The problem of hell for a benevolent god is a fake problem. Firstly, there's only evidence the fallen angels will burn forever, being made immortal regardless of us. Secondly, what sort of omnipotent God will let murderers, rapists and banksters into where are the victims, the destroyed, the aborted etc. Lastly, what kind of ruler is lovie dovie without justice for all? Mental Flew doesn't understand God's character remotely, even what others have written of Him.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
False Christians has spewed false doctrines like hellfire and the trinity, thus confusing people about God. False Christians have meddled in politics and have encouraged their members to fight in wars whenever their countries go to war, thus doing everything the Bible commands us not to do. That's why so many people have turned to atheism. If everyone knew the truth about God (that Jehovah's Witnesses preach) then there wouldn't be so much atheists.
@froweey Jehovah witnesses have been constantly making up there own doctrines and forging the bible to fit there ridiculous doctrines written in the Watch Tower here in New York City. You witnesses are no better than any other christian denomination, sect, or cult and should be the last people talking about made up doctrines
Evil is not a thing it's a 'lack'. The further we move away from infinite love the darker our hearts become. Hell can be thought of not so much as a place but a decision (freely chosen) to reject infinite love. The soul that dies in rebellion against God chooses hell yet the mercy of God grows stronger the more evil a soul becomes. Hell is a complete rejection of Gods mercy and far less painful then being in the presence of pure love and mercy hell is the absence of love growing in hate
I'm a Christian, but I must admit that Flew is absolutely right in saying that Hell as traditionally understood as "eternal torture" is inconsistent with divine benevolence or justice in any sense of the word.
Even Craig is unintentionally admitting the inconsistency when he says that no Christian likes the doctrine of hell. Does God like hell ? If yes, then we are more merciful than God. If not, then why would He set up a system that He's forever unhappy with?
@ShawDAMAN No, in Flew's most recent book he makes it clear that he became a deist, NOT a theist. Its a significant difference. He does not consider himself a Christian at this point.
@REDRAGON12345 Yes wrong terminology on my part, sorry. Although I don't think he considers himself anything at this point, as he's been dead over a year. ha.
@ShawDAMAN No worries, I just did not want people to get the wrong idea about Flew's beliefs. I do wonder if in his last days he made any leaps of faith regarding a personal god of some sort or even the God of Christianity...
@REDRAGON12345 I tend to doubt it. His switch to deism is quite interesting though. I find some of the ridicule of him on that basis somewhat unfortunate.
Emotions stem from needs - psychology teaches us that. Again, what would a perfect being be doing with them?
I am not presupposing anything. I am using the human definitions of logic and morality. If you want to dismiss these terms when thinking about God, then you have no basis for calling him good other than him commanding you to.
Torture is wrong no matter what spin you put on it. And eternal torture is sadistic and cruel beyond measure.
At Flew's point at 2:00-2:30 here's an example: a person comes home to find his family brutally murdered. The attacker is still there and the person is able to subdue him and tie the attacker up and calls the authorities. When the authorities bring the attacker to the judge the judge says "I'm a loving judge so you are free to go". That's Flew's idea of omnibenevolence.
@aliasbrush You are trying to equate your standard of holiness with God's. If you accept that God holds to His moral law perfectly, therefore it would follow He cannot even acknowledge sin. That would be denying His nature. Yes, that is perfect justice. That is where the concept of propitiation has to come in, i.e. God himself providing intercession to those who recognize their depravity. If God (the only one worthy of worship btw) is COMPLETELY holy then it can't be any other way.
@mgundy What a load of crap! God breaks his own rules and changes his mind all the time. How was sin even introduced if it wasn't in God's plan? (add youtube address and paste): watch?v=cQBDGMj2h-c
Sure I cannot think on an infinite scale, but I still have the capacity to recognise logical and moral absurdities. Why would a perfect being have human emotions (anger, jealousy, etc)? Why would an omniscient being need to wipe out the human race and start over several times? It's just silly.
@aliasbrush Again you are putting your finite presuppositions and applying them to the only realizable infinite. Sin was introduced by human free will. Now understanding that the only free willed entity that cannot sin is God. And God cannot create another God, that's a logical fallacy. Creations are always lesser than the creator. Again, your perspective is not what's wrong with you, but what's wrong with Him.
As for the emotional side of God, He is personal. cont...
@mgundy Humans are the only creation made in the image and likeness of God, we have a varient of his emotions but not His emotions. He knows righteous anger, righteous jealousy, etc. With sin so prevelant, accepted, and even encouraged by society most people really can't identify with understanding of righteousness at all. God's plan was for mankind to go out and subdue. That is to say for man to bring all of creation into harmony with the will of God, in context to His will.
@aliasbrush Also, I find it interesting that what it seems you are saying is that our standard or correction, (e.g. prision sentence or death penalty) would make that family member feel like their loss has been restituted in some way. Think about my example and know that all sin is like that to God to the depths of infinity but somehow God shouldn't have restitution because that's your concept of "loving".
He's making the right points, but with the onset of his dementia he is unable to convey them with the sharp mind he once had. It was very sad to hear one of his last interviews when he talked about his conversion to deism - he was so brain-addled he needed the interviewer to practically tell him what to say.
And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.
@aliasbrush Presupposition drips off this post. I will say that at 1:56 Flew apparently does not understand what a category fallacy is, which I know he does he just chooses not to apply it in this case. He's rewording the question "Could God create a mountain that even he couldn't move?". Like that is to say that God is not simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. Omnibenevolence yields love AND justice simultaneously.
On the day that every soul shall find present what it has done of good and what it has done of evil, it shall wish that between it and that (evil) there were a long duration of time; and allah makes you to be cautious of (retribution from) himself; and allah is compassionate to the servants.
I could not follow Flew's argument whatsoever. Eloquence obviously plays some part in debating and while Flew is a genius, he is simply not eloquent in this scenario.
Anthony Flew is not a very convincing debater. However, I think he was right to argue that we don't know what caused the 'Big Bang'. For instance, Hawking would argue that there was a quantum vacuum 'before' the Big Bang and fluctuations in this vacuum led to the 'Big Bang'. I think we have to be agnostic with regard to the Big Bang. W Lane Craig seems to think that belief in a creator is dependent on the idea of a beginning in time; but in fact this is not so. Ontological dependence, not time..
@AmenMaranhata I think your right! Anyways it seems clear that he knows that if the Christian God really exist he is convince he will go to hell. Another hint to know that he is deliberately lying and sinnin. Well This is wierd anyways that he would have that kind of reaction lol
i havent seen the rest of this video yet i just paused it. But i have a prediction that this guy has a heart attack right before he gets off the stage. And/or dies
i havent seen the rest of this video yet i just paused it. But i have a prediction that this guy has a heart attack right before he gets off the stage.
@Internet7Nobody I don't know I'm sure he was a lot better when he was younger, he said he had a real dry mouth in this debate so that my be why hes don't speaking well
Craig was very tricky at the beggining. Craig invited Flew to disprove god which is itself unfalsifiable. Furthermore, in every single one of his debates all craig manages to timidly support is a deistic god not a theistic god.
Although many of the socio-religious indoctrination from various religious and spiritual institutions worldwide I consider a human creation and endeavor to control the behavior of the masses; I've always suspected the divine to be accessible by and for all of us despite our mindset and philosophical deity we've embraced or rejected. I've always suspected an infinite and perpetual existence beyond our intellectual capacity but unlike any conventional concept based upon popular belief.
Shoot. Why is there no edit feature? I meant, "Do parents what THEIR children..." not "they're children". Also, at the end, that should obviously say, "...doesn't seem to BE a particularly good one."
Do parents want they're children to behave and be obedient and love them? Sure. But do they want it by way of having children who are automatons incapable of choosing to do anything but behave, obey and love? Generally not, because when something like that exists as the result of necessity or physical law, it tends to lose any transcendent value. Whatever your worldview, this argument doesn't seem to a particularly good one.
That's an awfully weird argument he offers at the end of this. If one allows for the existence of an Omnipotent being, that wouldn't mean that omnipotence would grant that one the ability to defy logic, such that they could actualize logical contradictions, which is precisely what would be required to create a free moral agent that COULD NOT make one kind of moral choice instead of another. (continued...)
@irishmauddib Definitely. But it is so much easier for people to say they already know. Especially when in all likelihood nobody could possibly ever know - such a realization is too unsatisfying and leaves people feeling too lonely and insecure. Better stick to the fairytale happy ending!
He is a brilliant man, however he does suffer from the common maladies brought on by old age. And as he said already he is having to deal with some apperntly extreme case of dry mouth. Which can be quite distracting.
