I heard that drowning is one of the worst ways to die. How wonderful of god to cause us to suffer and struggle, desparately clinging to our last breath, begging for his help... before we go home. hallelujah!
As a Christian I find this a deeply unsatisfying, poorly thought-thru answer to the problem of evil and suffering. He would have been better off to simply confess that he could not comprehend the mystery and admit his finitude. Sad witness.
he should have said at the end: 'one big difference: we are going home... everyone else is going to hell for eternity!'
this is a horrible answer to an already weak straw-man version of the problem of evil. if any of you Christians want to look at a good debate on the issue (not just a one sided talk) check here on youtube Peter Singer's debate with Dinesh D'Souza. you can just search for "Peter Singer debate Dinesh" and it will be the one that has several parts to it.
The sire, at the end , makes the conclusion that if the laws are immaterial, nonchanging,universal etc, that this requires a God.Not sure why it makes this jump. The physics of the universe has established order, which means there is truth.We find out what the truth is by observation and experiement. This is how we justify any truth claims, not based upon any abstract notion of a spacetimeless being who reveals himself thru nebulous means where there is such disagreement.
Well, i guess those christians who died didn't repent..this guy is saying that Jesus said that repentence is the antidote against this...It AMAZES me ( and I don't think this is misplaced amazement), just how disgusted christians are with humanity ( and themselves).God seems to be directing most of his warning against the poor and children...and it seems not to matter if you have repented..small-pox tortures christians and atheists alike.
Did you really listen to this video? John Piper himself says here that Christians are also swept away in tsunamis. Christians get sick and die too. The difference is, Christians are going to be with God, who is the source of all true comfort. Anyone who knows that he or she is a sinner and wants forgiveness from God can come to Him, trust in Jesus Christ's death for sinners and be forgiven. If a person is forgiven by God, death holds no terror. It is the beginning of eternity with God.
1-tsunamis are caused by convection cells under the cooloing earths crust. No "call" but mindless plate tectonics.2-under Pipers explanation,tsunamis should be rejoyced..xians go to heaven,"call" to others, and unrepentant( including kids) get what they deserve-
This is nilhilism at its worst.3-do you really think God uses plagues,malaria, tsuenamis,drought,smallpox to " call" people..these preferentially cause children,poor and weak to suffer!
We have much better explanations now for these phenomenon.There is no Zeus, Thor or YHWH directing lightning bolts or plagues for some mysterious reason. When we call upon theologeons for explanations they give us bullshit answers like in the video.There is no mind directing plague ( a bacterium with a strange lifecycle), smallpox( a virus elliminated by science after killing 200 millionpeople) or malaria ( kills 1 million people,mostly kids in Africa per year).Just laws of physics and biology
You write that we have "better" explanations for these events now. The fact is, in Biblical times, there were skeptics as well. You think that at an earlier time in history, everyone attributed certain things to God, and now people "know better." However, some people believe in God, and some people disbelieve, in *any* age. It was true in Biblical times, and it is true now. As for scientific laws, there is no ultimate basis for them without God. See ProofthatGodexistsdotorg.
hey christianman, In the past most natural phenomena were attributed to some deity.People looked to theologeons for explanations for drought, tsunamis,plagues. The fact is, theologians have never provided humans with any new knowledge about these things.And Skeptics were often horribly persecuted by them.
everywhere we look we see a universe governed by impersonal and probabilistic laws of physics, chemistry and biology.These cause planets ,oceans,gallaxies etc.
We do not yet understand how the laws came into effect, but once they did, no intelligence is required. It may be the inherent nature of singularities to expand by quantum flux? there may be multiple universes. We are just beginning to understand these things.But a deity doesn't really answer anything. It actually poses even more questions like How does a mind "exist" , "outside" spacetime. these terms axiomatically require spacetime.
It is simply not historically accurate to make the broad statement that "In the past most natural phenomena were attributed to some deity." Again, in every age, some people believe in God and His control over "natural phenomena"-- and some people disbelieve. This is true, and has been true, in every period of history. Have you read the Gospels in the New Testament? Some people believed Jesus's miracles, and some people scoffed. The same was true with God in the Old Testament.
