This is the third debate with Dr. Craig I watched. He really is getting boring very fast. He makes the same assertions in his opening statement every time. Then he repeats them over and over again, trying to rebut some of the counter arguments while ignoring the rest, only to conclude, that his assertions still stand. You could make a video with his opening statement from one debate and his closing statement from another and you wouldn't know it were two completely different debates.
Question: If reality is all empirical (what naturalists contend - no metaphysics, no supernatural, only "science (by which they mean empirical naturalism)" why then is the absatract an aspect of reality? Why do we have qualitative attributes?
Craig, if your god is all good why didn't he stop those horrendously evil acts to show his infinite goodness? He intervened during biblical times but not now, not when destruction comes about that is far more devastating. If god has potential to be good could there also be a possibility of the nature of god being evil, apathetic, a jerk, or something else?
@ansaz14 Okay...so why were there no miracles during times of massive destruction and war when god was needed most? If god is all good then he should probably stop evil every once in a while.
@stevelovesgod The Holocaust, world war 2, people trying to take over the world, mass destruction on a nuclear level, and whole generations being wiped out. Definitely sounds like a time when god should have intervened and you know stopped massive destruction on a global level. Same goes with the dark ages when lots of horrible things were happening yet no divine intervention happened.
@stevelovesgod Yes we survived it but there were so many times during that time that could've led to our extinction. I don't think you understand the severity of nuclear weapons and all out warfare. Some divine intervention was needed yet none came, and we had to overcome the threat of nuclear war by ourselves alone. The problem is why was there no intervention during that time of crisis when all could've perished?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think you understand..... We indeed survived, so hindsight shows the direct intervention your looking for was not needed.... And in the future, it will be a time Jesus comes back and intervene. I just pray your on the right side at Armageddon.
@stevelovesgod Yes but we barely survived, the turmoil that left Germany in it's state could've been prevented yet evil happened and god was nowhere to be found. Nuclear annihilation was imminent and it could've left the world in ashes. So divine intervention could have saved the lives of millions of people yet that did not occur and we as humans had to take control not wait for god. If god doesn't come during nuclear annihilation when will he come, is global destruction not enough?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence what you say is like buying something worth three times your sallary and ask God to pay the bill...
Every evil fact you name is a consequence of mankind's own actions. God gives us freedom to do what our own will dictates, therefore, we do evil actions all the time, but He uses that evil for His own glory.
Nuclear bombs were invented by mankind's "wisdom", and we, as mankind, must face the consequences of it.
@Mvillano13 So god isn't at fault for providing the materials necessary for the creation of nuclear weapons? If the guy created everything then yes he holds responsibility, it doesn't all shift to mankind's hands whether we are wise or not. God punished us for gaining freedom through wisdom, how is that not evil? Also if god USES EVIL to gain something then he is malevolent and EVIL. Why does god not repent for his sins and be responsible like us humans?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Is God also guilty of providing the rope to a guy who hungs himself? Or is it his own choice to end his life? Or will you Him guilty if you slack off at work and get fired? (you remind me Bruce almighty)
Did you know that in God's law you should fall dead the moment you commit your first Sin but he doesn't kill us all (yes, kill) because of his Mercy? His the owner of life and death, so he does whatever He wants, so he chose to give us the power of choice.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence@Requiemxtoxinnocence Is God also guilty of providing the rope to a guy who hungs himself? Or is it his own choice to end his life? Or will you Him guilty if you slack off at work and get fired? (you remind me Bruce almighty)
Did you know that in God's law you should fall dead the moment you commit your first Sin but he doesn't kill us all (yes, kill) because of his Mercy? His the owner of life and death, so He does whatever He wants, and he chose to give us choice.
@Mvillano13 Wow really merciful except for that whole eternal punishment thing, finite crimes get paid back with eternal punishment. Furthermore You shouldn't be judging humans by a godly law, we're humans, it's like putting an amateur league team against professional champions and expecting them to win. Also it doesn't matter if he created it, our morals should transcend even gods but you think that having power makes you just.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence As GK Chesterton once said: "Hell is God's concession to man's will" Hell is the place where ther is no God, granting your wish. Fire and torture the consequence of the absence of God, whish mankind will bring to itself and that we see in a minor scale at news everyday.
Concerning morals: you hit the bullseye! It's impossible to accomplish God's law, that is why he sent Jesus Christ and set us free from our Sin. If you go to Hell, is only because you don't want to believe
@Mvillano13 That's entirely unjust, sending people to hell simply because they don't want to be servants for eternity is beyond evil. Why would not give these people a third option especially those who were good or simply didn't accept faith for other reasons? Do you not see the problem in not having a third option?
Vicarious redemption is immoral, it takes away mankind's responsibility to do what is right in favor of scapegoating. Why not allow mankind to redeem itself without sacrifice?
@Mvillano13 Furthermore no one "wants" to believe, people believe things based upon reason and evidence for claims that can be backed up significantly. If god wanted all to be saved why not show up before all religions were made and prove to be the only one, then return regularly and leave documented proof on earth with better recording material that lasted every century and was consistent? You'd save billions more and stop unbelief.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Exactly! Nobody "wants" to believe something, but you may "choose" to not-believe, let there be because you only acknowledge what you can see, or because you want to keep enjoying sin, or any other reason, but that makes you responsible of not wanting to believe.
Now, God wants to save everyone, and He left well recorded evidence (The Bible) you just have to look deeply for the truth in it yourself. Also, God wants to save us through Faith, but if he shows himself in a
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 100% clear way, it wouldn't be Faith but knowledge, and you would be obliged to believe, which would bring as consequence obedience by fear and not by love.
Others before you asked for signals, Jesus called them hipocrites, since the signals were all around them, but they DIDN'T want to believe. The same is with you.
@Mvillano13 That's beginning to sound a lot like slavery. How can anyone love what they fear? That sounds abusive.
I haven't seen anything supernatural, i'd be obliged to believe if I saw something supernatural or oh at least had something to go on. How is it " all around me"? Besides they supposedly had a god man there to do miracles, I don't...how is that fair? I'd believe I just want some proof.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence On the first point, Wouldn't you fear an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being which can take you life only with thinking it? But wouldn't you love Him if you know that, instead of doing that, he became a man and allowed himself to be killed in everyone's place?
Would you die for a little lot of bacteria? In proportion, That's what God did for us. If you want some proof, I invite you to truly investigate the Bible and compare it with History, science and with itself
@Mvillano13 Fear and love are not compatible. Love cares while fear brings terror, they are polar opposites it is a paradox. I would rather own up for my own guilt not pass it off to someone else. If god truly loved humans he would allow them to redeem themselves without forcing an agreement upon them based upon faith but by working towards saving the planet and it's people.
So we are bacteria? scum? I'll investigate it more, that's all i've been doing for a few years.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Before giving my answer, let me tell you that it's been a real pleassure to have this coversation with you; You have very valid objections, respect and your argument is very well constructed. Guys like you help me and encourage me to be a better Christian, and I really appreciate it, so thank you very much.
I have to go home now, I`m on work and is 2 am in my country, so if don't answer today, I expect to do it tomorrow.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence First, that's a paradox, not a self contradiction. Didn't you fear your father when he was going to punish you when kid, but then knew it was for your own good because he loved you? Similar here. God gives you the opportunity to redeem yourself, the problem is that it is impossible (Romans 3:9-20), that's why he gave you Jesus. Regarding the thesis of "working to save the planet", I think history already proves you wrong.
@Mvillano13 That isn't fear that is respect. Also if we are to call anything it would be an abusive father from our point of view, I mean just take a look at what he does all through out the book and of how much pain he inflicts upon his own creation. If you have the power to solve problems without violence and are all good then violence and war should be last resort. And holding grudges on humanity when you knew ahead of time is silly, god has no reason to act if he already knows.
@Mvillano13 That isn't fear that is respect. Also if we are to call anything it would be an abusive father from our point of view, I mean just take a look at what he does all through out the book and of how much pain he inflicts upon his own creation. If you have the power to solve problems without violence and are all good then violence and war should be last resort. And holding grudges on humanity when you knew ahead of time is silly, god has no reason to act if he already knows.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Remembre that God also gave mankind the liberty to choose, and since man chose to dissobey God sin started. You are right, there must be a respectfull fear towards God, but fear because of the power He holds more than because of abuse. The pain came because of man, I insist.
I also insist that God won't solve the problems man brought upon himself, but he did paid the price for our condemnation in the cross.
Remember also that God is not only love but also justice...
@Requiemxtoxinnocence and I mean absolute Justice, reason why the bit amount of evil we have if we are humanly good will not be tolerated by Him, though He doesn't hold any grudge against mankind, reason why He sent Jesus to die in the Cross for us. All wars against other nations on the Bible are against tribes who came to existence by disobeying God (Lot's daughters, Abraham and Haggar) and which were so evil that burnt their babies alive in tribute to their gods.
@Mvillano13 You're allowing god no restrictions and placing all blame on mankind yet adam and eve couldn't have known what good and evil were if they were created without knowing bad from good from the start they'd have no idea what god meant. Furthermore fulfilling your own prophecies kind of takes away any value humanity has, if you wanted to forgive just do so without conditions and extreme punishments. Not to mention he had the power to prevent war but didn't.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[You're allowing god no restrictions and placing all blame on mankind yet adam and eve couldn't have known what good and evil were if they were created ]] Not having knowledge of good and evil doesn't suggest they were stupid but they were innocent. So a child may be innocent but it does not mean they do not recognize right from wrong, specifically how it applies to disobedience.
@MayonR He's still placing all the blame on humanity, they were just made and he didn't expect them to make mistakes? If anything he should be giving the serpent a sever punishment not humanity. Also if a child does make a mistake you don't punish them as severely as god because you recognize they have yet to know anything at all. God knew ahead of time yet didn't intervene and allowed us to be corrupted, he's allowing evil and then punishing his new creation.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence He may have known they would have sinned but He does not punish them for what they might have done but for what they did do. further if they chose to follow God and adhere to atonement then their eternal life is sealed. If He had intervened that would mean that God's forgiveness was arbitrary. And penalty's against god has more severe implications than what a child might have with an adult.
@MayonR Hmm that's a bit odd considering god believes in thought crime, and the two of them would have no idea of what evil or good actually is he may as well be punishing them for wanting knowledge which is a good thing. But why follow someone who would set you up to fall? That is betrayal in my book. I don't think it'd be arbitrary, it might actually be of higher value because he would show he cared by not allowing them to be corrupted. God isn't taking up responsibility for his actions.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[that's a bit odd considering god believes in thought crime]] Not as in thought crime like in minority report, but intent would play a part in the sin. Not an alien concept since intent even in modern legal systems is used to determine a crime such as murder/negligence/self defense.[[But why follow someone who would set you up to fall?]] they could have chosen not eat from the tree.And you keep saying they didn't know when a child is innocent yet knows right from wrong.