I think that the more reasonable answer is that God didn't want robots! Maybe thats why He gave us free will. To obey him by will, not by command. Plus, we were not the only one that have free will. Angels have it. Thats why lucifer and all his legion were expelled of the third heaven. At least thats my answer.
@ArcangelMiguel7 The reason God gave free will was because love, when you have no choice other than to love, is worthless. The fact that someone loves you when they are free not to love you is the only kind of love worth having. God bless.
You are totally right. John 3:16. How can I forget that? That's what motivated God to give us free will. Thanx for the correction and God Bless you too.
Omg yea I can't believe I forgot Fallacious 2:11 which says "he who wastes his time worshiping another persons imagination will die like anybody else"
And how does this benefit us? If God created sentient beings to love Him, and by doing so was required to grant these being free will, then it followed that He would have to create sentient being that would not love Him, or even hate Him. These beings, who do not love God, suffer, consequently, according to official doctrine
Surely, then, it is not an act of love that led God to create such beings, but selfishness, especially in light of His omniscience?
@p3rs0nan0ngrata This benefits 'us' because we get the opportunity to spend eternity in the light of God's presence. "Selfishness" You make it sound like we get nothing out of the deal... Reference my first comment. Also , God sent his only Son to die on the cross for us, paying the price for ALL of mankind's sins, past, present and future so as 'whosoever will may come'. It wasn't selfish. (Selfish- concerned with one's own pleasure at the expense of consideration for others)
Makes you wonder why God needed to "create" anything with free will in the first place...He was perfect, complete, infinite etc., yet he lacked creatures that would love and worship Him? God was really in "need" of something? This does not sound like an infinite God but a silly incomplete man or a god created in man's image.
@harrycrumb1989 Theologians have been unable to address? First of all you assume "need" on the side of God. What reason for this assumption? God created man in His image. He gave man free will to love or not to love Him. What love is worth having if youre not free to not love?
Need or want or desired, you can choose your term, but it's not an assumption. It is what logically follows...Why and how would something perfect, infinite, and eternally complete in love want anything to love Him? It's nonsense. Look up "oxymoronic".
"Infinite" is a powerful term. It means boundless and endless. "Eternal" is quite similar. When you say man was created to love God you unknowingly make Him not infinite but something that is finite and changes, much like you or me - a man.
@harrycrumb1989 Your premises don't necessarily lead to your conclusions. "Eternally complete in love" is a term I've never heard before so I don't know what your basis for using it is. God is love, does this mean He can't recognise the worth of being loved freely by autonomous creatures. I think not. You seem to be wanting to put God in a box using semantics, one that He can't escape from. But these conclusions you draw from your premises seem very narrow. "Infinite is boundless and endless"
We both agree that God, by definition, is infinite, perfect, eternal, omnipotent, without bound etc. correct?
If God is love, and he is perfect and eternal, by what silly backwards logic can you see him wanting to create creatures with free will or anything at all? Willing or wanting is not a quality of something perfect.
You really share a common belief that God must be like us in some way. But WHY?? To me that whole idea takes away from God's divinity. But hey, whatever gives you comfort.
@harrycrumb1989 I actually thought you might be honest. "Willing or wanting is not a quality of something perfect" Prove that assertion, that has no basis in anything other than your opinion. "you share a belief that God must be like us in some way" No, i share a belief that we are like Him in some way (ruash). "We are not created in God's image" Another assertion stated like its a fact. "Why appeal to the supernatural when you don't have to?" Talk about hypocritical. At least I'm Cont...
Willing or wanting are qualities of something finite and imperfect - of animals or humans. We want food because we are hungry, we choose (will) to go to school to learn or make money. We want a mate or spouse to have children or a partner....All of these things arise out of a need or want to grow in some way (from being incomplete in other words)
Tell me, how can an eternal and perfect Being (i.e. God) not already be complete?
Do you understand the concepts: infinite and perfect?
@harrycrumb1989 Like I said, just because God has those qualities doesn't mean he can't recognise worth. Like having a free creature love you when he can choose to do otherwise has worth whether you're omnipotent or not. This doesn't negate God's qualities in any way. This love can be accepted and in no way changes or adds to God's infinity or perfection but it was definitely something that hadn't been before. You can't force someone to freely love you (as a creative act).
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. in actual fact they exist as nothing other than biochemical reactions and subjective terms. You have NO WAY to use these terms in that manner and ground them as being anything other than electrical sparks and a set of your own internalised rules which don't apply anywhere outside of your mind. But yet you try to imply that they do by saying things like 'it's about people'. You can't even give me an instant where you could justify self sacrifice...
God created man in His own image you say so casually?
Does God breath air, suffer from multiple disease or brain damage, freeze from the cold or burn from heat, or is He ever tempted sexually by an attractive woman?
If not, what does the term "image" even mean?
In what ways are we "like" God at all dear friend?
@harrycrumb1989"What does the term image mean?" The hebrew word is ruash and it means he put a part of Himself into us. An eternal soul. "Does God breathe air" I don't know but I doubt it. "Does He suffer from multiple disease or brain damage?" Not that I'm aware of. "Is He tempted sexually" You'd have to ask Him that.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. Do you mean mathematically? Because that's not how the term is meant to be used theologically. Its meant to be used qualitatively not quantitatively. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal etc. If He chooses to create for His own purposes. I see nothing nonsensical in that. Do you imply he can't want or choose to want? That He can't recognise worth. Man is an original creation and very unique. Cont.
@harrycrumb1989 I see from your page that you subscribe to "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge" That strikes me as strange dear friend. Isn't love, from an evolutionist's point of view simply a set of biochemical responses in the body and any attempt to place a higher meaning on it simply illusory? Same with the term 'good'. You have no means of grounding that term without God. You mightn't even know what Russell meant when he used it. It's completely subjective.
Those questions were rhetorical, a Creator of those things would not be bound by them if he were omnipotent. The point is that those qualities define our being human. We are not created in "God's image."
There are so many different ideas about God, God's will, and who God is, that there is nothing objective about your unique idea about God or your use of the word love. Love is an innate animal quality, not just human, with or without any appeal to myths, stories, or the supernatural.
Depends on what you mean by "higher meaning." An atheist doesn't need to say that Allah, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Buddha is the ultimate purpose of love. Why appeal to the supernatural when you don't have to?
Did you forget about Ockham's razor: discard any unneeded assumptions.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. consistent. I believe God exists and for me to appeal to the supernatural is consistent but you would espouse methodological naturalism and then use the term 'love' like it has some meaning other than a set of biochemical reactions in the body. How do you ground this? Then you use the term 'good' like I should know what YOU mean when YOU use the term. Don't inflict on me your subjective terms and then expect me to know what you're talking about. Try being consistent in Cont
Your belief in the supernatural is what is in question, just because you profess the belief in God does not make anything consistent or meaningful in the least.
We all know what love is, LOVE is universal and supersedes and even precedes your silly, ancient religion.
Christianity has no monopoly or special insight into what LOVE is. It is about people. Not holy books or myths.
@harrycrumb1989 When I spoke about being consistent I was referring to my placing of higher meaning on terms like 'love' and 'good' being consistent with my belief in a supernatural God who can ground these terms. That is being consistent. You claiming atheism and then using the terms 'love' and 'good' is utterly inconsistent. You are moving from the lower to the upper level when your beliefs exist only in the lower level. You use the terms like they are somehow 'virtuous' and 'noble' when Cont.
I didn't say I don't believe in God, just not the God of the Bible. So I, just like any person of any other religion can rationally speak of "love" and "good" just because we profess to believe in God correct?
But how do you, I, or anyone know that the God we say we believe is the true One? If your or my belief is in a false god wouldn't it make the terms "love" and "good" irrational or inconsistent by your standards?
@harrycrumb1989 Number one, it is not your belief in God that allows you to use these terms 'rationally', it is the fact that if God exists we have somewhere to ground these terms whereas if He doesn't, we don't have anywhere to ground them and give them objective meaning, independant of belief. Number two, no. As explained in number one, it is not my belief in a particular God that grounds these terms, it is the fact of his existence that grounds them, independant of my belief.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. what you purport to believe. If you are from the school of atheism and naturalism don't be applying higher meaning to terms and life with no grounds for doing it. But I suppose whatever gives you comfort. Conviction my dear friend conviction.
@harrycrumb1989 You don't give love higher meaning than the one I've offered under naturalism (which, by the way, you are philosophically committed to)? So when you tell your wife/children/parents that you love them you say, 'there are certain biochemical responses happening in my body and they are directed towards you'. You are either completely on your own in life or you're just being dishonest.
"there is an omnipotent creator God who made humans starting with 2 originally, Adam and Eve, in order to love Him, but they sinned...so Jesus came...?"