I think it is factual that most of the ancients attributed natural phenomena to dieties. The Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, Egyptians, Persons, Babylonians all did. Some people disbelieved in Jesus ...so what. What is your point ? The problem w Piper is that he thinks we are just lucky not to be wiped out by God. His opinion of human life is pathetic. this sort of self hatred pervades all of the christian meme.God kills and tortures millions as a call to our wretchedness. no evidence for this
Respectfully, you are writing in an overly broad way here, which is problematic. "The Romans believed this, the Egyptians did too, etc." The truth is, no culture is monolithic in its beliefs. Throughout the ages, there have always been people who were skeptical about the existence of God (or any gods).
You say that there is no "evidence" that God kills millions as a call to our wretchedness. Aren't your presuppositions controlliing what you will *admit* to be evidence?
Well, when historians consider the beliefs of a culture they give a general picture of what Egyptians, for eg, believed. That is not to say that every egyptian believed the same thing, I still don't get your point .Wouldn't mind a clarification.
The clarification for which you are asking is that it is simplistic and historically inaccurate to write as if people from earlier times attributed things to God because they didn't know any better, and now we attribute things to scientific laws alone, because we supposedly do know better. This is a simplistic and inaccurate characterization of things. Do you know that the original scientists who *formulated* the scientific laws believed in God and His sovereign control over nature?
well , christianman73, we will have to disagree. I think it is historically accurate to assert that, in general, the Romans , for example, attributed phenomena to dieties. They consistently felt that the gods needed to be placated..even the doorway God who needed his due or it might collapse. Poissidon, Zeus, , Arius were operative in many phenomena.theologeons during the plague blamed in, Jews , Harlots for aggrivating God's wrath. The "original" scientists were theists in the same vein.
but , so what? Piper, a theologeon, is trying to explain a phenomenon , a tseunami that killed 200,000 poor people , some kids playing on the beach, as a "call from some diety to repentence. We now know, as modern people in the world, that tsuenamis are caused by plate tectonics. ..no God required!
A physical explanation does not negate a non-physical origin. When a husband and wife conceive a child, there is a physical explanation for how that child was conceived. However, the physical explanation does not negate the *non-physical origin* (the love between the couple).
Scientific laws were formulated by men who understood the world and universe to have an order, as created by an orderly God. This "orderliness" is why scientists even had the *basis* to do their research.
Love is not the cause of babies...it might be a motivating factor, but babies can be motivated by hate ( rape) or lust or sex drives ( most of the animal world ).These things have natural evolutionary origins.
The laws are descriptions of the order of the universe. The orderlyness allows for scientific exploration ans the discovery that tseunamis aare caused by impersonal forces below the earth's crust forcing plates to move against one another.Continants,mountain ranges are cuaed by the same
are you arguing that God did miraculously, at that moment, cause giant plates to move against one another transfering energy onto water causing a wave to transfer it's energy onto kids playing on the beach to "call" other people thousands of miles away to repentence? This is the exact thing theologeons in the dark ages when facing the plague...it is a call to repentence!...NO IT'S NOT..it's a bacteria living in fleas that live on rats.God can't use that anymore because we have eliminated it.
Let's be honest. You will not admit anything whatsoever to be a "call to repentance from God," because the very presuppositions upon which your worldview is based, will not allow anything to be evidence for God. Anything that the Bible, and/or Christians, would say is evidence for God, you would disqualify from the outset, because your presuppositions are hostile to the concept of God. I really recommend that you examine "ProofthatGodexistsdotorg." (Can't post links on Youtube.)
If Piper is allowed to make a bold statement that some diety killed 200,000 people as a call to repentence and get away with it, then there is no standard to evaluate truth claims whatsoever.the fact is christianman73,you would perhaps believe anything he said as long as he can point to some bible verse.there is no reason to believe that a god was involved , and huge reasons to believe it was plate tectonics.A mind, a benevolent mind, would not indisciminately kill 100's thousands of people.
You are evaluating Piper's claims (although they are really the Bible's claims about how God works, in a sense) by standards that will not even possibly *allow* those claims to be true. Is such an approach objective or open-minded on your part? You say that there is "no reason to believe that a god was involved." What *would* be a reason, in your view? Furthermore, you say that "a benevolent mind would not indiscriminately kill..." Who defines benevolence-- finite humans or God?