[[that's a bit odd considering god believes in thought crime]] Not as in thought crime like in minority report, but intent would play a part in the sin. Not an alien concept since intent even in modern legal systems is used to determine a crime such as murder/negligence/self defense.[[But why follow someone who would set you up to fall?]] they could have chosen not eat from the tree.And you keep saying they didn't know when a child is innocent yet knows right from wrong.
@MayonR I was specifically thinking lusting after a woman is adultery at heart which is a thought crime, same with hatred equals murder. You can't convict people for thinking these things and who do not act out on them. All i'm saying is damning the whole of the human race for two peoples mistakes is really unforgiving, we are all innocent until proven guilty. This also goes to show a grudge by placing the sins of the father onto the son who had did nothing to deserve it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[You can't convict people for thinking these things and who do not act out on them.]] The legal system deals with our conduct in society and God deals with it in the eternal sense. So God will not punish you for a thought of temptation which may enter but he would if you acted on the thought, meaning acting on it even in thought. getting a temptation is to be expected.And God doesn't damn the whole race since like A&E, we have the opportunity to make the right choice.
@MayonR The whole of this problem begins with adam and eve and to you it ends with the death of a man who was apparently an ancestor to them. So if jesus had already died why wouldn't our sins simply be completely erased whether we believed or not? Once you've done that man would essentially be knowledgeable of good and evil and without sin. Which kind of makes you question, why not simply do it right after adam and eve and without the blood of someone as a condition for forgiveness.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[So if jesus had already died why wouldn't our sins simply be completely erased whether we believed or not?]] Again, that would make forgiveness arbitrary.Even Hitler or any other criminal could do that. So then what would be the point? Everything your postulating would corrupt freewill. Just entertain that this is probably the best possible world in which some are saved with freewill still existing.
@MayonR But by your own belief all you have to do is believe and ask for forgiveness regardless of what you do, so it does not change whether someone will do good or evil towards one another no matter what free will they have. I don't see why you think this system is so perfect when it has so many flaws, because in the end you are still putting your guilt on someone else and taking away your moral responsibility by simply asking for forgiveness.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[your own belief all you have to do is believe and ask for forgiveness]] Actually we can ask for it but it is only granted by the grace of Jesus Christ. After the salvation it naturally results in good works towards mankind.
@MayonR So my point somewhat stands, all you are doing to it is adding religion to the mix. Which foes back to this why not accept good people for their good acts regardless of what they believe? If believing in god does nothing to goodness or badness why make it a restriction to enter into heaven? But you are also not accepting what you've done if all you are going to do is do repeat offenses and repeat asking for forgiveness. I mean forgiveness is fine but it really doesn't change things.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[why not accept good people for their good acts ]] though we do good acts or act good it doesn't erase our unrighteousness.[[why make it a restriction to enter into heaven? ]] That is the utmost standard. I would never want God to lower the standard and corrupt what is to come.[[if all you are going to do is do repeat offenses and repeat asking for forgiveness.]] We don't save our self, He saves us, so if your insincere a God would know this.
@MayonR Unrighteousness? So being good and being devout are god's two united points? Also if god had already let us be corrupted it probably wouldn't be that bad, you'd have good people helping you out instead of having some "chosen people" scenario. I believe in being good and helping others but my belief in god changes nothing, all it does in separate people into tribes each following their own god with it's own plan.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[So being good and being devout are god's two united points? ]] Again being good doesn't erase our unrighteous acts and nature.[[. I believe in being good and helping others but my belief in god changes nothing,]] And the Bible would affirm that in Romans 2 asserting that the Bible doesn't make you recognize right from wrong but that you already recognize the laws written on your heart. Th choice of morals don't separate us into tribes. I don't see how you made that leap.
@MayonR Your trying to insert god into psychology, as if god somehow made me think killing someone is bad when he played no part in it. Those claims cannot be justified simply by pointing it out in the bible, it's essentially like pointing out things about greek mythology and applying them to human qualities because someone said it. I was pointing out the belief in certain gods split people into tribes, especially when they claim morals come from one certain being.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[Your trying to insert god into psychology,]] Actually if you read carefully you would have seen I was agreeing with you on that point. The belief in God does not determine the inherent sense of right and wrong.[[Those claims cannot be justified simply by pointing it out in the bible]] Essentially what I just said.]]I was pointing out the belief in certain gods split people into tribes[[ What? Ancient people weren't split because of beliefs.
@MayonR When I spoke of tribes I was talking of how people act within said belief system that it acts tribally, you all have church leaders/chiefdoms and followers with certain rituals splitting each religion up into tribe like behavior. The factions then war over which god is true or real, as evidenced in the bible and even other primitive cultures. There are also lots of tribal religions all around the world from africa to india.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't see denominations as a bad thing since opposition would better clarify things than blind agreement. Cultist religions might fit that, since they don't allow outside opinion but exclusivity.[[he factions then war over which god is true or real,]] In the Bible the wars were justifiable because of the atrocity of these nations.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't see denominations as a bad thing since opposition would better clarify things than blind agreement. Cultist religions might fit that, since they don't allow outside opinion but exclusivity.[[he factions then war over which god is true or real,]] In the Bible the wars were justifiable because of the atrocity of these nations.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence imagine a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void.C.S. Lewis
@MayonR I understand you want freedom for greater good, but occasionally that pointless disaster brings about more evil and more suffering. Many natural disasters bring nothing but death yet god does not stop them. I also kind of have to ask, if heaven is like the place you've explained above as void. There is also complications between god's free will and ultimate goodness, as being completely good destroys free will by removing evil does it not? god would be controlled by fate.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[Many natural disasters bring nothing but death yet god does not stop them.]] Everyone dies, and that is explained in the fall of man. Also, there is no promise of prosperity in this world, all you have to do is read Job where Job learned not to accuse God of injustice but to submit to the will of the sovereign Lord of the universe, having faith that His benevolence is best in the end.In heaven with the complete knowledge of evil we would never want to chose that .
@MayonR All that story taught was might makes right, and you can't argue with god simply because you were his creation. Both of which I would go against. If god's goodness is simply because he's powerful then he isn't good, and once you make people you should at the very least help them out instead of abandoning them. All god ever does is ask for sacrifice and war on a grand scale and we are the pawns.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[I think my statement on it was closer, but by all means point me to the chapter and verse since you must have read it.[[If god's goodness is simply because he's powerful then he isn't good,]] Actually benevolence would be an attribute of maximal excellence compared to malevolence. And really you aren't in the vantage point to determine what God should do. It is simply your perception from your vantage point. You can't determine if God has good reasons to allow suffering.
@MayonR Well you could read through the bible and write out other potential actions that could've been taken to avert said problems. Although I am not at the vantage point of a god who's to say that better decisions could not have been made, if god has so much power then he could certainly find alternatives to violence and war which people who know something about diplomacy and wish to better the life of others should know from the beginning. War and violence is the last straw not the first.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[am not at the vantage point of a god..god has so much power then he could certainly find alternatives]] your almost postulating that this world is supposed to be heaven.And then you make statements that corrupt freewill.And no atheist or Christian would think that the Christian God or Bible ever gave that impression.I would say that this is the best possible world without corrupting freewill at the same time saving the most people possible in those parameters as WLC.
@MayonR My point was that if humans can prevent war and violence then why can't god do so within his own book? Plenty of mortals go through steps before going out to war and do their best to prevent war while for god it's his first decision, ignoring the steps to prevent war as it would be in his best interest to everyone even himself. I'm questioning his benevolence, unless you would say war is always a good first option before diplomacy and other means.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[My point was that if humans can prevent war and violence then why can't god do so within his own book? ]] Divinity stops where responsibility starts.[[do their best to prevent war while for god it's his first decision]] Yet war can't always be prevented. As I can't prevent myself from preventing child abuse such as the Canaanite baby killers. You don't reason with those atrocities. You stop them.[[war is always a good first option ]] In those cases perhaps the only one.
@MayonR But god could've easily appeared to the caaninites before they even began making up gods therefore preventing those wars in the first place yet decided only appearing to the early israelites was the best decision instead of everybody within the world preventing false religion from the start as well as preventing wars. War usually can be prevented with proper tactics and deception which god is fine with by sending evil spirits and hardening hearts to cause war instead of prevent it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You can't say that God didn't command diplomacy first as was done in Egypt and using a pagan man at that to warn the Moabites. In the case of the Canaanites that wasn't reasonable because they were found to be devouring their own people.In the case of the Pharaoh, he had already challenged God and his incongruity was revealed, acting as if the Hebrews were his own property. If you actually read it, the Bible continually states the reasons for God's judgement.
@MayonR Relying on mortals and third parties isn't the best way to get your message across, but the point was god could've become the god of all people had he showed up to all the people of the world before they created gods but he didn't. God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him, he even states before hand that it was his plan all along to show them his power when he simply could've freed them by killing the pharaoh from the beginning.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence We already know that even though God show's Himself, it doesn't make people automatically follow Him. God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence We already know that even though God show's Himself, it doesn't make people automatically follow Him. God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence We already know that even though God show's Himself, it doesn't make people automatically follow Him. God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it. I have asked people if God revealed Himself, and some say I would never worship Him and some that they would even be a thorn in his side.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Blame is placed properly. it wasn't God who sinned, and Satan will be punished for what he has done but not for the sins of man. And the Bible does say that more severe penalties will have more severe punishments. If a child didn't know anything at all as you put it than it doesn't deserve punishment. Rather a child is punished for the severity and intention. If God corrupts freewill we also have no capability to do good.
@MayonR Wouldn't god actually be at fault? God did not intervene even though he knew and he's supposed to be stopping all evil, satan did it because god allowed him to and it's his nature as god's servant, and humans were innocent caught in the middle unsure of who to trust. God to me sounds amoral, he thinks himself above good and evil or he is a relativist that can do evil and still be called good simply because of power. Imagine if satan took god's place, would you call him good?
@MayonR Wouldn't god actually be at fault? God did not intervene even though he knew and he's supposed to be stopping all evil, satan did it because god allowed him to and it's his nature as god's servant, and humans were innocent caught in the middle unsure of who to trust. God to me sounds amoral, he thinks himself above good and evil or he is a relativist that can do evil and still be called good simply because of power. Imagine if satan took god's place, would you call him good?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Remember that Adam and Eve knew that God permitted Adam and Eve to eat from any tree, except the one they did eat; Eve because she thought wrong about God since Satan described Him as a tyrant; this doesn't justify her since she knew God and knew He wasn't like that, but believed Satan anyway. What happens with Adam is worse, since Where was he when Eve was with Satan? Also he willingly desobeyed God just because Eve told him to and when God arrived, he blamed Him for...