No. A Muslim, Buddhist, an Atheist or Mormon can all love. It doesn't gain any more meaning by explaining it by science or religious dogma my friend. You may want it to but it does not.
@harrycrumb1989 A muslim, Buddhist, an atheist or anyone else can use these terms because there is a God in which we can ground them. But if an atheist's world view is correct i.e. we evolved by naturalistic means and there is no God well then what I've said earlier about atheism applies. Without God existing (independant of whether we believe it or not) love is simply a set of biochemical reactions in the body and to apply any meaning higher than that is simply illusory. It is not whether Cont.
Love and every other emotion may very well just be a very complex set of biochemical reactions. Do you have proof they are not? (Science is learning more and more about how natural they are)
I sense your circular argument: "Without God love has no higher meaning. There is a God so love has a higher meaning. And I know there is a God because there is love."
You realize that not only do you provide no proof of anything, but your argument is a play on words that gets you nowhere.
@harrycrumb1989 I didn't offer it as proof. I offered the argument as a means to show that even if there were no God and atheism was true, it would offer the world nothing but nihilism. Life would have no objective meaning, there would be no objective morality (the implications of that one being that no act , no matter how heinous, would be objectively wrong) and we would have no rational justification for self sacrifice. It wouldn't be a world worth living in... Whereas if we live in a Cont...
But who said morality was objective? And how do you know what is objectively right in God's eyes?
Murder for example,to me is unjustified killing. But what is unjustified? Euthanasia? Abortion? Death penalty? Killing in war? Self defense?
There is no objective answer here!! Even Christians have disagreed on these things, and the Bible doesn't even agree with itself. Remember an "eye for an eye" but now it's "turn the other cheek." So which one is it dear Christian??
@harrycrumb1989 "who said morality was objective?" Not me, but what I did say was if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality. The implications of that (and evolution being true) is that there is nothing objectively 'wrong' with rape. Its just socially disadvantageous. The abhorrence of it simply evolved because it didn't offer society any advantage. (I personally think that can't be true). I believe objective morality exists.
@harrycrumb1989 As for your question "how do we know what is objectively right in God's eyes" is a confusion on your part. You don't seem to understand the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology. Moral epistemology concerns how we come to know the good, moral ontology concerns the foundation of the reality in the good. We're talking here about moral ontology not moral epistemology. Therefore your point is a mute one for the sake of the argument presently. (let's be done) Cont.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. where God is real, we have a ground for objective moral values and life has objective meaning. This is a world much more worth living in. This is an argument for the existence of God but it would NEVER be offered as proof. There are however good reasons to believe that God exists. The moral argument being just one of them. The ressurection of Jesus, the teleological argument, and integrated biological complexity being just a few more. But even if all these were proven Cont.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. to be false, I would still prefer not to live in an atheistic world for the reasons I have previously given... No justification for self sacrifice, no act , no matter how heinous, being objectively wrong and life having no objective meaning. Atheism offers the world nothing. Bertrand Russell even admitted that though he was an atheist, he couldn't bear the thought of living in a world where rape wasn't objectively wrong... You can't be consistent and happy in your worldview
I totally agree that the moral argument is what supports the concept of God more than anything...
But if you believe that the resurrection of Jesus offers any type of proof or even good reason to believe in God, and in the same breath you can say naturalistic evolution is atheist dogma, then you have no idea what the difference is between evidence and dogma. You want to believe what you want to believe and no amount of reason can change that.
@harrycrumb1989 "If you believe the Ressurection of Jesus offers any good reason..." ( I never called it proof) "Then you have no idea what the difference is between evidence and dogma is" I would throw the same contention straight back at you. You have been asked to provide proof for your claim that 'evolution' is a "fact" and you've offered nothing other than the old "the experts agree" assertion which isn't true at all. There are as many that disagree. There is a refutation based on yourCont
@harrycrumb1989 "I didn't say I didn't believe in God" Would you mind making your position clear (I've already asked you this)...Are you an atheist? A deist?
If you want to tag me with a label or put me in a box you could say I am a deist or freethinker. But I never really cared for being labeled as anything at all.
@harrycrumb1989 You are a deist but believe in naturalistic evolution? That my friend is a clear indication you have no idea what evolution means. I reccommend you look it up. An intelligent designer and naturalistic evolution are mutually exclusive. Also I've asked you to support your claim that evolution is a fact, all you offer is the baseless assertion "Thousands of experts agree..." this is not an argument, proof, evidence or any other kind of support. You fail to carry the burden of proof.
@harrycrumb1989 we believe in a particular God that gives these terms objective meaning. Religious dogma has nothing to do with it. If you don't agree with my points please show why. I don't think you have understood my previous responses. Hopefully there a bit clearer to you this time. Btw, you know I'm a christian, please state your position so as there is no further confusion. I (maybe wrongfully) assumed from what you were saying that you were an atheist...
Well the fact that we did evolve by naturalistic means is a FACT. Every one of the sciences from astronomy to geology to biology agrees on this!! The only reason you fail to accept it is because of Christian DOGMA. Evolution is an amazing process - but it does not support the idea that God is loving or "intelligent." (99% of every species to exist is now extinct, we have appendices we don't need but can kill us, babies are born deformed or without limbs, etc.)
@harrycrumb1989 "We did evolve by naturalistic means is a fact" No, its a theory, and a very controversial one at that. 'Evolution' is merely applied naturalistic philosophy with more holes than a giant tea-bag. It's atheist dogma. I'd love to see you demonstrate that its a fact. (The burden of proof being on the one making the claim, that being YOU). So come on, show how it's a fact.
You sound like your Christian brothers and fathers who only a few hundred years ago thought we were the center of the universe and that the world was flat - and they burned people alive for heresy if they questioned that nonsense!!!
Somehow thousand of experts from every school of science - astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anthropology - work in harmony under the "theory" of evolution.
It is as much a theory as the "theory of gravity" or Einsteins "general theory of relativity"
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. method of 'proof'. If you would actually like to offer anything concrete to support I would love to hear it. (I somehow doubt that you will though) I've heard the old assertion "all the experts agree" a thousand times from people like yourself who obviously refuse to look into both sides of the argument. Preferring instead to stick to the propaganda the atheist leaders preach Creationists =stupid so you don't even have to engage them intellectually.
Honestly, I can almost say I am certain that there is no "proof" of any kind that would alter your ideas on this subject. You already have your mind made up. Which is exactly how I felt when I believed in an all-loving, omnipotent God.
I know your side of the argument all to well as I was a devout Christian until I was 22. I've read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Hugh Ross' Beyond the Cosmos and Fingerprint of God, Francis Shaeffer's The God Who is There, Henry Morris' Darwin on Trial...etc.
@harrycrumb1989 "You sound like your religious fathers" That is so funny to me. Every atheist I've debated the theory of evolution with on youtube has a some point or another told me to "shut up". If their argument is so strong why can't they just argue the points? It's a case of agree with us or "shut up" Sounds a hell of a lot more like the middle ages than my request for proof instead of baseless assertions... "It is as much a theory as" Yes it is a theory but you called it a "fact" my friend
"@harrycrumb1989 "who said morality was objective?" Not me, but what I did say was if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality...I believe objective morality exists."
Which is it?
You yourself seem to want morality to have some objective base in reality but the proof
is otherwise. Again, the Bible which was written in times of extreme ignorance reflects mans extreme shortsightedness and lack of understanding - definitely not God's wisdom
@harrycrumb1989 Let's get this straight as the posts are getting longer and longer and your position and argument seems to be getting more confused by the minute. You claim there is no objective morality, correct? You also claim you believe there is a 'God' who created the universe but you believe 'evolution' is the way life came about, correct? Please answer these questions first and foremost.
Regarding deism: You aren't required to believe in I.D. It simply is the belief that God created the world universe and does not intervene. If God is intelligent, evolution shows that He has quite a different type of intelligence than us. In other words, God is too far beyond us to comprehend...
This is how many brilliant people feel in light of what we have discovered, such as Albert Einstiein and Steven Hawking.
@harrycrumb1989 I didn't say that morality was objective. I said I believed that it was. You on the other hand claim that there is no objective morality and life evolved by purely naturalistic means but yet you believe a God of some form created the universe. You are definitely misinformed as to what deism is, I strongly recommend you look deeper into it. 'Evolution' states that life came into existence as a simple form and then through 'evolution' became more complex. It ABSOLUTELY Cont.