No it is you chris, who has provided no reason to believe that a diety did this. you also have an apparent delemma...explaining why a good God would kill 200,000 people indiscriminately. No onlt is there no evidence for it , but it is an apparent paradox...unless you have another definition of the word..Good. I am open minded to any evidence, please provide some.
imagine a muslem asserting that Allah did it as a call to submission, or a hindu asserting that Siva did it to crush the ego's arrogence.How would you respond? You wouldn't give it much thought before dismissing these baseless claims realising that there is no evidence to support them. Science however, bases it's claims on evidence. That is how we know tseunamis are caused by plate tectonics.When earthquakes occur on jupitor or on earth and no one is hurt, is it still a call? To whom?
You say that I have not provided a reason to believe that a deity "did this" (allowed the tsunami to happen for His own purposes). However, at least twice now, I have pointed you to a specific place which offers logical proof for God. ProofthatGodexistsdotorg. I can't give you the exact link, because Yahoo doesn't allow posting of links. However, if you go where I recommended, and seriously *think through and answer* all the questions, you will find logical proof for the true God.
well, christian, I am very familiar with the theistis arguments. I was a christian for 25 yrs...I have studies WLC, Lee Srobel, John Stott, plus the classics like c.s lewis, even aquinas and augustine. Frankly I come to utube to have personal conversations...not follow a bunch of links.I am interested in your thoughts...not someone elses presently. and you don't seem to have used there material to formulate your own thoughts otherwise you would not refer me to someone elses.i will not refer you
The "traditional" theistic arguments are not the kind of logical proof that ProofthatGodexists offers. Most of the men whom you named (Aquinas, Lewis, Stott, Strobel) belong to schools of Christian apologetic thought with which I do not agree. Basically, they offer the traditional Roman Catholic, or compromised Protestant, "cases for God" which fail to do more than "prove" some generic god. As there is not space here for long, deep conversation, I pointed you to the real "Proof."
There are the cosmological proofs (WLC's kalaam version has revived it a bit), teleological ( anthropic coincidences and ID guys),moral argument, ontological argument and "case for Christ" arguments. I am very familiar with all of these.
but they have NOTHING to do with what we were talking about which was the evidence that a god was involved with the tseunami.If an event like that occurs and no-one sees it, is it still a call? these things are indiscriminate and probabilistic,unlike any mind
real proof? the site is the old morality argument and it is terrible.Just becuaes I cannot find any reason for child molestation " for fun" in the real world does not mean I believe in absolute morality or God. It just means that there are no objective reasons in reality to condone child molestation for fun! Societies that allowed that ( not many people would find it fun) would not survive.the laws of physics and biology have determined that. All the guys above use this form of argument.
You are reducing an entire site, which has many proofs, to one argument that is included on the site. This is intellectually unfair. The site's arguments are cumulative-- you have to face and answer each question to reach the ultimate logical conclusion. Will you do so-- or will you simply take the easy way out and say that you've "heard it all before," without going through the site to really see what "it" is? You are not displaying intellectual carefulness here.
right off the bat the site equivicates on the term absolute. It is initially defined as "true for all people at all times". If one answers no, it asks if you absolutely believe that ? so you say yes. The trick is that the term absolute has changed.The 2nd time asks if I believe it..this is not the same as "true for all people at all times".
There is error in asking about the "laws" of physics. A graviton, a photon an atom are real things. The laws are descriptive models that show their effects.
These particles and forces are real.The models we use to measure their effects and make predictions are what we call "laws". The models are descriptions of real things having real effects in spacetime. The models are abstraction about ontologically real things.
The site also make a nonsequitor in concluding that universal and nonchanging laws require a god.
christianman, I would be happy to discuss this site further with you, but I am still waiting for evidence that god caused the tseunami.
About your argument that societies which condone child molestation for fun would not survive, that may or may not be true. However, even if it is true, that is not an argument from objective morality but rather, an argument from pragmatism. Meaning, we shouldn't molest children for fun, because it won't "work for us," as a society, long-term. However, that still does not answer the question of objective morality.
About the site's definition of "absolute," I'll answer next time.
It is an argument from objective morality.Morality has to do with behaviours between people in society. If one defines morality as that behaviour which increases human happiness and minimises suffering, then there are objective ways to do that, amongst a bunch of choices. I can;t imagine how molestation of children for fun could achieve these things in this real world. The laws of biology are such that this is true for all societies at all times, provided the laws of biology do not change.
Continuing from my comment-- I'll look forward to your challenging child molestation from a position of objective morality, rather than pragmatism.
