><br />It would have to observable and provable intervention as in the examples given already.RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67392345587247040002013-12-15T23:06:37.127+00:002013-12-15T23:06:37.127+00:00"enough to take the burden off humans"
..."enough to take the burden off humans"<br /><br />Ah, it has to be an intervention that proves the existence of God by extension. Such as saving all babies in the world from death, or miraculously saving everyone in the Tsunami. Only then would everyone be able to say, ok now we know God exists and therefore the moral burden of responsibility is now upon God, not us. I believe interventions are possible if they are unprovable and therefore do not infringe an athiests free will not to believe or shift the moral burden of responsibility from man to God. <br />RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74769685886057152092013-12-15T22:35:58.435+00:002013-12-15T22:35:58.435+00:00Sorry I mentioned God smiting the horses in the OT...Sorry I mentioned God smiting the horses in the OT thinking I had explained what I meant on here before....<br /><br />Yes but the "smiting" is not how you are interpreting it.<br /><br />Let me give you an example. In a prophecy attributed to the first advent, God says He will smite all the horses with blindness.<br /><br />"In that day I will smite EVERY HORSE with astonishment" (Zech xii, 4); "and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"<br /><br />Obviously this sounds ridiculous in the literal sense. That is where you and most atheists would stop, happy in the knowledge that the Bible is nonsense and God is cruel to animals. But lets look a bit deeper...<br /><br />In the Bible it is the teachers or priests of Israel who are called Gods horses, or the "horses of the people"...<br /><br />"THE CHARIOT OF ISRAEL and the HORSEMAN thereof"; "Jehovah will make Judah a Godly HORSE". Ephraim signifies the understanding of the Word, because Elisha and Elijah represented the Lord as the Word, therefore they were called the chariot of Israel and his horseman, Elisha said to Elijah "my father, my father, THE CHARIOT OF ISRAEL and the HORSEMAN thereof" (2 Kings xiii, 14).<br /><br />Now this makes sense....<br /><br />"In that day I will smite EVERY HORSE with astonishment" (Zech xii, 4); "and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"<br /><br />This is a prophecy about Jesus...<br /><br />"And I will cut off the HORSE from Jerusalem, and He shall speak peace to the gentiles" (Zech ix.10).<br /><br />Did Jesus cut of the literal horses from Jerusalem? Or was it not the teachings of the Pharisees?<br /><br />Isaiah 31:3 "the EGYPTIANS are men and not God, their HORSES are FLESH and not spirit", these teachers are natural man and do not have the Spirit.<br /><br />So what do we learn from this? We learn that the Bible uses the symbolism of battle horses, or horses that go into battle (war horses), for His teachers, his priests. Why? Because what is natural in the Bible is used to represent what is spiritual, teachers and priests go into spiritual battle (as mentioned previously), with words.<br /><br />Woe to them who trust in Priests and pastors for the truth of the Word and do not turn to the Lord in prayer for help:<br /><br />"Ashur shall not save us; we will not ride upon HORSES" (Hos xiv. 3); "some trust in chariots, and some in HORSES, but we will remember the name of the Lord"; "a HORSE is a vain thig for safety" (ps xx 7; xxxiii.17); "the riders on HORSES shall be confounded" (Zech x3, 4, 5); "Woe to the city it is full of lies - the prancing of HORSES" - and as spiritual Israel are to be a nation of priests, so it is said "in that day their shall be upon the BELLS OF THE HORSES holiness unto Jehovah" (xiv. 20). "Thou shalt not in any way set a king over Israel whom the Lord thy God shall not chose: but he shall not multiply HORSES to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply HORSES". RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90742136012590845862013-12-15T22:32:23.406+00:002013-12-15T22:32:23.406+00:00"So all of those stories of intervention in t..."So all of those stories of intervention in the Old Testament are false?"<br /><br />I need to explain why I said this, there is something I need to explain to you about the way the Old Testament is written. It speaks to us from the perspective of putting God in first principles and ultimate's.<br /><br />In other words, as God created everything and everyone, both good and evil, therefore everything that happens, that is good or evil, can in that sense be attributed to God, i.e "God causes the sun to shine on the good and the evil, the rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous." and "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7.<br /><br />This is how God can then say, for example, that a random natural disaster, such as what probably happened to Sodom, is the wrath of God, I believe. Although it is only the wrath of God in as much as He did not intervene to stop it, (but I have already explained why He cannot intervene to stop all natural disasters etc previously).<br /><br />If you read the Old Testament carefully, you will see that what is actually called the wrath of God, is more the result of mans own actions, God accuses the Israelites of "destroying themselves", likewise in that example I gave you of God smiting the horses or teachers of Israel to make them spiritually blind, i.e the Pharisees, so they would therefore not recognize Christ as the Messiah, it is infact their own mindset, or their own stupidity that has made them spiritually blind.<br /><br />The New Testament is different, it does not speak in first principles and ultimate's like this, hence Jesus explains that certain events just randomly happen, God is not intimately involved in making bad things happen to people as punishment.<br /><br />I believe the reason why the Old Testament puts God in first principles and ultimates is two fold...<br /><br />1. To show that God is overall sovereign, i.e there is no dualistic evil competing god called Satan. This is very important as the ancients were always running off with the idea that there were many gods, or dualistic opposing gods, they got these ideas from the Babylonian captivity.<br /><br />2. As the apostle Paul says, because the OT and the Law where "strict schoolmasters", i.e fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The ancient mindset just would not have respected a God, or obeyed a God that did not also put the fear of God in them, so to speak.RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10345799097722552372013-12-15T22:27:03.101+00:002013-12-15T22:27:03.101+00:00"Russell,