Scientifically illiterate people just cannot grasp the meaning of the word "theory." Hopefully this will help:
1.Theory of Matter and Energy:Conservation of Matter and Energy
2.Theory of Plate Tectonics
3.Theory of Quantum Mechanics
4. Theory of Gravity
5. Germ Theory
None of these are fully understood - NOTHING IS - but if a theory makes a prediction and the prediction holds up, then there must be something correct about the theory.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER OF ANY DESCRIPTION. IT ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES ANY INTENTIONAL DESIGN OF ANY FORM. Your confusion, I believe, seems to stem from your misunderstanding of the phrase "does not intervene". This is meant as 'does not intervene after 'God' created the universe and everything in it including life'. He/it created everything and allowed it to do its own thing. 'Evolution' claims that popped into being by purely naturalistic means. Cont.
@harrycrumb1989 and then became more complex over time eventually becoming you and I. I am confident that Richard Dawkins would agree with me on this. "No proof of any kind would alter your ideas on the subject" YOU were the one who claimed evolution was a 'fact' and no matter how many times challenged to prove your assertion, you have failed miserably to offer anything other than "all the experts agree" and "you wouldn't understand" BRAVO!
When ignorant I.D. supporters use their mantra of "it is just a theory" they truly do set themselves up to be called stupid and idiotic. Evolution is not "just a theory" but you can keep telling yourself and your friends it is.
@harrycrumb1989 These posts are getting more bizarre by the day. You tell me I don't understand what 'theory' means, give me a big explanation of what it does mean and then tell me 'evolution' isn't a theory... I despair! "Ignorant I.D. supporters" You are a very confused person. Sort out these issues and get some consistency into your argumenat before you post me back... PLEASE!!! I wait curiously.
I cannot account for your unseasoned knowledge of science. It is what it is.
And you are reckless to say:
"I didn't say that morality was objective. I said I believed that it was."
You are either saying you believe what you know is not true, or you are making a gross contradiction. I'm curious to know which one it is. Indulge me please...If you simply aren't sure if morality is objective or not, I applaud you for taking a step in the right direction (uncertainty is a virtue)
Furthermore, if you bothered to read, I never said I was a Deist, only if you want to label me you could call me that - it somewhat resembles what I believe.But are labels really that important?
In one sentence I'll sum it up:
It is outside the limits of human understanding to comprehend anything that is beyond the universe - let alone have any knowledge of whether it is intelligent or otherwise. For your ease of mind it might be better to mark me as an agnostic...
@harrycrumb1989 "I never said I was a Deist" Yes you did Harry. Check back in the posts and I quote you my friend "if you want to tag me with a label or put me in a box you could say I am a Deist." Now if you want to get involved in a petty little game of semantics I'm not interested. That looks to me like you regard yourself to be a Deist. Now you're an agnostic because you say we cannot comprehend anything outside of the universe. Like a lot of your statements you are only partly right. Cont.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that supreme being created the universe and we can know this by means of reason and observing the natural world and faith isn't needed. Agosticism claims that the truth value regarding the existence of any Deity is unknowable. WHICH ONE ARE YOU???????? Forget tags if you're so afraid of them. Just tell me what your philosophical worldview is. Are you a Deist? Are you an Agnostic. After all your bloviationsyou are still Cont.
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. hiding behind your cloak of invisibility. If you are so confident you are right show yourself, otherwise, shut up. You claim to be a Deist and when I attack that, you claim to be an agnostic. So let that be the first thing you do in your very next post. Find out what philosophical beliefs you have... then find out what people who have those beliefs are classed as (like myself, I'm a theist) and then declare it and stop attacking strawmen.
...None of this however has anything to do with your gross misunderstanding of what a
scientific theory is (unfortunately you have this in common with the uneducated and
fundamentalists of ALL religions). And I would love to hear what "evidence" would compel you...Give a hint or two (i am not sure what it could be)
But tell me why you accept, if you do, the Theory of Gravity, or the General Theory of Relativity to represent reality. These theories, like all new scientific theories...
@harrycrumb1989 "Your gross misunderstanding of what a theory is" I know what a theory is, it was you who called evolution a 'fact'. Are you withdrawing that claim and now calling it by its proper name i.e. a theory which we would actually be in agreement if you are. Please answer this question.
and just like the Theory of Evolution, were met with criticism and and opposition by other scientists.Theories survive only because they are falsifiable and have survived scrutiny from all angles - this is what keeps theories and scientists honest (unlike priests or prophets).
Your common and boring metaphysical claims have always been unfalsifiable, yet you want to skip the best system of attaining knowledge (science) about a Universe we know almost nothing about, and claim to know what is beyond it. It is absolute nonsense (even if it is endorsed by William Lane Craig). Try thinking for yourself!
The difference between us is that for me, someone with a respect for the scientific method, knowledge does not come on a whim - it is priceless. For you, someone who can gain knowledge by simply imagining it, there is no humility or respect how rare it is or for other views for that matter (other religions in this case). You think you have special knowledge of God, but so do billions of others who disagree with you... you are a common sheep without even knowing it.
The problem of hell for a benevolent god is a fake problem. Firstly, there's only evidence the fallen angels will burn forever, being made immortal regardless of us. Secondly, what sort of omnipotent God will let murderers, rapists and banksters into where are the victims, the destroyed, the aborted etc. Lastly, what kind of ruler is lovie dovie without justice for all? Mental Flew doesn't understand God's character remotely, even what others have written of Him.
corioa 1 month ago
U Silly Atheist..lol
mellymel51029 3 months ago
Gosh i want to cry i feel so sorry for him. Someone get the man a glass of water for christs sakes
scar504 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
you cant even understand what this guy is saying...
junlt 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
False Christians has spewed false doctrines like hellfire and the trinity, thus confusing people about God. False Christians have meddled in politics and have encouraged their members to fight in wars whenever their countries go to war, thus doing everything the Bible commands us not to do. That's why so many people have turned to atheism. If everyone knew the truth about God (that Jehovah's Witnesses preach) then there wouldn't be so much atheists.
froweey 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@froweey Amen to that!!!!!!!
800mEric 6 months ago
@froweey Jehovah witnesses have been constantly making up there own doctrines and forging the bible to fit there ridiculous doctrines written in the Watch Tower here in New York City. You witnesses are no better than any other christian denomination, sect, or cult and should be the last people talking about made up doctrines
TGSHokuto 4 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew 4
Evil is not a thing it's a 'lack'. The further we move away from infinite love the darker our hearts become. Hell can be thought of not so much as a place but a decision (freely chosen) to reject infinite love. The soul that dies in rebellion against God chooses hell yet the mercy of God grows stronger the more evil a soul becomes. Hell is a complete rejection of Gods mercy and far less painful then being in the presence of pure love and mercy hell is the absence of love growing in hate
mhoward345 6 months ago
I'm a Christian, but I must admit that Flew is absolutely right in saying that Hell as traditionally understood as "eternal torture" is inconsistent with divine benevolence or justice in any sense of the word.
Even Craig is unintentionally admitting the inconsistency when he says that no Christian likes the doctrine of hell. Does God like hell ? If yes, then we are more merciful than God. If not, then why would He set up a system that He's forever unhappy with?
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago
@Jesrael1986M I agree, he is absolutely right. And actually I find the Bible supports Flews conclusion on that topic. As unpopular as that is. haha
ShawDAMAN 6 months ago
Flew makes little sense. He should turn to theism where he would get away with it.
SpookyAction123 8 months ago
@SpookyAction123 Flew was sick during this video.
StormTrek 8 months ago
@SpookyAction123 he did, lol
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
@ShawDAMAN No, in Flew's most recent book he makes it clear that he became a deist, NOT a theist. Its a significant difference. He does not consider himself a Christian at this point.
REDRAGON12345 5 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 Yes wrong terminology on my part, sorry. Although I don't think he considers himself anything at this point, as he's been dead over a year. ha.
ShawDAMAN 5 months ago
@ShawDAMAN No worries, I just did not want people to get the wrong idea about Flew's beliefs. I do wonder if in his last days he made any leaps of faith regarding a personal god of some sort or even the God of Christianity...
REDRAGON12345 5 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 I tend to doubt it. His switch to deism is quite interesting though. I find some of the ridicule of him on that basis somewhat unfortunate.
ShawDAMAN 5 months ago
Emotions stem from needs - psychology teaches us that. Again, what would a perfect being be doing with them?
I am not presupposing anything. I am using the human definitions of logic and morality. If you want to dismiss these terms when thinking about God, then you have no basis for calling him good other than him commanding you to.