About the site's definition of the term, "absolute," there is no equivocation. Respectfully, I think that you are misunderstanding. Absolute is rightly defined as "true for all people at all times." When the site asks if it is absolutely true that you believe something, the question remains-- is it *absolutely true* that you believe this?
in the 2nd case the word absolutely refers to a sense of confidence that I believe something to be true, not that all people at all times believe it to be true.There might be some psychopath who believes molesting kids for fun is okay.
In the 1st case I might answer yes because I am confident that child molestation is "bad". But the term Molestation already implies harm to the child. This is a pragmatic response of course, and I have a natural evolved sense of avertion to this act.
I did answer the questions about the laws. I answered that, as far as we know, the physics of the universe and our mathematical and theoretical descriptions of them appear not to have changed, appear consistent over time ( at least 14 billion yrs).Logic is a tool that we use to make predictions and reveal reality.The models we use are descriptions of reality, but the physics is real.We can feel and measure the effects, our senses detect certain manifestations of them.
There is a deeper question (found on the site itself) behind your statements about laws of logic, laws of science, etc. The question is this: If there is no God who orders things in the universe, then how is it that there is order, whether in nature, thinking, language, etc.? If everything originated from an impersonal process of evolution, without God, then what was the *origin* of something like *logic*? If evolution is true, non-rationality "evolved" into logic. Nonsense!
no , you have it wrong christianman. There is an emerging science called complexity theory, whereby it is shown that complexity can evolve over time under certain conditions. For eg, if tyou have a replicator, variance, time, and envinomental change, evolution and order will arise. Computor simulations abound that show this.We see that the universe started simply, and that order has evolved over time as the result of algoryhmic action of physics acting on matter and energy over time.
at the planck sphere ( 14 billion yrs ago), there was a universe with 0 order ( complete entropy). No information was present initially to start the process off. With expansion the laws of physics emerged and order ensued. This explains the formation of stars, gallaxies, planets, mountain ranges and everything that exists.Mindless laws working over time allgorythmically. billions of yrs later a sentient being is asking questions.Our brains recognise the consistency present in the universe.
logic and reason are tools our minds use to exploit the order in the universe.a tornado is a complex entity that arises naturally under an algorythm in certain conditions. We can generate models to study it and predict it's path, but it is mindless, like a tseunami. the origin of logic is the laws of physics that produced order out of chaos.Everything, like tseunamis and smallpox is explainable when you realise that the laws are mindless, and we evolved from them.
"Complexity theory" may seem impressive at first, until one recognizes that it is basically making the following assertion-- given sufficient time, distinctive characteristics can turn into their opposites through an unguided process (unguided by anything more than impersonal forces of nature). Atheistic evolution states that given enough time, non-life "evolved" into life. Impersonal matter "evolved" into beings which have personalities. Think about it. Are such ideas rational?
they are rational, because that is what happened.If you have a replicator, variance,time ...evolution is a certainty.And it will produce a pattern consistent with a mindless process..like a nested heirarchial bush of life.99% of all the life that ever existed on the planet is now extinct. The vast majority of planets are lifeless.A universe of 100 billion gallaxies each w hundreds of billions of stars.This is the evidence of a probabilistic process over time.Yours is an argument from incredulity
It could be the way that the comments are showing up on the computer I am using, but right now, my responses to you are appearing out of the order in which I am posting them. Hopefully, that will be corrected. First, I answered your post about child molestation and morality. Then I posted another comment about how the site actually does consistently define the term "absolute."
Now, about the laws of science, logic, etc.-- have you answered all of the related questions on the site?
I heard that drowning is one of the worst ways to die. How wonderful of god to cause us to suffer and struggle, desparately clinging to our last breath, begging for his help... before we go home. hallelujah!
genext7 9 months ago
Totally and utterly shallow.
ezragriffiths 10 months ago
As a Christian I find this a deeply unsatisfying, poorly thought-thru answer to the problem of evil and suffering. He would have been better off to simply confess that he could not comprehend the mystery and admit his finitude. Sad witness.