@Mvillano13 But satan was right, if they had eaten from the tree of life they would've became gods that was their only mistake but god didn't allow them to. Also I kind of disagree with god not being a tyrant, he fits the bill of one completely especially the way he acts all throughout the bible. You can't judge the whole of humanity based upon two people's actions. Two bad apples do not spoil the bunch, and satan was never punished as harshly as humanity even though he's an agent of god.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence creating Eve who made him sin. God forgave everyone without condition, that's why Jesus carried everyone's sin on Him. The problem is, and please let me quote Megadeth's "Elysian Fields": "The world don't wanna be saved, only left alone" I think Mustaine's quite accurate with that.
In consequense, God grants mankind its wish and creates Hell, where He won't be present at all. The lake of fire and the torture are consequences of mankind being left without God.
@Mvillano13 Yes there is a condition, you have to believe the bible regardless of how ridiculous it is. God should've first and foremost appeared before other religions, but he didn't. How can we be expected to believe such extraordinary claims? And fulfilling your own prophecy is pointless, if your god there is no need to have a median just forgive without conditions.
Why no third option? Some people don't want either.
@Mvillano13 How in the world is anyone supposed to acknowledge the supernatural without proof? The only reason I have for not believing is for multiple reasons, multiple religions, lots of evil, unreliable information, and the fact that religions do not match up scientifically with what we know. The most we could say is a deist god not a theist one if it exists.
I've read the bible, I wasn't impressed. Also this is circular reasoning, you can't prove the god of the bible using the bible.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I used to think the same as you when I was an atheist. Yes, religions really suck, but I'm not talking to you about religion, but about God. lots of evil is what man has done for his own decision through history, there's a lot of unreliable information about everything, that's why Paul says we must verify if what the Bible says is true. A deist God of course is a probability, but a very implausible one if you consider creation itself. Now about supernatural...
@Mvillano13 Yes mankind can be evil, but saying the whole of humanity is evil just sounds completely false. We as humans are naturally going to fight over things, we did that since the beginning, humanity has also had to take responsibility for it's actions and grow each time. If god was there to nurture us and teach us instead we as humans could be more advanced and not have had so many unnecessary hardships. But god did nothing, crossed his arms and waited while humanity suffered.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Yes, we do take responsibility, but we also keep repeating the same mistakes once and again: we kill for religion, politics, wealth, even for sex, but we never stop. Realize that all of Bibles heroes always commited sin and weren't perfect (except for Jesus) as God demanded: Noah got drunk the day after the flood ended, Mohses killed an Egyptian, Jacob was a liar, Abraham a coward, etc. but they were all redeemed because of their faith. The same's with everyone.
Do you think that only what is empirically verifiable is true?
Consider the Bible not only superficially, but as a history written during 1500 years, by 45 authors in 66 books, and is perfectly coherent and armonical, has no contradictions (all supposed are missinterpretations or quotes out of context) has many prophecies fulfilled in Jesus and in the rest of history and that has been used by historians and geograohers as a very accurate guide.
@Mvillano13 Yes the bible has some history true, but I wouldn't call it 100% true. I also doubt it's harmoniousness if that were the case jews and christians would be able to agree but they don't. Also many of those things didn't happen, our science has proven it as well as our archaeology. There was no flood, there is no evidence of the pharaoh ever owning that many slaves, and adam and eve would mutate us out of existence. Why believe this as true when it's so mythological?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't argue metaphysics but i have heard plenty of evidence for a flood. pottery archaeologists have expressed it would be impossible to differentiate from the Hebrews and Egyptians in such an intermingled culture. And migrations can be tracked with genetic science by tracking the mutations that developed coupled with mitochondrial eve suggest that Adam and Eve's genes would be uncorrupted.
@MayonR Wrong, there is no evidence for a flood it's mathematically impossible and if it were so we'd see humans with trilobites and dinosaurs and every other creature but we do not. Adam and Eve never existed, you need a population of at least 10,000 to have an uncorrupted population growth.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence To say there is no evidence is quite laughable. And the chances for abiogenesis or evolution are astronomical so again comedic. Further either of them are metaphysics and not science. It is an interpretation of today's observance. Since it is metaphysics I favor historicity. I would invite you to ShockofGods chat room on the weekends where that is discussed of which there are several biology majors among other sciences that attend. I can set up a debate or discussion.
@MayonR Evolution is possible it's a well developed science that many accept, it is backed up by tons and tons of data and evidence. And although Abiogenesis seems unlikely immediately jumping to the conclusion that god shows poor reasoning. If science can't explain it god must've done it ( god of the gaps). And shockofgod is not worth anyone's time the guy is completely nuts. It's a bit like explaining evolution to VenomfangX, he just can't understand biological science.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Now that MayonR has answered most og your comment (which I thank, since I didn't know much of that information), let me tell you that all differences between Jews and Christians derive on the question: Is Jesus the Jew Messiah?. I also want to that the Talmuds (Jew books about farisee law and history) refer to Jesus as a sorcerer, attacking him but at the same time supporting that He did performed miracles and His tomb was empty.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence ...written there were still eye witnessess, but no one denied that he resurrected or existed, nor (as MayonR says) gave history enough time te be transformed into a legend.
So, we may only have 3 plausible options, He was a liar, insane, or, as he proclaimed, the Son of God.
@Mvillano13 Your premise that he'd only have to be one of the three is completely wrong he could've easily been a mix of them but to call someone a son of god because they do magic tricks is ludicrous. The fact is Jesus does not fit the bill for what the jewish messiah is actually supposed to be, they weren't even looking for someone divine. Nor did jesus fulfill the requirements of doing all that was proposed within his lifetime and people have come closer than him for that matter.
@Mvillano13 Although Jesus may have existed, we can't jump to the conclusion that he was divine or that all he did was true. It's far more likely he was turned into a legendary hero, I mean many historical figures and people have been romanticized and I think this is no different. Achilles and Heracles have been romanticized and they existed but we know that Heracles wasn't son of Zeus just a badass warrior. People get turned into legends all through history this is no different.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[It's far more likely he was turned into a legendary hero]] in the same light, in an objective view, we can't jump to the conclusion that it wasn't true based on a naturalistic presupposition. Also we today know that legends require much more time than the amount of time it took for the rapid rise of Christianity.Further there is plenty of even hostile attestation of the Jesus account.
@MayonR Jesus's story was during a time of political turmoil, and even so there is a lot of disagreement between many people about the information most of it isn't even substantial because it's been corrupted. You make it seem as if everyone agrees with you whole heartedly that it must've happened the way you say.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I would say your last statement is actually close to accurate. The people who disagree on the historicity tend to be academic skeptics at most but the New testament scholars, secular or religious form a consensus of the historicity. So though academic skeptics may postulate an array of explanations you would be hard pressed to say it is accepted by the consensus of NT scholars.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[NT scholars who are no doubt far more religious so it doesn't surprise me. ]] Will Durant secular said it would be more of a miracle had it been made up by the disciples after legal analysis.Bart Ehrman and Gerd Luderman are others who may bring up peripheral details but do attest it's historicity. Simple challenge is provide me one ancient historian who refutes the historical account of Jesus sympathetic or hostile.
@Mvillano13 How in the world is anyone supposed to acknowledge the supernatural without proof? The only reason I have for not believing is for multiple reasons, multiple religions, lots of evil, unreliable information, and the fact that religions do not match up scientifically with what we know. The most we could say is a deist god not a theist one if it exists.
I've read the bible, I wasn't impressed. Also this is circular reasoning, you can't prove the god of the bible using the bible.
@Mvillano13 If god wanted to kill all humans, then why would he even bother creating us in the first place if all he foresaw was pain and anguish and punishment? It all sounds like a sick joke, like god pretends to love everyone only he'd rather punish all of existence simply because humanity isn't godlike or perfect. It sounds insecure, if you want gods just create gods who are like you and solve the problem. That's all it would've taken.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence It's my responsiblity to do the right thing, why should he do it for me? He does intervene today, I think aethists call it luck or impossible
@ansaz14 Yes we humans are responsible but if you are a god you have the highest responsibility of all. I don't think god intervenes in the world, if he did there would be no reason to question over the reality of miracles or the supernatural. It'd be a common occurrence, yet when does this ever happen? When is the last time angels appeared or disasters were averted? Or horrible diseases were destroyed supernaturally?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Isn't the net flooded with such claims, wether you believe the witnesses or not is another issue, but it was still the same back then, Jesus healed my leprosy or Elijah called fire from heaven. Just a few names connected with miracles of different theological persuarssion and continents Patricia King, David Herzog, Curry Blake, Kobus van Rensburg, T.B. Joshua,
@ansaz14 The problem with those claims is that they aren't documented and you also have to factor in the placebo effect. The bible also claims to be able to heal leprosy from some strange bird ritual involving blood and fire which doesn't cure disease. This is why we rely on science and medics not magic and wizards to heal our ailments. You also can't prove the bible with the bible on the supernatural either.
Also, if you really review his material, then it kind of dawns on you that this guy might be running on his reputation. I don't think he could recover from being beaten in a debate. It certainly explains why he is fine with debating bishops and pastors and other people who don't have the scientific buffer to sustain a battle of logic. He is fine with cheap victories because he can put on his record that he wins all his debates.
Atkins got annihilated just like Hitchens, and if Dawkins ever grows the proper testicles necessary to debate Craig, than the same will happen to him. He says that he's busy... BUSY DUMPING IN HIS PANTS. I think your right when you said that about his ego. I've noticed that he makes an unnecessary amount of funny remarks, which would obviously make him popular with Atheists who don't understand his arguments.
Now I know why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. He knows Craig will manhandle him the same way he manhandled Atkins in this debate, and Dawkins' super-ego couldn't handle that kind of humiliation.
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause! Well that is not a logical certainty. Our understanding of the universe is far too naive to answer this. But to use it as an argument for the existence of God is so obviously logically fallacious that it is laughable.
Everything has to be created - so God created it.
Leaving the oh so obvious question - what created God?
Then Craig changes the rules of his logic to explain that God does not need to fulfill the logic he used to prove his existence
It's also a fallacious to demand certainty in lieu of plausibility, especially when one functions in ordinary life with less than 100% certainty about things. Rather, it's about the plausibility that everything that exists must have a cause. That cause is God, Who is a necessary being, not a contingent one. Philosophers agree that necessary objects exist, such as numbers. They exist by the virtue of their own nature- they are uncreated- The universe is, however, contingent.
Another false premise that atheists want to set up is to have a cause, ad infinitum. "If X was caused by Y, then who caused Y?" It becomes more about Socratic Irony to demonstrate the ignorance of the claimant, which could serve as an attack on the claimant rather than addressing the issue itself. On the other hand, if we take the infinite amount of causes, it would render the notion of causality useless. It must terminate- and in actuality, things do have a beginning and an end.
@IoannesBellator That might be true but it requires no supernatural force. Let us just agree that the universe could have a beginning and an end and your argument is satisfied.