Torture is wrong no matter what spin you put on it. And eternal torture is sadistic and cruel beyond measure.
aliasbrush 9 months ago
At Flew's point at 2:00-2:30 here's an example: a person comes home to find his family brutally murdered. The attacker is still there and the person is able to subdue him and tie the attacker up and calls the authorities. When the authorities bring the attacker to the judge the judge says "I'm a loving judge so you are free to go". That's Flew's idea of omnibenevolence.
mgundy 9 months ago
@mgundy Whereas your idea of omnibenevolence is to throw them in a pit of fire for eternity...
We lock people up so that they cannot commit the crimes again. We do not torture people for 'justice' or to sate our desire for vengeance.
aliasbrush 9 months ago
@aliasbrush You are trying to equate your standard of holiness with God's. If you accept that God holds to His moral law perfectly, therefore it would follow He cannot even acknowledge sin. That would be denying His nature. Yes, that is perfect justice. That is where the concept of propitiation has to come in, i.e. God himself providing intercession to those who recognize their depravity. If God (the only one worthy of worship btw) is COMPLETELY holy then it can't be any other way.
mgundy 9 months ago
@mgundy What a load of crap! God breaks his own rules and changes his mind all the time. How was sin even introduced if it wasn't in God's plan? (add youtube address and paste): watch?v=cQBDGMj2h-c
Sure I cannot think on an infinite scale, but I still have the capacity to recognise logical and moral absurdities. Why would a perfect being have human emotions (anger, jealousy, etc)? Why would an omniscient being need to wipe out the human race and start over several times? It's just silly.
aliasbrush 9 months ago
@aliasbrush Again you are putting your finite presuppositions and applying them to the only realizable infinite. Sin was introduced by human free will. Now understanding that the only free willed entity that cannot sin is God. And God cannot create another God, that's a logical fallacy. Creations are always lesser than the creator. Again, your perspective is not what's wrong with you, but what's wrong with Him.
As for the emotional side of God, He is personal. cont...
mgundy 9 months ago
@mgundy Humans are the only creation made in the image and likeness of God, we have a varient of his emotions but not His emotions. He knows righteous anger, righteous jealousy, etc. With sin so prevelant, accepted, and even encouraged by society most people really can't identify with understanding of righteousness at all. God's plan was for mankind to go out and subdue. That is to say for man to bring all of creation into harmony with the will of God, in context to His will.
mgundy 9 months ago
@aliasbrush Also, I find it interesting that what it seems you are saying is that our standard or correction, (e.g. prision sentence or death penalty) would make that family member feel like their loss has been restituted in some way. Think about my example and know that all sin is like that to God to the depths of infinity but somehow God shouldn't have restitution because that's your concept of "loving".
mgundy 9 months ago
Comment removed
GodisLove251 9 months ago
He's making the right points, but with the onset of his dementia he is unable to convey them with the sharp mind he once had. It was very sad to hear one of his last interviews when he talked about his conversion to deism - he was so brain-addled he needed the interviewer to practically tell him what to say.
aliasbrush 1 year ago
@aliasbrush Yea they were halfway through a question and he would say, "Yes yes, i uh uh yes. you know yes."
It's very sad... r.i.p. anthony
2nDoppelganger 11 months ago
@aliasbrush Quran:
(Surah-2-the cow-vs-186)
And when my servants ask you concerning me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of suppliant when he calls on me, so they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@aliasbrush Presupposition drips off this post. I will say that at 1:56 Flew apparently does not understand what a category fallacy is, which I know he does he just chooses not to apply it in this case. He's rewording the question "Could God create a mountain that even he couldn't move?". Like that is to say that God is not simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. Omnibenevolence yields love AND justice simultaneously.
mgundy 9 months ago
The best atheism has to offer, bwahahahaha.
curtsphobias 1 year ago
Poor Flew, hes so old and powerless so he cant even dabate. Why have you been atheist all the time?
eagleeye2102 1 year ago
@eagleeye2102 Quran:
(SURAH-3-THE FAMILY OF IMRAN-VS-30)
On the day that every soul shall find present what it has done of good and what it has done of evil, it shall wish that between it and that (evil) there were a long duration of time; and allah makes you to be cautious of (retribution from) himself; and allah is compassionate to the servants.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@quranresponse what do you mean?
eagleeye2102 10 months ago
I could not follow Flew's argument whatsoever. Eloquence obviously plays some part in debating and while Flew is a genius, he is simply not eloquent in this scenario.
bigal55500 1 year ago 3
@bigal55500 Totally agree but Flew WAS a genius. He has died, unfortunately.
MyCoolMac 3 months ago
im totally on flew's side, but he is just unlisten-to-able... he's so awkward and seems so unprepared...
he's quite renowned though, was there something wrong wth him here??
Bkkhngr81 1 year ago
Anthony Flew is not a very convincing debater. However, I think he was right to argue that we don't know what caused the 'Big Bang'. For instance, Hawking would argue that there was a quantum vacuum 'before' the Big Bang and fluctuations in this vacuum led to the 'Big Bang'. I think we have to be agnostic with regard to the Big Bang. W Lane Craig seems to think that belief in a creator is dependent on the idea of a beginning in time; but in fact this is not so. Ontological dependence, not time..
bayreuth79 1 year ago
Antony is the one who became a deist some year ago . I wish he accept Christianity.
guitaristmichael 1 year ago
the atheist got owned.
polos505 1 year ago
''I'm not saying this is a reason to believe that a torturer does not run the Universe''. Made me laugh.
r0ll3dd 1 year ago
Minute 2:00 demons inside him twist at the idea of hell. That's why he lost control.
AmenMaranhata 1 year ago
@AmenMaranhata I think your right! Anyways it seems clear that he knows that if the Christian God really exist he is convince he will go to hell. Another hint to know that he is deliberately lying and sinnin. Well This is wierd anyways that he would have that kind of reaction lol
axe414 1 year ago
Hitchens, he isn't...
setmedic 1 year ago
What's with the breathing?
r0ll3dd 1 year ago
Can anyone understand this guy, or is it just me whos mind is drifting off into the land of pizza bagels
squint1991 1 year ago
i havent seen the rest of this video yet i just paused it. But i have a prediction that this guy has a heart attack right before he gets off the stage. And/or dies
squint1991 1 year ago
i havent seen the rest of this video yet i just paused it. But i have a prediction that this guy has a heart attack right before he gets off the stage.
squint1991 1 year ago
Damn, Antony Flew sucks at debate.
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@Internet7Nobody I don't know I'm sure he was a lot better when he was younger, he said he had a real dry mouth in this debate so that my be why hes don't speaking well
MrMohjong 1 year ago
@MrMohjong sorry why hes not speaking well
MrMohjong 1 year ago
Craig was very tricky at the beggining. Craig invited Flew to disprove god which is itself unfalsifiable. Furthermore, in every single one of his debates all craig manages to timidly support is a deistic god not a theistic god.
BabySatch1 1 year ago
Flew is very hard to listen too he is so frail.
wachnathan 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrMohjong 1 year ago
@MrMohjong poor guy.
wachnathan 1 year ago
Is this guy okay???
Msjrward 1 year ago
Although many of the socio-religious indoctrination from various religious and spiritual institutions worldwide I consider a human creation and endeavor to control the behavior of the masses; I've always suspected the divine to be accessible by and for all of us despite our mindset and philosophical deity we've embraced or rejected. I've always suspected an infinite and perpetual existence beyond our intellectual capacity but unlike any conventional concept based upon popular belief.
VerseInfinitum 1 year ago
Ok so, we have 2 people that believe in God.
1982witchcraft 1 year ago
hehe he looks like he is dancing up there
lulumousie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You can already see that Antony Flew's mind is going."
Yeah that'll be the atheist's excuse...yet another
jammalammaDD 1 year ago
You can already see that Antony Flew's mind is going.
1noen1 1 year ago
The whole idea of burning in hell is NOT in The Bible
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
this guy should have written his notes out better
lukeism2 1 year ago
I thought that Antony Flew was going to use ALL of the scientific evidence for evolution? I guess that i must have missed it!
daunderhill1 1 year ago
@daunderhill1
evolution doesn't prove there is no God...
eddiedko 1 year ago
@eddiedko but it proves that if there is a god he is lazy.