So all of those stories of interven..."Russell,<br />So all of those stories of intervention in the Old Testament are false? If not, then given your argument, one intervention is enough to take the burden off humans - so I guess we are off the hook."<br /><br />I think it is possible to demonstrate that almost all of them in the OT are non literal metaphoric allegory, like the Exodus story, reads literal, but so does Hagar and Sarah and the apostle Paul says "such things are allegory". I dont really believe any of the OT Bible stories are meant to be interpreted literally and in the prophetic books, where God is sending droughts and famines etc, if you read carefully they seem to famines for the Word of God and people thirsting for righteousness etc.<br /><br />I am not sure there if one would get you off the hook? Would it? There is the refreshing times, which is when the Christian God partially intervenes, such as demonstrations of miracles in the Gospels, but even that seemed to be designed to preserve the Pharisees free will in not believing, because they didnt. I am not convinced myself all this healing the blind stuff in the Gospels was not actually healing the spiritually blind. RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80117320866528064682013-12-15T17:58:10.704+00:002013-12-15T17:58:10.704+00:00Russell,
So all of those stories of intervention i...Russell,<br />So all of those stories of intervention in the Old Testament are false? If not, then given your argument, one intervention is enough to take the burden off humans - so I guess we are off the hook.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55842067387134942982013-12-15T14:48:29.407+00:002013-12-15T14:48:29.407+00:00" What Christianity tries to do is take the b..." What Christianity tries to do is take the burden off their god and place it on individual humans"<br /><br />Do you accept that if God intervenes to save one innocent baby from evil, or from death, then He would be would be morally obliged to therefore save all innocent babies from evil, or from death? <br /><br />Do you accept that if this happened it would by extension prove Gods existence? <br /><br />Then do you accept that this would then destroy our moral autonomy? As the burden of moral responsibility would move from man to God?<br /><br />Do you accept that as this miraculous act would by extension prove Gods existence, that you would therefore be under a compulsion to worship that God (insincerely), for your own self preservation? Knowing a judgement at the end of this life was coming?RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35674809692067649662013-12-15T14:34:01.809+00:002013-12-15T14:34:01.809+00:00Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you were objectin...Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you were objecting the terminology used. Yes, if you want to debate good and evil in the context of the Christian God then you will have first accept our beliefs to do so. You say, "-it makes their god passive and frankly useless - why bother."<br /><br />Not useless if you believe you are going to be redeemed from the grave at the end of this life. <br /><br />You say "Also according to the Bible, Jehovah Yahweh etc. has intervened multiple times. "<br /><br />Yes, about once every 2000 years, at the "refreshing times", the rest of the time "God hides His face from sinners". <br /><br />The only way God will reveal Himself is therefore on a personal level (not to infringe anyone elses free will). Which is if we first repent and then ask for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), which I believe is a personification of Gods great company of ministering angels (Heb 11:1). <br /><br />Although God hiding from man is characterized as man hiding from God in the Genesis allegory. i.e when Adam becomes aware he has sinned (eat from the tree of good and knowledge), or read the Law/the Bible, then he hides from God.RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-63085033402611566332013-12-15T13:18:46.837+00:002013-12-15T13:18:46.837+00:00" If there were no gods, then there could be ..." If there were no gods, then there could be no sin. The idea that we have all sinned is a non sequitur. "<br /><br />Neither the word "sin" or the idea we have all sinned is required to support my argument. <br /><br />Change the word sin for "evil" then, but we first need a moral framework to "know good and evil". <br /><br />Again, if you object to the words "Good" and "evil" just make up your own replacements, it makes no difference to this POV. <br /><br />To borrow the Genesis allegory, mankind did not know what evil was until eat from the tree of knowledge, which metaphorically seems to mean, before he read the Bible. As the imagery of eating in the Bible is usually associated with consuming and internalising Gods Words. <br /><br />If you had an atheistic system it would still have its own moral system, probably very similar to the Judeo-Christian one so my POV would still apply.<br /><br />Could you explain why you think my reply does not solve the problem?RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28675036055741801212013-12-15T13:17:23.296+00:002013-12-15T13:17:23.296+00:00" If there were no gods, then there could be ..." If there were no gods, then there could be no sin. The idea that we have all sinned is a non sequitur. "<br /><br />Neither the word "sin" or the idea we have all sinned is required to support my argument. <br /><br />Change the word sin for "evil" then, but we first need a moral framework to "know good and evil". <br /><br />Again, if you object to the words "Good" and "evil" just make up your own replacements, it makes no difference to this POV. <br /><br />To borrow the Genesis allegory, mankind did not know what evil was until eat from the tree of knowledge, which metaphorically seems to mean, before he read the Bible. As the imagery of eating in the Bible is usually associated with consuming and internalising Gods Words. <br /><br />If you had an atheistic system it would still have its own moral system, probably very similar to the Judeo-Christian one so my POV would still apply.RussellBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44795661221295759462013-12-15T00:56:22.406+00:002013-12-15T00:56:22.406+00:00Russell & Phillip,
Russell's comment solv...Russell & Phillip, <br />Russell's comment solves nothing. If there were no gods, then there could be no sin. The idea that we have all sinned is a non sequitur. <br />Also according to the Bible, Jehovah Yahweh etc. has intervened multiple times. What Christianity tries to do is take the burden off their god and place it on individual humans -it makes their god passive and frankly useless - why bother.<br />All of these conceptions of god and 2 dollars or pounds will get you a cup of coffee. <br />Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49162013502800050542013-12-14T18:07:50.099+00:002013-12-14T18:07:50.099+00:00Without a (contrast) of experience there can be no...Without a (contrast) of experience there can be no true experience. Without pain and sorrow we cannot know love and joy. <br /><br />RussellBnoreply@blogger.com