Don't tell me that you looking at a computer isn't -caused- by you approaching it, which is -caused- by the locomotion of your body, which is -caused- by whatever impulse your brain has sent to your legs. I don't know which is more ridiculous, -your- own version of logic (which presupposes atheism for some reason) or your accusation that Dr. Craig doesn't follow the rules of his logic, just because it does not mirror your own rules of logic.
@IoannesBellator Have it whichever way you want. It is caused or it is not caused. Neither argument is predicated on an imaginary being starting the whole thing off.
The simple fact that you scrabble around logic, reason and the English language to try to prove your hypothesis should give you a clue. There is nothing else in your life that you are asked to belief without you being able to empirically observe it.
Ooh, so now it's "Have it whatever way you want it" ...except the notion of God. This is pleading to your own prejudice against the notion of theism and does not at all serve as a valid logical argument. And then you accuse me of being ignorant based on your inferior grasp of English, even though we can understand each other. Then you return to your tired old demand that I prove something empirically. Even though your life is full of things that can't be proven in that manner.
@IoannesBellator I was simply following your logic - and showing that it did not matter which way you spun it, there was no need to invoke a god. My comment on language was addressed at your attempts at sophistry and obfuscation, nothing more.
I am sorry if it wearies you that you cannot prove your claim. That is the difference between real things and myths I suppose.
Tell me about the things in my life that cannot be observed empirically.
Well, that's not a new thing, accusing another person of sophistry and obfuscation, if they don't like that word. I could call you as equally nebulous and so pretentious as knowing more than me, but that was a foregone conclusion. Unlike you, I am not sorry for anything that I say, and I will continue to respond until you give up, admit the incorrectness of atheism, or at least admit to your agnosticism. Here's one. Do your parents love you?
No, YOU fail to back up anything you say- You are stuck in the wrong premise that there is no God and presuppose it and keep on asking for proof, even if it's given to you- Teleological, from morality, from even the notion of intelligent deisgn- I guess you're the one trying to pretend that you have some sort of intellectual superiority by avoiding the admission that there are things that can't be observed empirically, such as your thoughts, emotions, ideals, etc.
@IoannesBellator I bet even you know just how assinine you sound when you throw out the old 'I can't prove my invisible friend exists because he told me I couldn't' shite.
Morality - bollocks - animals have morality - I dare you to ask me to prove that.
Intelligent design is a myth based on err absolutely nothing - prove me wrong
Thoughts, emotions, ideals <- is that your best shot? And yet I can quantify all of them and record, test and compare them with others.
@IoannesBellator I bet even you know just how assinine you sound when you throw out the old 'I can't prove my invisible friend exists because he told me I couldn't' shite.
Morality - bollocks - animals have morality - I dare you to ask me to prove that.
Intelligent design is a myth based on err absolutely nothing - prove me wrong
Thoughts, emotions, ideals <- is that your best shot? And yet I can quantify all of them and record, test and compare them with others.
Animals don't have morality. They have no souls, and as such they can't make art or aren't aware of their own morality. The atheist would argue that humans are just animals, then why would they complain when they're treated as such? Atheists have no basis for objective morality.
You yourself haven't proven that you're not a figment of my imagination. If the notion of God is a convenient fiction, what makes you any different? The fact that you seem real is convincing, but uncertain.
@IoannesBellator Souls? more mythical bullshit. And now you change the goalposts from 'Animals have no morality' to 'animals are not aware of their morality'. Make your mind up.
Art - you have never seen the elephants that paint then?
Atheists have a better basis for objective morality than theists. If morality is objective then it is not dependent on any deity by definition.
The last para is a descent into absurd fallacy. You must know how assinine you are sounding.
So you think elephants paint the same way as people? For an atheist you sure are stupid and gullible. Parrots that can mimic what they hear or be trained, just like those elephants, hardly means parrots can sing soulfully. You know nothing of art, you soulless atheist. Atheists don't have any basis for right or wrong, because there is no God that judges, only human opinions and social agreements. Aztecs had social agreements, and that included human sacrifice.
Despite that you yourself believe that emotions and ideals are quantifiable, you certainly don't behave as if they're quantifiable. When you respond to William Craig as a "lying twat" it certainly doesn't seem to be quantifiable but it certainly is some quality rather than quantity. I don't think your worldview matches your beliefs, quite frankly. It's reduced to material, but you behave more than material. How do you account for that?
@IoannesBellator Of course it is. We know the definition of a lie. Craig lies. I could have called him a cunt but I know some US citizens are a little sensitive and so I moderated myself.
I never once suggested that the world is purely materialistic. I simply refuted your premise that an imaginary friend is required to explain anything.
Your strawmen are getting worse - running out of them by any chance?
Why would you care how anyone feels? What is the logical connection between what you feel, and what others feel? Can you quantify that relationship? The fact that you assert that something can be quantified asserts that it is material, tangible, and concrete- that is why you can't quantify things that are only given qualities. See, your own premise is wrong in that my God is "an imaginary friend" maybe that's what you had as a child, in lieu of a real, immaterial God.
Craig is not a liar- you call him a liar because while you -can- tear down his assertions, you can't make assertions of your own that will sufficiently replaced the conditions for the existence of 1. a world finely tuned for life. 2. people with ability to make moral choices. 3. a proper concept for the beginning and ending of things. Like what Dr. Craig stated, at most, you only give yourself room for agnosticism.
Peter Atkins, like all atheists, are liars. They are disingenuous and deceitful, even in the smallest rationalizations they make to justify their error even if just to themselves. 1. Not willing to die for anything. 2. Willing to lie about what they believe even to themselves. 3. Willing to kill others for what they want, as morality is not an issue with atheists, because they have no objective foundation for "right" and "wrong".
God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time. God is eternal, having never been created. Though it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this, since the universe began to exist a finite billion years ago.
Since you're so big in being able to quantify something, can you quantify infinity? Does infinity exist in the universe? But what about outside? What about conceptually? Does infinity have any real-world application, such as in physics? If it is an imaginary number, why does it exist in the real of real numbers? How is infinity not an imaginary number? Can you scientifically determine the existence of infinity, right? Or are you saying that it's a convenient lie?
2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence can't be tolerated. Strong atheism states that there's no god, though evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon evidence.
There is no God, right? Because there is no God, this means that genocides just happen, like earthquakes and eclipses. It is all matter in motion, and these things happen. If you are on the receiving end, there is only death, and if you are an agent delivering this genocide, the long-term result is brief victory and death at the end. So who cares? Why should anyone care in a Godless world, if what is right is mere consensus, or your own opinion, and everyone dies anyway?
@IoannesBellator You use an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing. You talk around and around in circles.
The fact is simple. There is no god. If there was you would not require sophistry and ontological argument. You would simply say "There is a god and I can prove it because".
Sadly for you there is more evidence that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear - eye witnesses, testimony, cameras, etc - than there is that any of your beings ever existed.
@IoannesBellator You are confusing the twisted bigotry and dogmatic morals of religion with the normal morals that develop in and community, be that a community of wilderbeest or a community of humans.
You really must get an education - you are starting to look both desparate and foolish.
The demand for evidence is just a smokescreen, because you have already predetermined that there can be no such evidence. Why do you think a non-material God can be proven in a materialistic/naturalistic test-tube-like experiment?
"Your non-existent [non-material] god cannot be proven to exist." so the world is dependent on materiality? But at the same time you also claim that the world isn't just material. Please, give yourself some consistency., but considering your atheism, that's almost impossible.
But how exactly does a theist argue with an atheist, when the atheist is a liar not only to others but to himself? If there is no objective moral truth, then what would it matter if God exists and there is sufficient proof for God, especially when the atheist already determined that there is no God without any proof, as if it were presupposed before any argument and the basis for all the truths that he henceforth followed? The atheist himself can't say if he exists, if anything.
It is more ridiculous that atheists claim God doesn't exist, when all signs point to the existence of such a Being. The ability of a human being to choose right and wrong isn't the same as a person who is "genetically predisposed" to certain actions. In the real world, the question of 'how' is irrelevant, as much as it is to feel that something is 'right' or 'wrong' and thus atheists contradict their beliefs with how they actually behave.
@IoannesBellator Oh great! Well it should be very simple for you to provide one single sign then. Something I have been asking for for the past few pages of comments.
And if god held any sway then the cases of child abuse, divorce and criminiality would not higher in believers than non-believers, yet strangely they are. So much for your morals and choices.
You have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live in a morally good and responsible way. In order to prove me wrong you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?
@Huttate1 how can you say animals have morals animals that do have morals is because we trained them too animals that are in the wild have no morals the only thing they think is how they can survive.
@Noremorse05 Patently untrue. There are hundreds of examples available to you. Have a look at Battle at Kruger to see altruism in wilderbeast as just one example.
The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion. Just look at how atheists disagree with each other.
When other atheists make different ethical choices than you do, is there a common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they aren't obeying? What is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? If there isn't a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then wouldn't it appear the supernatural is needed in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?
@Huttate1 Actually its simpler. The alternative to believing in an eternal existence is void brought forth something. Your reasoning is actually flawed. You are appealing to ignorance since you definitely cannot measure how much we know or don't know of the universe. We know that nothing produces nothing. We also know something produces something. Why then is it then the Virgin birth is criticized?
This is the third debate with Dr. Craig I watched. He really is getting boring very fast. He makes the same assertions in his opening statement every time. Then he repeats them over and over again, trying to rebut some of the counter arguments while ignoring the rest, only to conclude, that his assertions still stand. You could make a video with his opening statement from one debate and his closing statement from another and you wouldn't know it were two completely different debates.
TubeTubyTube 1 week ago 3
Question: If reality is all empirical (what naturalists contend - no metaphysics, no supernatural, only "science (by which they mean empirical naturalism)" why then is the absatract an aspect of reality? Why do we have qualitative attributes?
ansaz14 1 month ago
watching atkins is sad. i have never seen someone take such a massive crushing blow to their ego than in this debate.
Falcondick69 3 months ago 2
I think Lane got a little emotional at 7:10 I'm a Muslim, but I totally relate to Craig. He's inspirational.
YoussefS 4 months ago
William Lane Craig won this argument.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
i can't blame Richard Dawkins for avoiding Dr. Craig. it's not a good feeling to be humiliated.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
Craig, if your god is all good why didn't he stop those horrendously evil acts to show his infinite goodness? He intervened during biblical times but not now, not when destruction comes about that is far more devastating. If god has potential to be good could there also be a possibility of the nature of god being evil, apathetic, a jerk, or something else?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Actually he does, I think the term they use is answered prayer or miracles
ansaz14 4 months ago
@ansaz14 Okay...so why were there no miracles during times of massive destruction and war when god was needed most? If god is all good then he should probably stop evil every once in a while.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence How do you know that, that point in time your referring to, is when God was needed most??? You would have to prove that first.