Justwosweet 1 year ago
@eddiedko
evolution doesn't prove anything.. proof is something evolution lacks
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@eddiedko but it proves that there is no abrahamic God
lulumousie 1 year ago
@lulumousie how so?
eddiedko 1 year ago
@eddiedko Because the bible says that God made the earth like 6000 years ago...
lulumousie 1 year ago
@lulumousie no it doesn't.. the bible is the only truth..
eddiedko 1 year ago
@eddiedko okay i respect your belief
lulumousie 1 year ago
Shoot. Why is there no edit feature? I meant, "Do parents what THEIR children..." not "they're children". Also, at the end, that should obviously say, "...doesn't seem to BE a particularly good one."
hekskey 1 year ago
Do parents want they're children to behave and be obedient and love them? Sure. But do they want it by way of having children who are automatons incapable of choosing to do anything but behave, obey and love? Generally not, because when something like that exists as the result of necessity or physical law, it tends to lose any transcendent value. Whatever your worldview, this argument doesn't seem to a particularly good one.
hekskey 1 year ago
That's an awfully weird argument he offers at the end of this. If one allows for the existence of an Omnipotent being, that wouldn't mean that omnipotence would grant that one the ability to defy logic, such that they could actualize logical contradictions, which is precisely what would be required to create a free moral agent that COULD NOT make one kind of moral choice instead of another. (continued...)
hekskey 1 year ago
Is this Flew dude gonna pass out? I'm kinda worried. He's huffin' an' puffin' like the big bad wolf with asthma!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Poor Antony Flew got smashed !!! And He now believes in God.
Set4Life22 1 year ago
I feel embarrassed for Flew, yikes
aaronshaf2006 1 year ago
LOL. William Craig and Anthony Flew are opposites in personality and faith.
Crunkmastaflexx 1 year ago
I just wounder.
If you have good argument - God exist?
If you have bad argument - God do not exist?
Is it that simple?
What about evidence?
Metthos 1 year ago
the professor looks like a nice guy, but it is obvious that he is not a serious debater
dinkolino2 1 year ago
Comment removed
xlUIblisUlx 1 year ago
@dinkolino2 Craig is a sly and polished liar.
xlUIblisUlx 1 year ago
@xlUIblisUlx
Perhaps I missed it, what evidence is there that Craig is a liar? Dr Craig and Dr Flew are both remarkable, intelligent men and by no means liars.
Johnn832 1 year ago
A five year old understands that nothing from nothing comes. Flew does not. Pity. Such is ''academia'' today.
ScreeminMeeme 1 year ago
But no one is claiming that something came from nothing, we are merely saying we do not know what it comes from and we have to find out.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
@irishmauddib Definitely. But it is so much easier for people to say they already know. Especially when in all likelihood nobody could possibly ever know - such a realization is too unsatisfying and leaves people feeling too lonely and insecure. Better stick to the fairytale happy ending!
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
Flew is incoherent. He has NO refutation for Craig's claims. He is disorganized and incapable, apparently, of giving a reasoned response.
ScreeminMeeme 1 year ago
lol anthony flew is a joke in this video
Undrtaker458 1 year ago
This man seems slightly mentally challenged.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
He is a brilliant man, however he does suffer from the common maladies brought on by old age. And as he said already he is having to deal with some apperntly extreme case of dry mouth. Which can be quite distracting.
arktheball 2 years ago
god is a definition. he does not exist outside of the text. he is a word elaborated.
sfb008008 2 years ago
Says who?
ArcangelMiguel7 2 years ago
I think that the more reasonable answer is that God didn't want robots! Maybe thats why He gave us free will. To obey him by will, not by command. Plus, we were not the only one that have free will. Angels have it. Thats why lucifer and all his legion were expelled of the third heaven. At least thats my answer.
ArcangelMiguel7 2 years ago
It´s so simple yet so many people don´t get it !!
1999521 2 years ago
God gave [humans] free will. He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love
C.S Lewis
There's a good quote for you.
landonh5 2 years ago
@ArcangelMiguel7 The reason God gave free will was because love, when you have no choice other than to love, is worthless. The fact that someone loves you when they are free not to love you is the only kind of love worth having. God bless.
CJNecros 2 years ago
You are totally right. John 3:16. How can I forget that? That's what motivated God to give us free will. Thanx for the correction and God Bless you too.
ArcangelMiguel7 2 years ago
Omg yea I can't believe I forgot Fallacious 2:11 which says "he who wastes his time worshiping another persons imagination will die like anybody else"
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
@CJNecros
And how does this benefit us? If God created sentient beings to love Him, and by doing so was required to grant these being free will, then it followed that He would have to create sentient being that would not love Him, or even hate Him. These beings, who do not love God, suffer, consequently, according to official doctrine
Surely, then, it is not an act of love that led God to create such beings, but selfishness, especially in light of His omniscience?
p3rs0nan0ngrata 2 years ago
@p3rs0nan0ngrata This benefits 'us' because we get the opportunity to spend eternity in the light of God's presence. "Selfishness" You make it sound like we get nothing out of the deal... Reference my first comment. Also , God sent his only Son to die on the cross for us, paying the price for ALL of mankind's sins, past, present and future so as 'whosoever will may come'. It wasn't selfish. (Selfish- concerned with one's own pleasure at the expense of consideration for others)
CJNecros 2 years ago
Makes you wonder why God needed to "create" anything with free will in the first place...He was perfect, complete, infinite etc., yet he lacked creatures that would love and worship Him? God was really in "need" of something? This does not sound like an infinite God but a silly incomplete man or a god created in man's image.
So religion goes....
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 So your opinion goes... full of rhetoric.
CJNecros 2 years ago
It's a valid point that theologians are unable to address...but theology never made good philosophy. It must really be a pain to think critically eh?
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Theologians have been unable to address? First of all you assume "need" on the side of God. What reason for this assumption? God created man in His image. He gave man free will to love or not to love Him. What love is worth having if youre not free to not love?
CJNecros 2 years ago
Need or want or desired, you can choose your term, but it's not an assumption. It is what logically follows...Why and how would something perfect, infinite, and eternally complete in love want anything to love Him? It's nonsense. Look up "oxymoronic".
"Infinite" is a powerful term. It means boundless and endless. "Eternal" is quite similar. When you say man was created to love God you unknowingly make Him not infinite but something that is finite and changes, much like you or me - a man.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Your premises don't necessarily lead to your conclusions. "Eternally complete in love" is a term I've never heard before so I don't know what your basis for using it is. God is love, does this mean He can't recognise the worth of being loved freely by autonomous creatures. I think not. You seem to be wanting to put God in a box using semantics, one that He can't escape from. But these conclusions you draw from your premises seem very narrow. "Infinite is boundless and endless"
CJNecros 2 years ago
We both agree that God, by definition, is infinite, perfect, eternal, omnipotent, without bound etc. correct?
If God is love, and he is perfect and eternal, by what silly backwards logic can you see him wanting to create creatures with free will or anything at all? Willing or wanting is not a quality of something perfect.
You really share a common belief that God must be like us in some way. But WHY?? To me that whole idea takes away from God's divinity. But hey, whatever gives you comfort.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 I actually thought you might be honest. "Willing or wanting is not a quality of something perfect" Prove that assertion, that has no basis in anything other than your opinion. "you share a belief that God must be like us in some way" No, i share a belief that we are like Him in some way (ruash). "We are not created in God's image" Another assertion stated like its a fact. "Why appeal to the supernatural when you don't have to?" Talk about hypocritical. At least I'm Cont...
CJNecros 2 years ago
Willing or wanting are qualities of something finite and imperfect - of animals or humans. We want food because we are hungry, we choose (will) to go to school to learn or make money. We want a mate or spouse to have children or a partner....All of these things arise out of a need or want to grow in some way (from being incomplete in other words)
Tell me, how can an eternal and perfect Being (i.e. God) not already be complete?
Do you understand the concepts: infinite and perfect?
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Like I said, just because God has those qualities doesn't mean he can't recognise worth. Like having a free creature love you when he can choose to do otherwise has worth whether you're omnipotent or not. This doesn't negate God's qualities in any way. This love can be accepted and in no way changes or adds to God's infinity or perfection but it was definitely something that hadn't been before. You can't force someone to freely love you (as a creative act).
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. in actual fact they exist as nothing other than biochemical reactions and subjective terms. You have NO WAY to use these terms in that manner and ground them as being anything other than electrical sparks and a set of your own internalised rules which don't apply anywhere outside of your mind. But yet you try to imply that they do by saying things like 'it's about people'. You can't even give me an instant where you could justify self sacrifice...
CJNecros 2 years ago
God created man in His own image you say so casually?
Does God breath air, suffer from multiple disease or brain damage, freeze from the cold or burn from heat, or is He ever tempted sexually by an attractive woman?
If not, what does the term "image" even mean?
In what ways are we "like" God at all dear friend?
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989"What does the term image mean?" The hebrew word is ruash and it means he put a part of Himself into us. An eternal soul. "Does God breathe air" I don't know but I doubt it. "Does He suffer from multiple disease or brain damage?" Not that I'm aware of. "Is He tempted sexually" You'd have to ask Him that.