1nicawilly 10 months ago
he should have said at the end: 'one big difference: we are going home... everyone else is going to hell for eternity!'
this is a horrible answer to an already weak straw-man version of the problem of evil. if any of you Christians want to look at a good debate on the issue (not just a one sided talk) check here on youtube Peter Singer's debate with Dinesh D'Souza. you can just search for "Peter Singer debate Dinesh" and it will be the one that has several parts to it.
elguanteloko 1 year ago
I guess God was calling for more repentence in Samoa this wk.
adstanra 2 years ago
@adstanra there isnt much, its practically all mormon
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
The sire, at the end , makes the conclusion that if the laws are immaterial, nonchanging,universal etc, that this requires a God.Not sure why it makes this jump. The physics of the universe has established order, which means there is truth.We find out what the truth is by observation and experiement. This is how we justify any truth claims, not based upon any abstract notion of a spacetimeless being who reveals himself thru nebulous means where there is such disagreement.
adstanra 2 years ago
Well, i guess those christians who died didn't repent..this guy is saying that Jesus said that repentence is the antidote against this...It AMAZES me ( and I don't think this is misplaced amazement), just how disgusted christians are with humanity ( and themselves).God seems to be directing most of his warning against the poor and children...and it seems not to matter if you have repented..small-pox tortures christians and atheists alike.
adstanra 2 years ago
Did you really listen to this video? John Piper himself says here that Christians are also swept away in tsunamis. Christians get sick and die too. The difference is, Christians are going to be with God, who is the source of all true comfort. Anyone who knows that he or she is a sinner and wants forgiveness from God can come to Him, trust in Jesus Christ's death for sinners and be forgiven. If a person is forgiven by God, death holds no terror. It is the beginning of eternity with God.
christianman73 2 years ago
1-tsunamis are caused by convection cells under the cooloing earths crust. No "call" but mindless plate tectonics.2-under Pipers explanation,tsunamis should be rejoyced..xians go to heaven,"call" to others, and unrepentant( including kids) get what they deserve-
This is nilhilism at its worst.3-do you really think God uses plagues,malaria, tsuenamis,drought,smallpox to " call" people..these preferentially cause children,poor and weak to suffer!
adstanra 2 years ago
We have much better explanations now for these phenomenon.There is no Zeus, Thor or YHWH directing lightning bolts or plagues for some mysterious reason. When we call upon theologeons for explanations they give us bullshit answers like in the video.There is no mind directing plague ( a bacterium with a strange lifecycle), smallpox( a virus elliminated by science after killing 200 millionpeople) or malaria ( kills 1 million people,mostly kids in Africa per year).Just laws of physics and biology
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
You write that we have "better" explanations for these events now. The fact is, in Biblical times, there were skeptics as well. You think that at an earlier time in history, everyone attributed certain things to God, and now people "know better." However, some people believe in God, and some people disbelieve, in *any* age. It was true in Biblical times, and it is true now. As for scientific laws, there is no ultimate basis for them without God. See ProofthatGodexistsdotorg.
christianman73 2 years ago
hey christianman, In the past most natural phenomena were attributed to some deity.People looked to theologeons for explanations for drought, tsunamis,plagues. The fact is, theologians have never provided humans with any new knowledge about these things.And Skeptics were often horribly persecuted by them.
everywhere we look we see a universe governed by impersonal and probabilistic laws of physics, chemistry and biology.These cause planets ,oceans,gallaxies etc.
adstanra 2 years ago
We do not yet understand how the laws came into effect, but once they did, no intelligence is required. It may be the inherent nature of singularities to expand by quantum flux? there may be multiple universes. We are just beginning to understand these things.But a deity doesn't really answer anything. It actually poses even more questions like How does a mind "exist" , "outside" spacetime. these terms axiomatically require spacetime.
Plate tectonics caused the tseunami..period.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
It is simply not historically accurate to make the broad statement that "In the past most natural phenomena were attributed to some deity." Again, in every age, some people believe in God and His control over "natural phenomena"-- and some people disbelieve. This is true, and has been true, in every period of history. Have you read the Gospels in the New Testament? Some people believed Jesus's miracles, and some people scoffed. The same was true with God in the Old Testament.
christianman73 2 years ago
I think it is factual that most of the ancients attributed natural phenomena to dieties. The Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, Egyptians, Persons, Babylonians all did. Some people disbelieved in Jesus ...so what. What is your point ? The problem w Piper is that he thinks we are just lucky not to be wiped out by God. His opinion of human life is pathetic. this sort of self hatred pervades all of the christian meme.God kills and tortures millions as a call to our wretchedness. no evidence for this
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
Respectfully, you are writing in an overly broad way here, which is problematic. "The Romans believed this, the Egyptians did too, etc." The truth is, no culture is monolithic in its beliefs. Throughout the ages, there have always been people who were skeptical about the existence of God (or any gods).