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@stevelovesgod The Holocaust, world war 2, people trying to take over the world, mass destruction on a nuclear level, and whole generations being wiped out. Definitely sounds like a time when god should have intervened and you know stopped massive destruction on a global level. Same goes with the dark ages when lots of horrible things were happening yet no divine intervention happened.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence human race survived didn't it... whats he problem?
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@stevelovesgod Yes we survived it but there were so many times during that time that could've led to our extinction. I don't think you understand the severity of nuclear weapons and all out warfare. Some divine intervention was needed yet none came, and we had to overcome the threat of nuclear war by ourselves alone. The problem is why was there no intervention during that time of crisis when all could've perished?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think you understand..... We indeed survived, so hindsight shows the direct intervention your looking for was not needed.... And in the future, it will be a time Jesus comes back and intervene. I just pray your on the right side at Armageddon.
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@stevelovesgod Yes but we barely survived, the turmoil that left Germany in it's state could've been prevented yet evil happened and god was nowhere to be found. Nuclear annihilation was imminent and it could've left the world in ashes. So divine intervention could have saved the lives of millions of people yet that did not occur and we as humans had to take control not wait for god. If god doesn't come during nuclear annihilation when will he come, is global destruction not enough?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence what you say is like buying something worth three times your sallary and ask God to pay the bill...
Every evil fact you name is a consequence of mankind's own actions. God gives us freedom to do what our own will dictates, therefore, we do evil actions all the time, but He uses that evil for His own glory.
Nuclear bombs were invented by mankind's "wisdom", and we, as mankind, must face the consequences of it.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
Comment removed
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 So god isn't at fault for providing the materials necessary for the creation of nuclear weapons? If the guy created everything then yes he holds responsibility, it doesn't all shift to mankind's hands whether we are wise or not. God punished us for gaining freedom through wisdom, how is that not evil? Also if god USES EVIL to gain something then he is malevolent and EVIL. Why does god not repent for his sins and be responsible like us humans?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Is God also guilty of providing the rope to a guy who hungs himself? Or is it his own choice to end his life? Or will you Him guilty if you slack off at work and get fired? (you remind me Bruce almighty)
Did you know that in God's law you should fall dead the moment you commit your first Sin but he doesn't kill us all (yes, kill) because of his Mercy? His the owner of life and death, so he does whatever He wants, so he chose to give us the power of choice.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence @Requiemxtoxinnocence Is God also guilty of providing the rope to a guy who hungs himself? Or is it his own choice to end his life? Or will you Him guilty if you slack off at work and get fired? (you remind me Bruce almighty)
Did you know that in God's law you should fall dead the moment you commit your first Sin but he doesn't kill us all (yes, kill) because of his Mercy? His the owner of life and death, so He does whatever He wants, and he chose to give us choice.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Wow really merciful except for that whole eternal punishment thing, finite crimes get paid back with eternal punishment. Furthermore You shouldn't be judging humans by a godly law, we're humans, it's like putting an amateur league team against professional champions and expecting them to win. Also it doesn't matter if he created it, our morals should transcend even gods but you think that having power makes you just.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence As GK Chesterton once said: "Hell is God's concession to man's will" Hell is the place where ther is no God, granting your wish. Fire and torture the consequence of the absence of God, whish mankind will bring to itself and that we see in a minor scale at news everyday.
Concerning morals: you hit the bullseye! It's impossible to accomplish God's law, that is why he sent Jesus Christ and set us free from our Sin. If you go to Hell, is only because you don't want to believe
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 That's entirely unjust, sending people to hell simply because they don't want to be servants for eternity is beyond evil. Why would not give these people a third option especially those who were good or simply didn't accept faith for other reasons? Do you not see the problem in not having a third option?
Vicarious redemption is immoral, it takes away mankind's responsibility to do what is right in favor of scapegoating. Why not allow mankind to redeem itself without sacrifice?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Furthermore no one "wants" to believe, people believe things based upon reason and evidence for claims that can be backed up significantly. If god wanted all to be saved why not show up before all religions were made and prove to be the only one, then return regularly and leave documented proof on earth with better recording material that lasted every century and was consistent? You'd save billions more and stop unbelief.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Exactly! Nobody "wants" to believe something, but you may "choose" to not-believe, let there be because you only acknowledge what you can see, or because you want to keep enjoying sin, or any other reason, but that makes you responsible of not wanting to believe.
Now, God wants to save everyone, and He left well recorded evidence (The Bible) you just have to look deeply for the truth in it yourself. Also, God wants to save us through Faith, but if he shows himself in a
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 100% clear way, it wouldn't be Faith but knowledge, and you would be obliged to believe, which would bring as consequence obedience by fear and not by love.
Others before you asked for signals, Jesus called them hipocrites, since the signals were all around them, but they DIDN'T want to believe. The same is with you.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 That's beginning to sound a lot like slavery. How can anyone love what they fear? That sounds abusive.
I haven't seen anything supernatural, i'd be obliged to believe if I saw something supernatural or oh at least had something to go on. How is it " all around me"? Besides they supposedly had a god man there to do miracles, I don't...how is that fair? I'd believe I just want some proof.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence On the first point, Wouldn't you fear an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being which can take you life only with thinking it? But wouldn't you love Him if you know that, instead of doing that, he became a man and allowed himself to be killed in everyone's place?
Would you die for a little lot of bacteria? In proportion, That's what God did for us. If you want some proof, I invite you to truly investigate the Bible and compare it with History, science and with itself
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Fear and love are not compatible. Love cares while fear brings terror, they are polar opposites it is a paradox. I would rather own up for my own guilt not pass it off to someone else. If god truly loved humans he would allow them to redeem themselves without forcing an agreement upon them based upon faith but by working towards saving the planet and it's people.
So we are bacteria? scum? I'll investigate it more, that's all i've been doing for a few years.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Before giving my answer, let me tell you that it's been a real pleassure to have this coversation with you; You have very valid objections, respect and your argument is very well constructed. Guys like you help me and encourage me to be a better Christian, and I really appreciate it, so thank you very much.
I have to go home now, I`m on work and is 2 am in my country, so if don't answer today, I expect to do it tomorrow.
God bless you.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence First, that's a paradox, not a self contradiction. Didn't you fear your father when he was going to punish you when kid, but then knew it was for your own good because he loved you? Similar here. God gives you the opportunity to redeem yourself, the problem is that it is impossible (Romans 3:9-20), that's why he gave you Jesus. Regarding the thesis of "working to save the planet", I think history already proves you wrong.
Yes we are bacteria for God but He still loves us
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 That isn't fear that is respect. Also if we are to call anything it would be an abusive father from our point of view, I mean just take a look at what he does all through out the book and of how much pain he inflicts upon his own creation. If you have the power to solve problems without violence and are all good then violence and war should be last resort. And holding grudges on humanity when you knew ahead of time is silly, god has no reason to act if he already knows.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 That isn't fear that is respect. Also if we are to call anything it would be an abusive father from our point of view, I mean just take a look at what he does all through out the book and of how much pain he inflicts upon his own creation. If you have the power to solve problems without violence and are all good then violence and war should be last resort. And holding grudges on humanity when you knew ahead of time is silly, god has no reason to act if he already knows.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Remembre that God also gave mankind the liberty to choose, and since man chose to dissobey God sin started. You are right, there must be a respectfull fear towards God, but fear because of the power He holds more than because of abuse. The pain came because of man, I insist.
I also insist that God won't solve the problems man brought upon himself, but he did paid the price for our condemnation in the cross.
Remember also that God is not only love but also justice...
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence and I mean absolute Justice, reason why the bit amount of evil we have if we are humanly good will not be tolerated by Him, though He doesn't hold any grudge against mankind, reason why He sent Jesus to die in the Cross for us. All wars against other nations on the Bible are against tribes who came to existence by disobeying God (Lot's daughters, Abraham and Haggar) and which were so evil that burnt their babies alive in tribute to their gods.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 You're allowing god no restrictions and placing all blame on mankind yet adam and eve couldn't have known what good and evil were if they were created without knowing bad from good from the start they'd have no idea what god meant. Furthermore fulfilling your own prophecies kind of takes away any value humanity has, if you wanted to forgive just do so without conditions and extreme punishments. Not to mention he had the power to prevent war but didn't.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[You're allowing god no restrictions and placing all blame on mankind yet adam and eve couldn't have known what good and evil were if they were created ]] Not having knowledge of good and evil doesn't suggest they were stupid but they were innocent. So a child may be innocent but it does not mean they do not recognize right from wrong, specifically how it applies to disobedience.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR He's still placing all the blame on humanity, they were just made and he didn't expect them to make mistakes? If anything he should be giving the serpent a sever punishment not humanity. Also if a child does make a mistake you don't punish them as severely as god because you recognize they have yet to know anything at all. God knew ahead of time yet didn't intervene and allowed us to be corrupted, he's allowing evil and then punishing his new creation.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence He may have known they would have sinned but He does not punish them for what they might have done but for what they did do. further if they chose to follow God and adhere to atonement then their eternal life is sealed. If He had intervened that would mean that God's forgiveness was arbitrary. And penalty's against god has more severe implications than what a child might have with an adult.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Hmm that's a bit odd considering god believes in thought crime, and the two of them would have no idea of what evil or good actually is he may as well be punishing them for wanting knowledge which is a good thing. But why follow someone who would set you up to fall? That is betrayal in my book. I don't think it'd be arbitrary, it might actually be of higher value because he would show he cared by not allowing them to be corrupted. God isn't taking up responsibility for his actions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[that's a bit odd considering god believes in thought crime]] Not as in thought crime like in minority report, but intent would play a part in the sin. Not an alien concept since intent even in modern legal systems is used to determine a crime such as murder/negligence/self defense.[[But why follow someone who would set you up to fall?]] they could have chosen not eat from the tree.And you keep saying they didn't know when a child is innocent yet knows right from wrong.
MayonR 3 months ago
[[that's a bit odd considering god believes in thought crime]] Not as in thought crime like in minority report, but intent would play a part in the sin. Not an alien concept since intent even in modern legal systems is used to determine a crime such as murder/negligence/self defense.[[But why follow someone who would set you up to fall?]] they could have chosen not eat from the tree.And you keep saying they didn't know when a child is innocent yet knows right from wrong.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR I was specifically thinking lusting after a woman is adultery at heart which is a thought crime, same with hatred equals murder. You can't convict people for thinking these things and who do not act out on them. All i'm saying is damning the whole of the human race for two peoples mistakes is really unforgiving, we are all innocent until proven guilty. This also goes to show a grudge by placing the sins of the father onto the son who had did nothing to deserve it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[You can't convict people for thinking these things and who do not act out on them.]] The legal system deals with our conduct in society and God deals with it in the eternal sense. So God will not punish you for a thought of temptation which may enter but he would if you acted on the thought, meaning acting on it even in thought. getting a temptation is to be expected.And God doesn't damn the whole race since like A&E, we have the opportunity to make the right choice.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR The whole of this problem begins with adam and eve and to you it ends with the death of a man who was apparently an ancestor to them. So if jesus had already died why wouldn't our sins simply be completely erased whether we believed or not? Once you've done that man would essentially be knowledgeable of good and evil and without sin. Which kind of makes you question, why not simply do it right after adam and eve and without the blood of someone as a condition for forgiveness.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[So if jesus had already died why wouldn't our sins simply be completely erased whether we believed or not?]] Again, that would make forgiveness arbitrary.Even Hitler or any other criminal could do that. So then what would be the point? Everything your postulating would corrupt freewill. Just entertain that this is probably the best possible world in which some are saved with freewill still existing.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR But by your own belief all you have to do is believe and ask for forgiveness regardless of what you do, so it does not change whether someone will do good or evil towards one another no matter what free will they have. I don't see why you think this system is so perfect when it has so many flaws, because in the end you are still putting your guilt on someone else and taking away your moral responsibility by simply asking for forgiveness.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[your own belief all you have to do is believe and ask for forgiveness]] Actually we can ask for it but it is only granted by the grace of Jesus Christ. After the salvation it naturally results in good works towards mankind.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR So my point somewhat stands, all you are doing to it is adding religion to the mix. Which foes back to this why not accept good people for their good acts regardless of what they believe? If believing in god does nothing to goodness or badness why make it a restriction to enter into heaven? But you are also not accepting what you've done if all you are going to do is do repeat offenses and repeat asking for forgiveness. I mean forgiveness is fine but it really doesn't change things.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[why not accept good people for their good acts ]] though we do good acts or act good it doesn't erase our unrighteousness.[[why make it a restriction to enter into heaven? ]] That is the utmost standard. I would never want God to lower the standard and corrupt what is to come.[[if all you are going to do is do repeat offenses and repeat asking for forgiveness.]] We don't save our self, He saves us, so if your insincere a God would know this.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Unrighteousness? So being good and being devout are god's two united points? Also if god had already let us be corrupted it probably wouldn't be that bad, you'd have good people helping you out instead of having some "chosen people" scenario. I believe in being good and helping others but my belief in god changes nothing, all it does in separate people into tribes each following their own god with it's own plan.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[So being good and being devout are god's two united points? ]] Again being good doesn't erase our unrighteous acts and nature.[[. I believe in being good and helping others but my belief in god changes nothing,]] And the Bible would affirm that in Romans 2 asserting that the Bible doesn't make you recognize right from wrong but that you already recognize the laws written on your heart. Th choice of morals don't separate us into tribes. I don't see how you made that leap.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Your trying to insert god into psychology, as if god somehow made me think killing someone is bad when he played no part in it. Those claims cannot be justified simply by pointing it out in the bible, it's essentially like pointing out things about greek mythology and applying them to human qualities because someone said it. I was pointing out the belief in certain gods split people into tribes, especially when they claim morals come from one certain being.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[Your trying to insert god into psychology,]] Actually if you read carefully you would have seen I was agreeing with you on that point. The belief in God does not determine the inherent sense of right and wrong.[[Those claims cannot be justified simply by pointing it out in the bible]] Essentially what I just said.]]I was pointing out the belief in certain gods split people into tribes[[ What? Ancient people weren't split because of beliefs.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR When I spoke of tribes I was talking of how people act within said belief system that it acts tribally, you all have church leaders/chiefdoms and followers with certain rituals splitting each religion up into tribe like behavior. The factions then war over which god is true or real, as evidenced in the bible and even other primitive cultures. There are also lots of tribal religions all around the world from africa to india.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't see denominations as a bad thing since opposition would better clarify things than blind agreement. Cultist religions might fit that, since they don't allow outside opinion but exclusivity.[[he factions then war over which god is true or real,]] In the Bible the wars were justifiable because of the atrocity of these nations.
MayonR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't see denominations as a bad thing since opposition would better clarify things than blind agreement. Cultist religions might fit that, since they don't allow outside opinion but exclusivity.[[he factions then war over which god is true or real,]] In the Bible the wars were justifiable because of the atrocity of these nations.
MayonR 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence imagine a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void.C.S. Lewis
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR I understand you want freedom for greater good, but occasionally that pointless disaster brings about more evil and more suffering. Many natural disasters bring nothing but death yet god does not stop them. I also kind of have to ask, if heaven is like the place you've explained above as void. There is also complications between god's free will and ultimate goodness, as being completely good destroys free will by removing evil does it not? god would be controlled by fate.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[Many natural disasters bring nothing but death yet god does not stop them.]] Everyone dies, and that is explained in the fall of man. Also, there is no promise of prosperity in this world, all you have to do is read Job where Job learned not to accuse God of injustice but to submit to the will of the sovereign Lord of the universe, having faith that His benevolence is best in the end.In heaven with the complete knowledge of evil we would never want to chose that .
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR All that story taught was might makes right, and you can't argue with god simply because you were his creation. Both of which I would go against. If god's goodness is simply because he's powerful then he isn't good, and once you make people you should at the very least help them out instead of abandoning them. All god ever does is ask for sacrifice and war on a grand scale and we are the pawns.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[I think my statement on it was closer, but by all means point me to the chapter and verse since you must have read it.[[If god's goodness is simply because he's powerful then he isn't good,]] Actually benevolence would be an attribute of maximal excellence compared to malevolence. And really you aren't in the vantage point to determine what God should do. It is simply your perception from your vantage point. You can't determine if God has good reasons to allow suffering.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Well you could read through the bible and write out other potential actions that could've been taken to avert said problems. Although I am not at the vantage point of a god who's to say that better decisions could not have been made, if god has so much power then he could certainly find alternatives to violence and war which people who know something about diplomacy and wish to better the life of others should know from the beginning. War and violence is the last straw not the first.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[am not at the vantage point of a god..god has so much power then he could certainly find alternatives]] your almost postulating that this world is supposed to be heaven.And then you make statements that corrupt freewill.And no atheist or Christian would think that the Christian God or Bible ever gave that impression.I would say that this is the best possible world without corrupting freewill at the same time saving the most people possible in those parameters as WLC.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR My point was that if humans can prevent war and violence then why can't god do so within his own book? Plenty of mortals go through steps before going out to war and do their best to prevent war while for god it's his first decision, ignoring the steps to prevent war as it would be in his best interest to everyone even himself. I'm questioning his benevolence, unless you would say war is always a good first option before diplomacy and other means.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[My point was that if humans can prevent war and violence then why can't god do so within his own book? ]] Divinity stops where responsibility starts.[[do their best to prevent war while for god it's his first decision]] Yet war can't always be prevented. As I can't prevent myself from preventing child abuse such as the Canaanite baby killers. You don't reason with those atrocities. You stop them.[[war is always a good first option ]] In those cases perhaps the only one.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR But god could've easily appeared to the caaninites before they even began making up gods therefore preventing those wars in the first place yet decided only appearing to the early israelites was the best decision instead of everybody within the world preventing false religion from the start as well as preventing wars. War usually can be prevented with proper tactics and deception which god is fine with by sending evil spirits and hardening hearts to cause war instead of prevent it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You can't say that God didn't command diplomacy first as was done in Egypt and using a pagan man at that to warn the Moabites. In the case of the Canaanites that wasn't reasonable because they were found to be devouring their own people.In the case of the Pharaoh, he had already challenged God and his incongruity was revealed, acting as if the Hebrews were his own property. If you actually read it, the Bible continually states the reasons for God's judgement.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Relying on mortals and third parties isn't the best way to get your message across, but the point was god could've become the god of all people had he showed up to all the people of the world before they created gods but he didn't. God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him, he even states before hand that it was his plan all along to show them his power when he simply could've freed them by killing the pharaoh from the beginning.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence We already know that even though God show's Himself, it doesn't make people automatically follow Him. God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it.
MayonR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence We already know that even though God show's Himself, it doesn't make people automatically follow Him. God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it.
MayonR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence We already know that even though God show's Himself, it doesn't make people automatically follow Him. God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it.
MayonR 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence God has shown Himself numerous times and each time humans fail.Even His own people turned against Him.First you say [[God also hardened the pharoah's heart multiple times to inflict more plagues upon him,]] and then instead of saying peekaboo God makes it possible to really show His power and then when He does you have a problem with it. I have asked people if God revealed Himself, and some say I would never worship Him and some that they would even be a thorn in his side.
MayonR 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Blame is placed properly. it wasn't God who sinned, and Satan will be punished for what he has done but not for the sins of man. And the Bible does say that more severe penalties will have more severe punishments. If a child didn't know anything at all as you put it than it doesn't deserve punishment. Rather a child is punished for the severity and intention. If God corrupts freewill we also have no capability to do good.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Wouldn't god actually be at fault? God did not intervene even though he knew and he's supposed to be stopping all evil, satan did it because god allowed him to and it's his nature as god's servant, and humans were innocent caught in the middle unsure of who to trust. God to me sounds amoral, he thinks himself above good and evil or he is a relativist that can do evil and still be called good simply because of power. Imagine if satan took god's place, would you call him good?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MayonR Wouldn't god actually be at fault? God did not intervene even though he knew and he's supposed to be stopping all evil, satan did it because god allowed him to and it's his nature as god's servant, and humans were innocent caught in the middle unsure of who to trust. God to me sounds amoral, he thinks himself above good and evil or he is a relativist that can do evil and still be called good simply because of power. Imagine if satan took god's place, would you call him good?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Remember that Adam and Eve knew that God permitted Adam and Eve to eat from any tree, except the one they did eat; Eve because she thought wrong about God since Satan described Him as a tyrant; this doesn't justify her since she knew God and knew He wasn't like that, but believed Satan anyway. What happens with Adam is worse, since Where was he when Eve was with Satan? Also he willingly desobeyed God just because Eve told him to and when God arrived, he blamed Him for...
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 But satan was right, if they had eaten from the tree of life they would've became gods that was their only mistake but god didn't allow them to. Also I kind of disagree with god not being a tyrant, he fits the bill of one completely especially the way he acts all throughout the bible. You can't judge the whole of humanity based upon two people's actions. Two bad apples do not spoil the bunch, and satan was never punished as harshly as humanity even though he's an agent of god.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence creating Eve who made him sin. God forgave everyone without condition, that's why Jesus carried everyone's sin on Him. The problem is, and please let me quote Megadeth's "Elysian Fields": "The world don't wanna be saved, only left alone" I think Mustaine's quite accurate with that.
In consequense, God grants mankind its wish and creates Hell, where He won't be present at all. The lake of fire and the torture are consequences of mankind being left without God.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Yes there is a condition, you have to believe the bible regardless of how ridiculous it is. God should've first and foremost appeared before other religions, but he didn't. How can we be expected to believe such extraordinary claims? And fulfilling your own prophecy is pointless, if your god there is no need to have a median just forgive without conditions.
Why no third option? Some people don't want either.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 How in the world is anyone supposed to acknowledge the supernatural without proof? The only reason I have for not believing is for multiple reasons, multiple religions, lots of evil, unreliable information, and the fact that religions do not match up scientifically with what we know. The most we could say is a deist god not a theist one if it exists.
I've read the bible, I wasn't impressed. Also this is circular reasoning, you can't prove the god of the bible using the bible.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I used to think the same as you when I was an atheist. Yes, religions really suck, but I'm not talking to you about religion, but about God. lots of evil is what man has done for his own decision through history, there's a lot of unreliable information about everything, that's why Paul says we must verify if what the Bible says is true. A deist God of course is a probability, but a very implausible one if you consider creation itself. Now about supernatural...
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Yes mankind can be evil, but saying the whole of humanity is evil just sounds completely false. We as humans are naturally going to fight over things, we did that since the beginning, humanity has also had to take responsibility for it's actions and grow each time. If god was there to nurture us and teach us instead we as humans could be more advanced and not have had so many unnecessary hardships. But god did nothing, crossed his arms and waited while humanity suffered.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Yes, we do take responsibility, but we also keep repeating the same mistakes once and again: we kill for religion, politics, wealth, even for sex, but we never stop. Realize that all of Bibles heroes always commited sin and weren't perfect (except for Jesus) as God demanded: Noah got drunk the day after the flood ended, Mohses killed an Egyptian, Jacob was a liar, Abraham a coward, etc. but they were all redeemed because of their faith. The same's with everyone.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
Do you think that only what is empirically verifiable is true?
Consider the Bible not only superficially, but as a history written during 1500 years, by 45 authors in 66 books, and is perfectly coherent and armonical, has no contradictions (all supposed are missinterpretations or quotes out of context) has many prophecies fulfilled in Jesus and in the rest of history and that has been used by historians and geograohers as a very accurate guide.
So yes, you can compare Bible to itself.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Yes the bible has some history true, but I wouldn't call it 100% true. I also doubt it's harmoniousness if that were the case jews and christians would be able to agree but they don't. Also many of those things didn't happen, our science has proven it as well as our archaeology. There was no flood, there is no evidence of the pharaoh ever owning that many slaves, and adam and eve would mutate us out of existence. Why believe this as true when it's so mythological?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't argue metaphysics but i have heard plenty of evidence for a flood. pottery archaeologists have expressed it would be impossible to differentiate from the Hebrews and Egyptians in such an intermingled culture. And migrations can be tracked with genetic science by tracking the mutations that developed coupled with mitochondrial eve suggest that Adam and Eve's genes would be uncorrupted.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Wrong, there is no evidence for a flood it's mathematically impossible and if it were so we'd see humans with trilobites and dinosaurs and every other creature but we do not. Adam and Eve never existed, you need a population of at least 10,000 to have an uncorrupted population growth.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence To say there is no evidence is quite laughable. And the chances for abiogenesis or evolution are astronomical so again comedic. Further either of them are metaphysics and not science. It is an interpretation of today's observance. Since it is metaphysics I favor historicity. I would invite you to ShockofGods chat room on the weekends where that is discussed of which there are several biology majors among other sciences that attend. I can set up a debate or discussion.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Evolution is possible it's a well developed science that many accept, it is backed up by tons and tons of data and evidence. And although Abiogenesis seems unlikely immediately jumping to the conclusion that god shows poor reasoning. If science can't explain it god must've done it ( god of the gaps). And shockofgod is not worth anyone's time the guy is completely nuts. It's a bit like explaining evolution to VenomfangX, he just can't understand biological science.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Like i said, there are scientists and at least 2 biology majors finishing up their education who attend. Come if you dare.
MayonR 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Now that MayonR has answered most og your comment (which I thank, since I didn't know much of that information), let me tell you that all differences between Jews and Christians derive on the question: Is Jesus the Jew Messiah?. I also want to that the Talmuds (Jew books about farisee law and history) refer to Jesus as a sorcerer, attacking him but at the same time supporting that He did performed miracles and His tomb was empty.
Also, by the times the gospels were...
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence ...written there were still eye witnessess, but no one denied that he resurrected or existed, nor (as MayonR says) gave history enough time te be transformed into a legend.
So, we may only have 3 plausible options, He was a liar, insane, or, as he proclaimed, the Son of God.
Mvillano13 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Your premise that he'd only have to be one of the three is completely wrong he could've easily been a mix of them but to call someone a son of god because they do magic tricks is ludicrous. The fact is Jesus does not fit the bill for what the jewish messiah is actually supposed to be, they weren't even looking for someone divine. Nor did jesus fulfill the requirements of doing all that was proposed within his lifetime and people have come closer than him for that matter.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 Although Jesus may have existed, we can't jump to the conclusion that he was divine or that all he did was true. It's far more likely he was turned into a legendary hero, I mean many historical figures and people have been romanticized and I think this is no different. Achilles and Heracles have been romanticized and they existed but we know that Heracles wasn't son of Zeus just a badass warrior. People get turned into legends all through history this is no different.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[It's far more likely he was turned into a legendary hero]] in the same light, in an objective view, we can't jump to the conclusion that it wasn't true based on a naturalistic presupposition. Also we today know that legends require much more time than the amount of time it took for the rapid rise of Christianity.Further there is plenty of even hostile attestation of the Jesus account.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR Jesus's story was during a time of political turmoil, and even so there is a lot of disagreement between many people about the information most of it isn't even substantial because it's been corrupted. You make it seem as if everyone agrees with you whole heartedly that it must've happened the way you say.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I would say your last statement is actually close to accurate. The people who disagree on the historicity tend to be academic skeptics at most but the New testament scholars, secular or religious form a consensus of the historicity. So though academic skeptics may postulate an array of explanations you would be hard pressed to say it is accepted by the consensus of NT scholars.
MayonR 3 months ago
@MayonR NT scholars who are no doubt far more religious so it doesn't surprise me.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[NT scholars who are no doubt far more religious so it doesn't surprise me. ]] Will Durant secular said it would be more of a miracle had it been made up by the disciples after legal analysis.Bart Ehrman and Gerd Luderman are others who may bring up peripheral details but do attest it's historicity. Simple challenge is provide me one ancient historian who refutes the historical account of Jesus sympathetic or hostile.
MayonR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence [[NT scholars who are no doubt far more religious so it doesn't surprise me. ]] Even in this debate WLC made that clear. :)
MayonR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mvillano13 How in the world is anyone supposed to acknowledge the supernatural without proof? The only reason I have for not believing is for multiple reasons, multiple religions, lots of evil, unreliable information, and the fact that religions do not match up scientifically with what we know. The most we could say is a deist god not a theist one if it exists.
I've read the bible, I wasn't impressed. Also this is circular reasoning, you can't prove the god of the bible using the bible.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Mvillano13 If god wanted to kill all humans, then why would he even bother creating us in the first place if all he foresaw was pain and anguish and punishment? It all sounds like a sick joke, like god pretends to love everyone only he'd rather punish all of existence simply because humanity isn't godlike or perfect. It sounds insecure, if you want gods just create gods who are like you and solve the problem. That's all it would've taken.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence It's my responsiblity to do the right thing, why should he do it for me? He does intervene today, I think aethists call it luck or impossible
ansaz14 1 month ago
@ansaz14 Yes we humans are responsible but if you are a god you have the highest responsibility of all. I don't think god intervenes in the world, if he did there would be no reason to question over the reality of miracles or the supernatural. It'd be a common occurrence, yet when does this ever happen? When is the last time angels appeared or disasters were averted? Or horrible diseases were destroyed supernaturally?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Isn't the net flooded with such claims, wether you believe the witnesses or not is another issue, but it was still the same back then, Jesus healed my leprosy or Elijah called fire from heaven. Just a few names connected with miracles of different theological persuarssion and continents Patricia King, David Herzog, Curry Blake, Kobus van Rensburg, T.B. Joshua,
ansaz14 1 month ago
@ansaz14 The problem with those claims is that they aren't documented and you also have to factor in the placebo effect. The bible also claims to be able to heal leprosy from some strange bird ritual involving blood and fire which doesn't cure disease. This is why we rely on science and medics not magic and wizards to heal our ailments. You also can't prove the bible with the bible on the supernatural either.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
How can you possibly provide evidence for something that DOES NOT exist?
XxXspacityheroXxX 5 months ago
@XxXspacityheroXxX Good point....must mean it exists. LOL
mehldau125 5 months ago
Also, if you really review his material, then it kind of dawns on you that this guy might be running on his reputation. I don't think he could recover from being beaten in a debate. It certainly explains why he is fine with debating bishops and pastors and other people who don't have the scientific buffer to sustain a battle of logic. He is fine with cheap victories because he can put on his record that he wins all his debates.
daS3R10US 5 months ago 6
Atkins got annihilated just like Hitchens, and if Dawkins ever grows the proper testicles necessary to debate Craig, than the same will happen to him. He says that he's busy... BUSY DUMPING IN HIS PANTS. I think your right when you said that about his ego. I've noticed that he makes an unnecessary amount of funny remarks, which would obviously make him popular with Atheists who don't understand his arguments.
daS3R10US 5 months ago
Now I know why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. He knows Craig will manhandle him the same way he manhandled Atkins in this debate, and Dawkins' super-ego couldn't handle that kind of humiliation.
srokkhmer562 5 months ago 19
I love this dude's face at 7:02... He is like: What did I get myself into...
LiveForGreatness 6 months ago
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause! Well that is not a logical certainty. Our understanding of the universe is far too naive to answer this. But to use it as an argument for the existence of God is so obviously logically fallacious that it is laughable.
Everything has to be created - so God created it.
Leaving the oh so obvious question - what created God?
Then Craig changes the rules of his logic to explain that God does not need to fulfill the logic he used to prove his existence
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
It's also a fallacious to demand certainty in lieu of plausibility, especially when one functions in ordinary life with less than 100% certainty about things. Rather, it's about the plausibility that everything that exists must have a cause. That cause is God, Who is a necessary being, not a contingent one. Philosophers agree that necessary objects exist, such as numbers. They exist by the virtue of their own nature- they are uncreated- The universe is, however, contingent.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator EVERYTHING must have a cause BUT the invisible, undetectable god does not have to have a cause.