CJNecros 2 years ago
He was tempted by Mary, apparently.
drumrnva 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. Do you mean mathematically? Because that's not how the term is meant to be used theologically. Its meant to be used qualitatively not quantitatively. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal etc. If He chooses to create for His own purposes. I see nothing nonsensical in that. Do you imply he can't want or choose to want? That He can't recognise worth. Man is an original creation and very unique. Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 I see from your page that you subscribe to "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge" That strikes me as strange dear friend. Isn't love, from an evolutionist's point of view simply a set of biochemical responses in the body and any attempt to place a higher meaning on it simply illusory? Same with the term 'good'. You have no means of grounding that term without God. You mightn't even know what Russell meant when he used it. It's completely subjective.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Those questions were rhetorical, a Creator of those things would not be bound by them if he were omnipotent. The point is that those qualities define our being human. We are not created in "God's image."
There are so many different ideas about God, God's will, and who God is, that there is nothing objective about your unique idea about God or your use of the word love. Love is an innate animal quality, not just human, with or without any appeal to myths, stories, or the supernatural.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
Depends on what you mean by "higher meaning." An atheist doesn't need to say that Allah, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Buddha is the ultimate purpose of love. Why appeal to the supernatural when you don't have to?
Did you forget about Ockham's razor: discard any unneeded assumptions.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. consistent. I believe God exists and for me to appeal to the supernatural is consistent but you would espouse methodological naturalism and then use the term 'love' like it has some meaning other than a set of biochemical reactions in the body. How do you ground this? Then you use the term 'good' like I should know what YOU mean when YOU use the term. Don't inflict on me your subjective terms and then expect me to know what you're talking about. Try being consistent in Cont
CJNecros 2 years ago
Your belief in the supernatural is what is in question, just because you profess the belief in God does not make anything consistent or meaningful in the least.
We all know what love is, LOVE is universal and supersedes and even precedes your silly, ancient religion.
Christianity has no monopoly or special insight into what LOVE is. It is about people. Not holy books or myths.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 When I spoke about being consistent I was referring to my placing of higher meaning on terms like 'love' and 'good' being consistent with my belief in a supernatural God who can ground these terms. That is being consistent. You claiming atheism and then using the terms 'love' and 'good' is utterly inconsistent. You are moving from the lower to the upper level when your beliefs exist only in the lower level. You use the terms like they are somehow 'virtuous' and 'noble' when Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Ok CJNecros, here is your inescapable problem:
I didn't say I don't believe in God, just not the God of the Bible. So I, just like any person of any other religion can rationally speak of "love" and "good" just because we profess to believe in God correct?
But how do you, I, or anyone know that the God we say we believe is the true One? If your or my belief is in a false god wouldn't it make the terms "love" and "good" irrational or inconsistent by your standards?
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Number one, it is not your belief in God that allows you to use these terms 'rationally', it is the fact that if God exists we have somewhere to ground these terms whereas if He doesn't, we don't have anywhere to ground them and give them objective meaning, independant of belief. Number two, no. As explained in number one, it is not my belief in a particular God that grounds these terms, it is the fact of his existence that grounds them, independant of my belief.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. what you purport to believe. If you are from the school of atheism and naturalism don't be applying higher meaning to terms and life with no grounds for doing it. But I suppose whatever gives you comfort. Conviction my dear friend conviction.
CJNecros 2 years ago
You are absolutely correct. I don't give them higher meaning, there is no basis to do so. It's a more humble approach.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 You don't give love higher meaning than the one I've offered under naturalism (which, by the way, you are philosophically committed to)? So when you tell your wife/children/parents that you love them you say, 'there are certain biochemical responses happening in my body and they are directed towards you'. You are either completely on your own in life or you're just being dishonest.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Lol do you tell the people you love
"there is an omnipotent creator God who made humans starting with 2 originally, Adam and Eve, in order to love Him, but they sinned...so Jesus came...?"
No. A Muslim, Buddhist, an Atheist or Mormon can all love. It doesn't gain any more meaning by explaining it by science or religious dogma my friend. You may want it to but it does not.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 A muslim, Buddhist, an atheist or anyone else can use these terms because there is a God in which we can ground them. But if an atheist's world view is correct i.e. we evolved by naturalistic means and there is no God well then what I've said earlier about atheism applies. Without God existing (independant of whether we believe it or not) love is simply a set of biochemical reactions in the body and to apply any meaning higher than that is simply illusory. It is not whether Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Love and every other emotion may very well just be a very complex set of biochemical reactions. Do you have proof they are not? (Science is learning more and more about how natural they are)
I sense your circular argument: "Without God love has no higher meaning. There is a God so love has a higher meaning. And I know there is a God because there is love."
You realize that not only do you provide no proof of anything, but your argument is a play on words that gets you nowhere.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 I didn't offer it as proof. I offered the argument as a means to show that even if there were no God and atheism was true, it would offer the world nothing but nihilism. Life would have no objective meaning, there would be no objective morality (the implications of that one being that no act , no matter how heinous, would be objectively wrong) and we would have no rational justification for self sacrifice. It wouldn't be a world worth living in... Whereas if we live in a Cont...
CJNecros 2 years ago
But who said morality was objective? And how do you know what is objectively right in God's eyes?
Murder for example,to me is unjustified killing. But what is unjustified? Euthanasia? Abortion? Death penalty? Killing in war? Self defense?
There is no objective answer here!! Even Christians have disagreed on these things, and the Bible doesn't even agree with itself. Remember an "eye for an eye" but now it's "turn the other cheek." So which one is it dear Christian??
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "who said morality was objective?" Not me, but what I did say was if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality. The implications of that (and evolution being true) is that there is nothing objectively 'wrong' with rape. Its just socially disadvantageous. The abhorrence of it simply evolved because it didn't offer society any advantage. (I personally think that can't be true). I believe objective morality exists.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 As for your question "how do we know what is objectively right in God's eyes" is a confusion on your part. You don't seem to understand the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology. Moral epistemology concerns how we come to know the good, moral ontology concerns the foundation of the reality in the good. We're talking here about moral ontology not moral epistemology. Therefore your point is a mute one for the sake of the argument presently. (let's be done) Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. (with one before we move onto the other lest you get confused further).
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Sorry "moot" not "mute" The late night rule applies again brother.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. where God is real, we have a ground for objective moral values and life has objective meaning. This is a world much more worth living in. This is an argument for the existence of God but it would NEVER be offered as proof. There are however good reasons to believe that God exists. The moral argument being just one of them. The ressurection of Jesus, the teleological argument, and integrated biological complexity being just a few more. But even if all these were proven Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. to be false, I would still prefer not to live in an atheistic world for the reasons I have previously given... No justification for self sacrifice, no act , no matter how heinous, being objectively wrong and life having no objective meaning. Atheism offers the world nothing. Bertrand Russell even admitted that though he was an atheist, he couldn't bear the thought of living in a world where rape wasn't objectively wrong... You can't be consistent and happy in your worldview
CJNecros 2 years ago
I totally agree that the moral argument is what supports the concept of God more than anything...
But if you believe that the resurrection of Jesus offers any type of proof or even good reason to believe in God, and in the same breath you can say naturalistic evolution is atheist dogma, then you have no idea what the difference is between evidence and dogma. You want to believe what you want to believe and no amount of reason can change that.
So happy worshiping....
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "If you believe the Ressurection of Jesus offers any good reason..." ( I never called it proof) "Then you have no idea what the difference is between evidence and dogma is" I would throw the same contention straight back at you. You have been asked to provide proof for your claim that 'evolution' is a "fact" and you've offered nothing other than the old "the experts agree" assertion which isn't true at all. There are as many that disagree. There is a refutation based on yourCont
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "I didn't say I didn't believe in God" Would you mind making your position clear (I've already asked you this)...Are you an atheist? A deist?
CJNecros 2 years ago
If you want to tag me with a label or put me in a box you could say I am a deist or freethinker. But I never really cared for being labeled as anything at all.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 You are a deist but believe in naturalistic evolution? That my friend is a clear indication you have no idea what evolution means. I reccommend you look it up. An intelligent designer and naturalistic evolution are mutually exclusive. Also I've asked you to support your claim that evolution is a fact, all you offer is the baseless assertion "Thousands of experts agree..." this is not an argument, proof, evidence or any other kind of support. You fail to carry the burden of proof.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 we believe in a particular God that gives these terms objective meaning. Religious dogma has nothing to do with it. If you don't agree with my points please show why. I don't think you have understood my previous responses. Hopefully there a bit clearer to you this time. Btw, you know I'm a christian, please state your position so as there is no further confusion. I (maybe wrongfully) assumed from what you were saying that you were an atheist...