You say that there is no "evidence" that God kills millions as a call to our wretchedness. Aren't your presuppositions controlliing what you will *admit* to be evidence?
christianman73 2 years ago
Well, when historians consider the beliefs of a culture they give a general picture of what Egyptians, for eg, believed. That is not to say that every egyptian believed the same thing, I still don't get your point .Wouldn't mind a clarification.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
The clarification for which you are asking is that it is simplistic and historically inaccurate to write as if people from earlier times attributed things to God because they didn't know any better, and now we attribute things to scientific laws alone, because we supposedly do know better. This is a simplistic and inaccurate characterization of things. Do you know that the original scientists who *formulated* the scientific laws believed in God and His sovereign control over nature?
christianman73 2 years ago
well , christianman73, we will have to disagree. I think it is historically accurate to assert that, in general, the Romans , for example, attributed phenomena to dieties. They consistently felt that the gods needed to be placated..even the doorway God who needed his due or it might collapse. Poissidon, Zeus, , Arius were operative in many phenomena.theologeons during the plague blamed in, Jews , Harlots for aggrivating God's wrath. The "original" scientists were theists in the same vein.
adstanra 2 years ago
but , so what? Piper, a theologeon, is trying to explain a phenomenon , a tseunami that killed 200,000 poor people , some kids playing on the beach, as a "call from some diety to repentence. We now know, as modern people in the world, that tsuenamis are caused by plate tectonics. ..no God required!
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
A physical explanation does not negate a non-physical origin. When a husband and wife conceive a child, there is a physical explanation for how that child was conceived. However, the physical explanation does not negate the *non-physical origin* (the love between the couple).
Scientific laws were formulated by men who understood the world and universe to have an order, as created by an orderly God. This "orderliness" is why scientists even had the *basis* to do their research.
christianman73 2 years ago
Love is not the cause of babies...it might be a motivating factor, but babies can be motivated by hate ( rape) or lust or sex drives ( most of the animal world ).These things have natural evolutionary origins.
The laws are descriptions of the order of the universe. The orderlyness allows for scientific exploration ans the discovery that tseunamis aare caused by impersonal forces below the earth's crust forcing plates to move against one another.Continants,mountain ranges are cuaed by the same
adstanra 2 years ago
are you arguing that God did miraculously, at that moment, cause giant plates to move against one another transfering energy onto water causing a wave to transfer it's energy onto kids playing on the beach to "call" other people thousands of miles away to repentence? This is the exact thing theologeons in the dark ages when facing the plague...it is a call to repentence!...NO IT'S NOT..it's a bacteria living in fleas that live on rats.God can't use that anymore because we have eliminated it.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
Let's be honest. You will not admit anything whatsoever to be a "call to repentance from God," because the very presuppositions upon which your worldview is based, will not allow anything to be evidence for God. Anything that the Bible, and/or Christians, would say is evidence for God, you would disqualify from the outset, because your presuppositions are hostile to the concept of God. I really recommend that you examine "ProofthatGodexistsdotorg." (Can't post links on Youtube.)
christianman73 2 years ago
If Piper is allowed to make a bold statement that some diety killed 200,000 people as a call to repentence and get away with it, then there is no standard to evaluate truth claims whatsoever.the fact is christianman73,you would perhaps believe anything he said as long as he can point to some bible verse.there is no reason to believe that a god was involved , and huge reasons to believe it was plate tectonics.A mind, a benevolent mind, would not indisciminately kill 100's thousands of people.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
You are evaluating Piper's claims (although they are really the Bible's claims about how God works, in a sense) by standards that will not even possibly *allow* those claims to be true. Is such an approach objective or open-minded on your part? You say that there is "no reason to believe that a god was involved." What *would* be a reason, in your view? Furthermore, you say that "a benevolent mind would not indiscriminately kill..." Who defines benevolence-- finite humans or God?
christianman73 2 years ago
No it is you chris, who has provided no reason to believe that a diety did this. you also have an apparent delemma...explaining why a good God would kill 200,000 people indiscriminately. No onlt is there no evidence for it , but it is an apparent paradox...unless you have another definition of the word..Good. I am open minded to any evidence, please provide some.
adstanra 2 years ago
imagine a muslem asserting that Allah did it as a call to submission, or a hindu asserting that Siva did it to crush the ego's arrogence.How would you respond? You wouldn't give it much thought before dismissing these baseless claims realising that there is no evidence to support them. Science however, bases it's claims on evidence. That is how we know tseunamis are caused by plate tectonics.When earthquakes occur on jupitor or on earth and no one is hurt, is it still a call? To whom?
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
You say that I have not provided a reason to believe that a deity "did this" (allowed the tsunami to happen for His own purposes). However, at least twice now, I have pointed you to a specific place which offers logical proof for God. ProofthatGodexistsdotorg. I can't give you the exact link, because Yahoo doesn't allow posting of links. However, if you go where I recommended, and seriously *think through and answer* all the questions, you will find logical proof for the true God.
christianman73 2 years ago
well, christian, I am very familiar with the theistis arguments. I was a christian for 25 yrs...I have studies WLC, Lee Srobel, John Stott, plus the classics like c.s lewis, even aquinas and augustine. Frankly I come to utube to have personal conversations...not follow a bunch of links.I am interested in your thoughts...not someone elses presently. and you don't seem to have used there material to formulate your own thoughts otherwise you would not refer me to someone elses.i will not refer you
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
The "traditional" theistic arguments are not the kind of logical proof that ProofthatGodexists offers. Most of the men whom you named (Aquinas, Lewis, Stott, Strobel) belong to schools of Christian apologetic thought with which I do not agree. Basically, they offer the traditional Roman Catholic, or compromised Protestant, "cases for God" which fail to do more than "prove" some generic god. As there is not space here for long, deep conversation, I pointed you to the real "Proof."
christianman73 2 years ago
There are the cosmological proofs (WLC's kalaam version has revived it a bit), teleological ( anthropic coincidences and ID guys),moral argument, ontological argument and "case for Christ" arguments. I am very familiar with all of these.
but they have NOTHING to do with what we were talking about which was the evidence that a god was involved with the tseunami.If an event like that occurs and no-one sees it, is it still a call? these things are indiscriminate and probabilistic,unlike any mind
adstanra 2 years ago
real proof? the site is the old morality argument and it is terrible.Just becuaes I cannot find any reason for child molestation " for fun" in the real world does not mean I believe in absolute morality or God. It just means that there are no objective reasons in reality to condone child molestation for fun! Societies that allowed that ( not many people would find it fun) would not survive.the laws of physics and biology have determined that. All the guys above use this form of argument.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
You are reducing an entire site, which has many proofs, to one argument that is included on the site. This is intellectually unfair. The site's arguments are cumulative-- you have to face and answer each question to reach the ultimate logical conclusion. Will you do so-- or will you simply take the easy way out and say that you've "heard it all before," without going through the site to really see what "it" is? You are not displaying intellectual carefulness here.
christianman73 2 years ago
right off the bat the site equivicates on the term absolute. It is initially defined as "true for all people at all times". If one answers no, it asks if you absolutely believe that ? so you say yes. The trick is that the term absolute has changed.The 2nd time asks if I believe it..this is not the same as "true for all people at all times".
There is error in asking about the "laws" of physics. A graviton, a photon an atom are real things. The laws are descriptive models that show their effects.
adstanra 2 years ago
These particles and forces are real.The models we use to measure their effects and make predictions are what we call "laws". The models are descriptions of real things having real effects in spacetime. The models are abstraction about ontologically real things.
The site also make a nonsequitor in concluding that universal and nonchanging laws require a god.
christianman, I would be happy to discuss this site further with you, but I am still waiting for evidence that god caused the tseunami.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
About your argument that societies which condone child molestation for fun would not survive, that may or may not be true. However, even if it is true, that is not an argument from objective morality but rather, an argument from pragmatism. Meaning, we shouldn't molest children for fun, because it won't "work for us," as a society, long-term. However, that still does not answer the question of objective morality.
About the site's definition of "absolute," I'll answer next time.
christianman73 2 years ago
It is an argument from objective morality.Morality has to do with behaviours between people in society. If one defines morality as that behaviour which increases human happiness and minimises suffering, then there are objective ways to do that, amongst a bunch of choices. I can;t imagine how molestation of children for fun could achieve these things in this real world. The laws of biology are such that this is true for all societies at all times, provided the laws of biology do not change.
adstanra 2 years ago
Continuing from my comment-- I'll look forward to your challenging child molestation from a position of objective morality, rather than pragmatism.
About the site's definition of the term, "absolute," there is no equivocation. Respectfully, I think that you are misunderstanding. Absolute is rightly defined as "true for all people at all times." When the site asks if it is absolutely true that you believe something, the question remains-- is it *absolutely true* that you believe this?
christianman73 2 years ago
in the 2nd case the word absolutely refers to a sense of confidence that I believe something to be true, not that all people at all times believe it to be true.There might be some psychopath who believes molesting kids for fun is okay.
In the 1st case I might answer yes because I am confident that child molestation is "bad". But the term Molestation already implies harm to the child. This is a pragmatic response of course, and I have a natural evolved sense of avertion to this act.
adstanra 2 years ago
I did answer the questions about the laws. I answered that, as far as we know, the physics of the universe and our mathematical and theoretical descriptions of them appear not to have changed, appear consistent over time ( at least 14 billion yrs).Logic is a tool that we use to make predictions and reveal reality.The models we use are descriptions of reality, but the physics is real.We can feel and measure the effects, our senses detect certain manifestations of them.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
There is a deeper question (found on the site itself) behind your statements about laws of logic, laws of science, etc. The question is this: If there is no God who orders things in the universe, then how is it that there is order, whether in nature, thinking, language, etc.? If everything originated from an impersonal process of evolution, without God, then what was the *origin* of something like *logic*? If evolution is true, non-rationality "evolved" into logic. Nonsense!
christianman73 2 years ago
no , you have it wrong christianman. There is an emerging science called complexity theory, whereby it is shown that complexity can evolve over time under certain conditions. For eg, if tyou have a replicator, variance, time, and envinomental change, evolution and order will arise. Computor simulations abound that show this.We see that the universe started simply, and that order has evolved over time as the result of algoryhmic action of physics acting on matter and energy over time.
adstanra 2 years ago
at the planck sphere ( 14 billion yrs ago), there was a universe with 0 order ( complete entropy). No information was present initially to start the process off. With expansion the laws of physics emerged and order ensued. This explains the formation of stars, gallaxies, planets, mountain ranges and everything that exists.Mindless laws working over time allgorythmically. billions of yrs later a sentient being is asking questions.Our brains recognise the consistency present in the universe.
adstanra 2 years ago
logic and reason are tools our minds use to exploit the order in the universe.a tornado is a complex entity that arises naturally under an algorythm in certain conditions. We can generate models to study it and predict it's path, but it is mindless, like a tseunami. the origin of logic is the laws of physics that produced order out of chaos.Everything, like tseunamis and smallpox is explainable when you realise that the laws are mindless, and we evolved from them.
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
"Complexity theory" may seem impressive at first, until one recognizes that it is basically making the following assertion-- given sufficient time, distinctive characteristics can turn into their opposites through an unguided process (unguided by anything more than impersonal forces of nature). Atheistic evolution states that given enough time, non-life "evolved" into life. Impersonal matter "evolved" into beings which have personalities. Think about it. Are such ideas rational?
christianman73 2 years ago
they are rational, because that is what happened.If you have a replicator, variance,time ...evolution is a certainty.And it will produce a pattern consistent with a mindless process..like a nested heirarchial bush of life.99% of all the life that ever existed on the planet is now extinct. The vast majority of planets are lifeless.A universe of 100 billion gallaxies each w hundreds of billions of stars.This is the evidence of a probabilistic process over time.Yours is an argument from incredulity
adstanra 2 years ago
Adstanra,
It could be the way that the comments are showing up on the computer I am using, but right now, my responses to you are appearing out of the order in which I am posting them. Hopefully, that will be corrected. First, I answered your post about child molestation and morality. Then I posted another comment about how the site actually does consistently define the term "absolute."
Now, about the laws of science, logic, etc.-- have you answered all of the related questions on the site?
christianman73 2 years ago
the term benevolence has meaning because we understand what the definition is. It is part of our language.
A reason to believe a god was involved
1) there was descriminate killing not explainable by natural phenomena that suggested intent
2) A God announced ahead of time that at that hour on that day, he was going to cause a tseunami.
3) a god was seen verifiably whipping it up
4)all natural phenom rules out
what you have is the same evidenciury support as someone saying Poisidon did it.
adstanra 2 years ago
Comment removed
christianman73 2 years ago
first class bullshit.
Philos2006 3 years ago
One huge difference, we're going home!
amen!
when was this clip put up?
jwuonog 3 years ago
I wish people in my country would dare to speak up for the Biblical answer instead of excusing God.
damildlyshreddah 3 years ago 2