Utter logical fallacy.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Another false premise that atheists want to set up is to have a cause, ad infinitum. "If X was caused by Y, then who caused Y?" It becomes more about Socratic Irony to demonstrate the ignorance of the claimant, which could serve as an attack on the claimant rather than addressing the issue itself. On the other hand, if we take the infinite amount of causes, it would render the notion of causality useless. It must terminate- and in actuality, things do have a beginning and an end.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator That might be true but it requires no supernatural force. Let us just agree that the universe could have a beginning and an end and your argument is satisfied.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Don't tell me that you looking at a computer isn't -caused- by you approaching it, which is -caused- by the locomotion of your body, which is -caused- by whatever impulse your brain has sent to your legs. I don't know which is more ridiculous, -your- own version of logic (which presupposes atheism for some reason) or your accusation that Dr. Craig doesn't follow the rules of his logic, just because it does not mirror your own rules of logic.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator Have it whichever way you want. It is caused or it is not caused. Neither argument is predicated on an imaginary being starting the whole thing off.
The simple fact that you scrabble around logic, reason and the English language to try to prove your hypothesis should give you a clue. There is nothing else in your life that you are asked to belief without you being able to empirically observe it.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Ooh, so now it's "Have it whatever way you want it" ...except the notion of God. This is pleading to your own prejudice against the notion of theism and does not at all serve as a valid logical argument. And then you accuse me of being ignorant based on your inferior grasp of English, even though we can understand each other. Then you return to your tired old demand that I prove something empirically. Even though your life is full of things that can't be proven in that manner.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator I was simply following your logic - and showing that it did not matter which way you spun it, there was no need to invoke a god. My comment on language was addressed at your attempts at sophistry and obfuscation, nothing more.
I am sorry if it wearies you that you cannot prove your claim. That is the difference between real things and myths I suppose.
Tell me about the things in my life that cannot be observed empirically.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Well, that's not a new thing, accusing another person of sophistry and obfuscation, if they don't like that word. I could call you as equally nebulous and so pretentious as knowing more than me, but that was a foregone conclusion. Unlike you, I am not sorry for anything that I say, and I will continue to respond until you give up, admit the incorrectness of atheism, or at least admit to your agnosticism. Here's one. Do your parents love you?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator And once more you fail to back up anything you say and try to move the conversation on.
You can easily make me admit atheism. Just provide a single piece of evidence that a god exists.
You could also provide the evidence to back up your assertion that there are things in my life that cannot be observed empirically.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
No, YOU fail to back up anything you say- You are stuck in the wrong premise that there is no God and presuppose it and keep on asking for proof, even if it's given to you- Teleological, from morality, from even the notion of intelligent deisgn- I guess you're the one trying to pretend that you have some sort of intellectual superiority by avoiding the admission that there are things that can't be observed empirically, such as your thoughts, emotions, ideals, etc.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator I bet even you know just how assinine you sound when you throw out the old 'I can't prove my invisible friend exists because he told me I couldn't' shite.
Morality - bollocks - animals have morality - I dare you to ask me to prove that.
Intelligent design is a myth based on err absolutely nothing - prove me wrong
Thoughts, emotions, ideals <- is that your best shot? And yet I can quantify all of them and record, test and compare them with others.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator I bet even you know just how assinine you sound when you throw out the old 'I can't prove my invisible friend exists because he told me I couldn't' shite.
Morality - bollocks - animals have morality - I dare you to ask me to prove that.
Intelligent design is a myth based on err absolutely nothing - prove me wrong
Thoughts, emotions, ideals <- is that your best shot? And yet I can quantify all of them and record, test and compare them with others.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Animals don't have morality. They have no souls, and as such they can't make art or aren't aware of their own morality. The atheist would argue that humans are just animals, then why would they complain when they're treated as such? Atheists have no basis for objective morality.
You yourself haven't proven that you're not a figment of my imagination. If the notion of God is a convenient fiction, what makes you any different? The fact that you seem real is convincing, but uncertain.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator Souls? more mythical bullshit. And now you change the goalposts from 'Animals have no morality' to 'animals are not aware of their morality'. Make your mind up.
Art - you have never seen the elephants that paint then?
Atheists have a better basis for objective morality than theists. If morality is objective then it is not dependent on any deity by definition.
The last para is a descent into absurd fallacy. You must know how assinine you are sounding.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
So you think elephants paint the same way as people? For an atheist you sure are stupid and gullible. Parrots that can mimic what they hear or be trained, just like those elephants, hardly means parrots can sing soulfully. You know nothing of art, you soulless atheist. Atheists don't have any basis for right or wrong, because there is no God that judges, only human opinions and social agreements. Aztecs had social agreements, and that included human sacrifice.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Despite that you yourself believe that emotions and ideals are quantifiable, you certainly don't behave as if they're quantifiable. When you respond to William Craig as a "lying twat" it certainly doesn't seem to be quantifiable but it certainly is some quality rather than quantity. I don't think your worldview matches your beliefs, quite frankly. It's reduced to material, but you behave more than material. How do you account for that?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator Of course it is. We know the definition of a lie. Craig lies. I could have called him a cunt but I know some US citizens are a little sensitive and so I moderated myself.
I never once suggested that the world is purely materialistic. I simply refuted your premise that an imaginary friend is required to explain anything.
Your strawmen are getting worse - running out of them by any chance?
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Why would you care how anyone feels? What is the logical connection between what you feel, and what others feel? Can you quantify that relationship? The fact that you assert that something can be quantified asserts that it is material, tangible, and concrete- that is why you can't quantify things that are only given qualities. See, your own premise is wrong in that my God is "an imaginary friend" maybe that's what you had as a child, in lieu of a real, immaterial God.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Craig is not a liar- you call him a liar because while you -can- tear down his assertions, you can't make assertions of your own that will sufficiently replaced the conditions for the existence of 1. a world finely tuned for life. 2. people with ability to make moral choices. 3. a proper concept for the beginning and ending of things. Like what Dr. Craig stated, at most, you only give yourself room for agnosticism.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator Oh how poorly eduacted you are.
1. Absolutely no sign of fine tuning. Both the universe and earth are very hostile to life.
2. Animals make moral choices all the time -- see Battle at Kruger
3. Strike three - see A Universe from Nothing
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Peter Atkins, like all atheists, are liars. They are disingenuous and deceitful, even in the smallest rationalizations they make to justify their error even if just to themselves. 1. Not willing to die for anything. 2. Willing to lie about what they believe even to themselves. 3. Willing to kill others for what they want, as morality is not an issue with atheists, because they have no objective foundation for "right" and "wrong".
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator BOLLLOCKS!
If morals are objective there is no need for god.
If god is required for morals they are not objective.
Stop quoting logical inconsistencies
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time. God is eternal, having never been created. Though it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this, since the universe began to exist a finite billion years ago.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@Huttate1
Since you're so big in being able to quantify something, can you quantify infinity? Does infinity exist in the universe? But what about outside? What about conceptually? Does infinity have any real-world application, such as in physics? If it is an imaginary number, why does it exist in the real of real numbers? How is infinity not an imaginary number? Can you scientifically determine the existence of infinity, right? Or are you saying that it's a convenient lie?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@Huttate1
An atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@Huttate1
2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence can't be tolerated. Strong atheism states that there's no god, though evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon evidence.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator WRONG! See A Universe From Nothing
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
There is no God, right? Because there is no God, this means that genocides just happen, like earthquakes and eclipses. It is all matter in motion, and these things happen. If you are on the receiving end, there is only death, and if you are an agent delivering this genocide, the long-term result is brief victory and death at the end. So who cares? Why should anyone care in a Godless world, if what is right is mere consensus, or your own opinion, and everyone dies anyway?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator You use an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing. You talk around and around in circles.
The fact is simple. There is no god. If there was you would not require sophistry and ontological argument. You would simply say "There is a god and I can prove it because".
Sadly for you there is more evidence that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear - eye witnesses, testimony, cameras, etc - than there is that any of your beings ever existed.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator You are confusing the twisted bigotry and dogmatic morals of religion with the normal morals that develop in and community, be that a community of wilderbeest or a community of humans.
You really must get an education - you are starting to look both desparate and foolish.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
The demand for evidence is just a smokescreen, because you have already predetermined that there can be no such evidence. Why do you think a non-material God can be proven in a materialistic/naturalistic test-tube-like experiment?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator
You make the rediculous claim that a supernatural being exists.
Despite there being no evidence in the whole of human history that such a being exists.
I ask you to provide just one tiny piece of evidence that your being exists.
And that is unfair.
Because.
Your non-existent [non-material] god cannot be proven to exist.
Yeah right.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
"Your non-existent [non-material] god cannot be proven to exist." so the world is dependent on materiality? But at the same time you also claim that the world isn't just material. Please, give yourself some consistency., but considering your atheism, that's almost impossible.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator No inconsistency at my end - transferrence again I smell.
You clutch at sttaws and straw men but with less conviction.
The immaterial world of feelings and emotions is easily conceived, compared and calculated.
But there is no god hiding there. He only resides in the cognitive dissonace you expeience. And you can get treatment for that.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
But how exactly does a theist argue with an atheist, when the atheist is a liar not only to others but to himself? If there is no objective moral truth, then what would it matter if God exists and there is sufficient proof for God, especially when the atheist already determined that there is no God without any proof, as if it were presupposed before any argument and the basis for all the truths that he henceforth followed? The atheist himself can't say if he exists, if anything.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@Huttate1
It is more ridiculous that atheists claim God doesn't exist, when all signs point to the existence of such a Being. The ability of a human being to choose right and wrong isn't the same as a person who is "genetically predisposed" to certain actions. In the real world, the question of 'how' is irrelevant, as much as it is to feel that something is 'right' or 'wrong' and thus atheists contradict their beliefs with how they actually behave.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator Oh great! Well it should be very simple for you to provide one single sign then. Something I have been asking for for the past few pages of comments.
And if god held any sway then the cases of child abuse, divorce and criminiality would not higher in believers than non-believers, yet strangely they are. So much for your morals and choices.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
You have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live in a morally good and responsible way. In order to prove me wrong you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator Animals do not appear to have gods but the definitely have morals.
Next.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1 how can you say animals have morals animals that do have morals is because we trained them too animals that are in the wild have no morals the only thing they think is how they can survive.
Noremorse05 6 months ago
@Noremorse05 Patently untrue. There are hundreds of examples available to you. Have a look at Battle at Kruger to see altruism in wilderbeast as just one example.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion. Just look at how atheists disagree with each other.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator That would be why the rates of child abuse, divorce and general criminality are higher amongst christians in the US, is it?
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
When other atheists make different ethical choices than you do, is there a common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they aren't obeying? What is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? If there isn't a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then wouldn't it appear the supernatural is needed in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator We all read The House At Pooh Corner as kids and that provides our strong moral framework.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1 Actually its simpler. The alternative to believing in an eternal existence is void brought forth something. Your reasoning is actually flawed. You are appealing to ignorance since you definitely cannot measure how much we know or don't know of the universe. We know that nothing produces nothing. We also know something produces something. Why then is it then the Virgin birth is criticized?
ansaz14 4 months ago