CJNecros 2 years ago
Well the fact that we did evolve by naturalistic means is a FACT. Every one of the sciences from astronomy to geology to biology agrees on this!! The only reason you fail to accept it is because of Christian DOGMA. Evolution is an amazing process - but it does not support the idea that God is loving or "intelligent." (99% of every species to exist is now extinct, we have appendices we don't need but can kill us, babies are born deformed or without limbs, etc.)
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "We did evolve by naturalistic means is a fact" No, its a theory, and a very controversial one at that. 'Evolution' is merely applied naturalistic philosophy with more holes than a giant tea-bag. It's atheist dogma. I'd love to see you demonstrate that its a fact. (The burden of proof being on the one making the claim, that being YOU). So come on, show how it's a fact.
CJNecros 2 years ago
You sound like your Christian brothers and fathers who only a few hundred years ago thought we were the center of the universe and that the world was flat - and they burned people alive for heresy if they questioned that nonsense!!!
Somehow thousand of experts from every school of science - astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anthropology - work in harmony under the "theory" of evolution.
It is as much a theory as the "theory of gravity" or Einsteins "general theory of relativity"
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. method of 'proof'. If you would actually like to offer anything concrete to support I would love to hear it. (I somehow doubt that you will though) I've heard the old assertion "all the experts agree" a thousand times from people like yourself who obviously refuse to look into both sides of the argument. Preferring instead to stick to the propaganda the atheist leaders preach Creationists =stupid so you don't even have to engage them intellectually.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Honestly, I can almost say I am certain that there is no "proof" of any kind that would alter your ideas on this subject. You already have your mind made up. Which is exactly how I felt when I believed in an all-loving, omnipotent God.
I know your side of the argument all to well as I was a devout Christian until I was 22. I've read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Hugh Ross' Beyond the Cosmos and Fingerprint of God, Francis Shaeffer's The God Who is There, Henry Morris' Darwin on Trial...etc.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "You sound like your religious fathers" That is so funny to me. Every atheist I've debated the theory of evolution with on youtube has a some point or another told me to "shut up". If their argument is so strong why can't they just argue the points? It's a case of agree with us or "shut up" Sounds a hell of a lot more like the middle ages than my request for proof instead of baseless assertions... "It is as much a theory as" Yes it is a theory but you called it a "fact" my friend
CJNecros 2 years ago
You said:
"@harrycrumb1989 "who said morality was objective?" Not me, but what I did say was if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality...I believe objective morality exists."
Which is it?
You yourself seem to want morality to have some objective base in reality but the proof
is otherwise. Again, the Bible which was written in times of extreme ignorance reflects mans extreme shortsightedness and lack of understanding - definitely not God's wisdom
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Let's get this straight as the posts are getting longer and longer and your position and argument seems to be getting more confused by the minute. You claim there is no objective morality, correct? You also claim you believe there is a 'God' who created the universe but you believe 'evolution' is the way life came about, correct? Please answer these questions first and foremost.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Regarding deism: You aren't required to believe in I.D. It simply is the belief that God created the world universe and does not intervene. If God is intelligent, evolution shows that He has quite a different type of intelligence than us. In other words, God is too far beyond us to comprehend...
This is how many brilliant people feel in light of what we have discovered, such as Albert Einstiein and Steven Hawking.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 I didn't say that morality was objective. I said I believed that it was. You on the other hand claim that there is no objective morality and life evolved by purely naturalistic means but yet you believe a God of some form created the universe. You are definitely misinformed as to what deism is, I strongly recommend you look deeper into it. 'Evolution' states that life came into existence as a simple form and then through 'evolution' became more complex. It ABSOLUTELY Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
Scientifically illiterate people just cannot grasp the meaning of the word "theory." Hopefully this will help:
1.Theory of Matter and Energy:Conservation of Matter and Energy
2.Theory of Plate Tectonics
3.Theory of Quantum Mechanics
4. Theory of Gravity
5. Germ Theory
None of these are fully understood - NOTHING IS - but if a theory makes a prediction and the prediction holds up, then there must be something correct about the theory.
This is how science (objective learning) works!
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER OF ANY DESCRIPTION. IT ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES ANY INTENTIONAL DESIGN OF ANY FORM. Your confusion, I believe, seems to stem from your misunderstanding of the phrase "does not intervene". This is meant as 'does not intervene after 'God' created the universe and everything in it including life'. He/it created everything and allowed it to do its own thing. 'Evolution' claims that popped into being by purely naturalistic means. Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 and then became more complex over time eventually becoming you and I. I am confident that Richard Dawkins would agree with me on this. "No proof of any kind would alter your ideas on the subject" YOU were the one who claimed evolution was a 'fact' and no matter how many times challenged to prove your assertion, you have failed miserably to offer anything other than "all the experts agree" and "you wouldn't understand" BRAVO!
CJNecros 2 years ago
When ignorant I.D. supporters use their mantra of "it is just a theory" they truly do set themselves up to be called stupid and idiotic. Evolution is not "just a theory" but you can keep telling yourself and your friends it is.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 These posts are getting more bizarre by the day. You tell me I don't understand what 'theory' means, give me a big explanation of what it does mean and then tell me 'evolution' isn't a theory... I despair! "Ignorant I.D. supporters" You are a very confused person. Sort out these issues and get some consistency into your argumenat before you post me back... PLEASE!!! I wait curiously.
CJNecros 2 years ago
I cannot account for your unseasoned knowledge of science. It is what it is.
And you are reckless to say:
"I didn't say that morality was objective. I said I believed that it was."
You are either saying you believe what you know is not true, or you are making a gross contradiction. I'm curious to know which one it is. Indulge me please...If you simply aren't sure if morality is objective or not, I applaud you for taking a step in the right direction (uncertainty is a virtue)
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
Furthermore, if you bothered to read, I never said I was a Deist, only if you want to label me you could call me that - it somewhat resembles what I believe.But are labels really that important?
In one sentence I'll sum it up:
It is outside the limits of human understanding to comprehend anything that is beyond the universe - let alone have any knowledge of whether it is intelligent or otherwise. For your ease of mind it might be better to mark me as an agnostic...
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "I never said I was a Deist" Yes you did Harry. Check back in the posts and I quote you my friend "if you want to tag me with a label or put me in a box you could say I am a Deist." Now if you want to get involved in a petty little game of semantics I'm not interested. That looks to me like you regard yourself to be a Deist. Now you're an agnostic because you say we cannot comprehend anything outside of the universe. Like a lot of your statements you are only partly right. Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that supreme being created the universe and we can know this by means of reason and observing the natural world and faith isn't needed. Agosticism claims that the truth value regarding the existence of any Deity is unknowable. WHICH ONE ARE YOU???????? Forget tags if you're so afraid of them. Just tell me what your philosophical worldview is. Are you a Deist? Are you an Agnostic. After all your bloviationsyou are still Cont.
CJNecros 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 Cont. hiding behind your cloak of invisibility. If you are so confident you are right show yourself, otherwise, shut up. You claim to be a Deist and when I attack that, you claim to be an agnostic. So let that be the first thing you do in your very next post. Find out what philosophical beliefs you have... then find out what people who have those beliefs are classed as (like myself, I'm a theist) and then declare it and stop attacking strawmen.
CJNecros 2 years ago
...None of this however has anything to do with your gross misunderstanding of what a
scientific theory is (unfortunately you have this in common with the uneducated and
fundamentalists of ALL religions). And I would love to hear what "evidence" would compel you...Give a hint or two (i am not sure what it could be)
But tell me why you accept, if you do, the Theory of Gravity, or the General Theory of Relativity to represent reality. These theories, like all new scientific theories...
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
@harrycrumb1989 "Your gross misunderstanding of what a theory is" I know what a theory is, it was you who called evolution a 'fact'. Are you withdrawing that claim and now calling it by its proper name i.e. a theory which we would actually be in agreement if you are. Please answer this question.
CJNecros 2 years ago
and just like the Theory of Evolution, were met with criticism and and opposition by other scientists.Theories survive only because they are falsifiable and have survived scrutiny from all angles - this is what keeps theories and scientists honest (unlike priests or prophets).
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
Your common and boring metaphysical claims have always been unfalsifiable, yet you want to skip the best system of attaining knowledge (science) about a Universe we know almost nothing about, and claim to know what is beyond it. It is absolute nonsense (even if it is endorsed by William Lane Craig). Try thinking for yourself!
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
The difference between us is that for me, someone with a respect for the scientific method, knowledge does not come on a whim - it is priceless. For you, someone who can gain knowledge by simply imagining it, there is no humility or respect how rare it is or for other views for that matter (other religions in this case). You think you have special knowledge of God, but so do billions of others who disagree with you... you are a common sheep without even knowing it.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago