Why does God allow the existance of people who go to hell?

reply to post by adjensen

Apologies for believing that, in a thread on religion, your open ended statement that there is no free will implied predestination. If you would like to elaborate on your basis and reason for that belief, I would like to hear it.

LOL, wow... No need to apologize, it' my fault for assuming you were educated on religious topics, being religious and all Go learn what predestination is and then take a fresh look at your reply. It's really funny.

The lack of free will that you state without explaining why.

Describe one choice that has no cause. Better yet, describe an effect without a causation, just to word it more simply.

Yes, I believe in an afterlife, but not out of fear. Saying "beliefs in an afterlife are rooted in fear" is presumptive and, at least in my case, incorrect.

For what reason would there be to believe in an afterlife if fear of no life after death was not a root causation for that belief?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by adjensen

 

Apologies for believing that, in a thread on religion, your open ended statement that there is no free will implied predestination. If you would like to elaborate on your basis and reason for that belief, I would like to hear it.

LOL, wow... No need to apologize, it' my fault for assuming you were educated on religious topics, being religious and all Go learn what predestination is and then take a fresh look at your reply. It's really funny.

I know full well what it means, but I suspect that you do not, or your interpretation is incorrect in a religious context. No matter, choice of words is not a point to argue over.

The lack of free will that you state without explaining why.

Describe one choice that has no cause. Better yet, describe an effect without a causation, just to word it more simply.

So, you're saying that, given the choice between putting my hand on a hot stove burner or not, my opting to not injure myself, because I know that it will hurt, indicates that there is no free will? How does sensibility get confused with free will? Particularly since there's nothing to prevent me from doing it, knowing full well that it will hurt, in order to show you wrong? Ouch!

Yes, I believe in an afterlife, but not out of fear. Saying "beliefs in an afterlife are rooted in fear" is presumptive and, at least in my case, incorrect.

For what reason would there be to believe in an afterlife if fear of no life after death was not a root causation for that belief?

There are plenty of reasons, but one would be the belief that our current reality, bookended by two events we call birth and death, is merely a phase in another, larger reality. I, personally, do not fear death, and therefore my belief in an afterlife cannot, by definition, be predicated on a fear of death.

reply to post by adjensen

I know full well what it means, but I suspect that you do not, or your interpretation is incorrect in a religious context. No matter, choice of words is not a point to argue over.

Predestination has absolutely nothing to do with determinism or free will. Again, please learn about what you attempt to argue so that you can in the future not sound like a completely uneducated idiot. It's not hard, and it won't hurt, I promise.

The fact that you even replied back with that argument only hurts your point of view further. Any further attempts to continue this uneducated moronic form of argumentation will fully lead me into educating you as well as everyone paying attention to this thread, thus ousting you in your complete full onslaught of pure idiocy.

I simply dare you to respond again. I would relish in the joy it would bring me to bring you down a notch in your pathetic little existence and your arrogance of pretentious pretending of knowing what your talking about.

So, you're saying that, given the choice between putting my hand on a hot stove burner or not, my opting to not injure myself, because I know that it will hurt, indicates that there is no free will? How does sensibility get confused with free will? Particularly since there's nothing to prevent me from doing it, knowing full well that it will hurt, in order to show you wrong? Ouch!

Perhaps you didn't grasp the simplistic question of describe an effect that has no causation? Seriously, what part of describe an effect that has no cause do you not understand? Are you seriously that uneducated, as I would assume given your above response?

There are plenty of reasons, but one would be the belief that our current reality, bookended by two events we call birth and death, is merely a phase in another, larger reality. I, personally, do not fear death, and therefore my belief in an afterlife cannot, by definition, be predicated on a fear of death.

Explain what emotions you would feel if there was no life after death. Explain how you would feel if you were never to be reunited with loved ones when you expire from this world. Explain how you would feel to know that upon your death bed, that it was it, that was the end.

reply to post by sirnex


Yes, please do favour us with your "education" that demonstrates that predestination has nothing to do with free will. I'll excuse your juvenile language and attitude, as I'm sure that it will be well researched, complete and rational.

Better yet, why don't you go argue with these guys:

christians.eu...

www.apologeticspress.org...

I wonder how that second "moron" scammed his Doctoral degree?

reply to post by adjensen


Damn... Uneducated *and* unable to properly read a given block of text.

If you were able to read properly, your first link only discuses the aspect of free will in the context of either accepting or rejecting Gods salvation and yet further into the article it points out that this aspect of free will is ill conceived.

There may be different teachings about predestination: single and double predestination. In reality the difference is finally not decisive. Both teachings exclude the free will of man. If God "only" chooses those who will go to heaven, then the others will automatically go to hell. In this way God's own nature is the reason for the condemnation of people.

Thus, regardless of ill perceived free will, God is the ultimate say upon the matter. Which if you understood the concept of predestination, this is the proper explanation and well within religious doctrine.

Your second link is actually an argument about free will versus predestination. How in the hell you missed that blatant opening statement is beyond me.

The principal difficulty concerning these passages centers on the controversy between the advocates of the free will (free moral agency) of man as opposed to the advocates of the view of a deterministic fo-reordination and predestination of man (i.e., those who stress that both the saved and the lost were “elected” before the foundation of the world).

I wonder how that second "moron" scammed his Doctoral degree?

Considering a moron initially posted a link in which said moron simply assumed without proper education or reading skills in which to comprehend the link in question, the statement bears no intelligent information in regards to the link in question. It's actually a crying shame that a religious person, yet again, understands literally nothing about religious teachings and doctrine.

The religious character of predestination distinguishes it from other ideas about determinism and free will.

Learn something before you decide to make yourself look like a comletley uneducated moronic imbecile.

Originally posted by sirnex
Predestination has absolutely nothing to do with determinism or free will.

You can obviously quote wikipedia, but you apparently don't understand it.

If predestination and free will are aspects of the same notion, they clearly do not have "absolutely nothing" to do with each other.

Both of those articles, and the rest of Christianity, clearly indicate that the two concepts, predestination and free will, are at loggerheads. Look at your own quote, for pity's sake:

There may be different teachings about predestination: single and double predestination. In reality the difference is finally not decisive. Both teachings exclude the free will of man.

Unless English is not your main language, I fail to see how one can read that and not see that one precludes the other. BOTH TEACHINGS EXCLUDE THE FREE WILL OF MAN. How is that not evident?

And your second quote is even worse:

The principal difficulty concerning these passages centers on the controversy between the advocates of the free will (free moral agency) of man as opposed to the advocates of the view of a deterministic fo-reordination and predestination of man

How can the advocates of free will and the advocates of predestination have any controversy if they have "absolutely nothing" to do with each other.

Look, I want to think that this is just some sort of misunderstanding, but the seemingly obvious degree to which you are wrong, the fact that you post things that demonstrate that you are wrong, yet claim they show you are right, and your need to resort to childish name calling in lieu of reasonable dialog, makes me believe that you simply have an axe to grind, and it's getting in the way of all this. Perhaps we should just drop the matter, then?

reply to post by adjensen

You can obviously quote wikipedia, but you apparently don't understand it.

WTF? LMFAO!!!

What am I not understanding in this straightforward statement?

The religious character of predestination distinguishes it from other ideas about determinism and free will.

Really... please explain the underlying meaning your adding to that.

If predestination and free will are aspects of the same notion, they clearly do not have "absolutely nothing" to do with each other.

Yet, they are not aspects of the same notion at all.

Both of those articles, and the rest of Christianity, clearly indicate that the two concepts, predestination and free will, are at loggerheads. Look at your own quote, for pity's sake:

Your an idiot. The term 'at loggerheads' means opposed; unable to agree.

Buy a dictionary.

Unless English is not your main language, I fail to see how one can read that and not see that one precludes the other. BOTH TEACHINGS EXCLUDE THE FREE WILL OF MAN. How is that not evident?

Again, buy a dictionary you idiot!

what is the definition of exclude? LMFAO!!!

And your second quote is even worse:

The principal difficulty concerning these passages centers on the controversy between the advocates of the free will (free moral agency) of man as opposed to the advocates of the view of a deterministic fo-reordination and predestination of man

How can the advocates of free will and the advocates of predestination have any controversy if they have "absolutely nothing" to do with each other.

That was not my personal response you twit. If you noticed, that block of text is externally quoted from your second link and readily points out the controversy concerning free will VERSUS predestination.

Look, I want to think that this is just some sort of misunderstanding

It certainly is a misunderstanding on your behalf as you apparently do not own a dictionary and only pretend to know what you're talking about.

but the seemingly obvious degree to which you are wrong

LOL! Where am I wrong?

the fact that you post things that demonstrate that you are wrong, yet claim they show you are right, and your need to resort to childish name calling in lieu of reasonable dialog, makes me believe that you simply have an axe to grind, and it's getting in the way of all this. Perhaps we should just drop the matter, then?

Sure, if it makes you feel better to drop the matter considering your inability to admit your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

Originally posted by sirnex
Your an idiot. The term 'at loggerheads' means opposed; unable to agree.

Buy a dictionary.

Which is exactly how I used it. And I find the irony of your suggesting someone else needs a dictionary when you can't even use the word "you're" correctly to be amusing, thanks for the laugh.

You have an amazing ability to find fault where none exists, feel superior when it is unmerited, and use nonsensical reasoning that even a 12 year old would see the error in.

Whatever. You've demonstrated that your opinion and point of view is of no value. The best evidence for your own foolishness, hollow arrogance, and lack of knowledge is in your own words. You need no critic when you testify so adamantly to your own inadequacy.

Don't bother replying -- there is a handy little "ignore" link over on the left, which removes your babbling from the web site with one easy click, and I've already taken care of that. Feel free to do the same for me.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by adjensen]

reply to post by adjensen

Don't bother replying -- there is a handy little "ignore" link over on the left, which removes your babbling from the web site with one easy click, and I've already taken care of that. Feel free to do the same for me.

Loser. When backed into a corner, the best course of action... ignore!

Which is exactly how I used it.

No, you had not used it exactly as such as given by previous statements such as:

If predestination and free will are aspects of the same notion, they clearly do not have "absolutely nothing" to do with each other.

Please, try to remember your own argumentation when arguing a concept such as free will versus predestination which has nothing to do with free will, which is utterly sad for a religious person to not understand.

But hey, you put me on ignore, or so I assume given your reply, but at least others will see your blatant stupidity in regards to this subject and your quickness to 'ignore' me when backed into a corner on it.

Yet somehow... I really doubt I'm on ignore. I've dealt with your type. I'll get a reply most likely!

Originally posted by adjensen
The answer is right there. You even included it in your quote. Here, let me pull it out, repost it and boldface it. Then maybe you'll get it.

The only way that you can blame God for evil is if he DOES exist, and we do NOT have free will.

If you want to argue that we lack free will, that we do evil because God forces us to, knock yourself out.

Your "omnipotent and omniscient" argument cannot prove the non-existence of God, because it allows in the same breath for an "evil" God, and it cannot prove the existence of an "evil" God, because that requires that you accept my earlier proof, that you can't judge something when you don't understand it.

Again you are purposely dodging the issue.

You see, the existence of EVIL and SUFFERING in a world without God makes logical and reasonable sense because there is no higher authority that dictates who suffers and and how much.

The existence of EVIL and SUFFERING in a world with a God does NOT make logical and reasonable sense because there is a higher authority with the power and knowledge to prevent this from occurring.

People who don't believe in a God are NOT attributing Evil to God, they are attributing it it to human nature and chance because these things make logical sense when looking over history.

[edit on 18/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by adjensen

It is our decisions and actions that cause evil.

Do our decisions and actions cause all tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, epidemics and plagues? Do our decisions and actions cause all birth defects, amputations and abortions? Did our decisions and actions cause lampreys or biliharzia flukes? Did our decisions and actions cause viruses and cancers to evolve?

You seem to have stopped engaging with me on this thread, adjensen. I'm not altogether surprised, since my point is unanswerable, even though it is simply the observation that there is evil in the world and the God you believe in apparently permits it. Dark Ghost makes a similar point, though phrased somewhat differently. Why don't you answer it directly, instead of ducking and dodging?

I would expect someone who claimed a Christian conscience to feel impelled to live up to plain standards of truth and honour--standards such as I, a damned atheist in your eyes, feel impelled to apply to myself. A fine advertisement for Christian ethics and morals you make!

The only way that you can blame God for evil is if he DOES exist, and we do NOT have free will.

For the umpteenth time: neuroscientific data all indicate that we don't have free will. But that is not the point. See Dark Ghost's post above mine. The point is that, if we do have free will, then He who gave it to us, in full foreknowledge of what would result, must bear the ultimate responsibility for our deeds.

Unfortunately, we do not do those things, or we do them poorly, and so evil exists. But, just as we frown on people justifying their own bad actions by blaming them on something or someone else, God expects you to take responsibility for ignoring the rules and doing what you pleased.

So this putatively omnipotent, omniscient being isn't big enough to accept responsibility for His own crimes, but needs puny mortals like you to justify His works to man? How sad. That is to say, if would be sad if such a being existed.

[edit on 18/7/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


This is the thing I don't understand. Theists are happy to admit that God gave us Free Will, but they will not hold God accountable for failing to foresee the problems it would result in. The trouble is they want to maintain this belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent but deny that reality contradicts these ideas about God.

[edit on 18/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by adjensen

 

It is our decisions and actions that cause evil.

Do our decisions and actions cause all tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, epidemics and plagues? Do our decisions and actions cause all birth defects, amputations and abortions? Did our decisions and actions cause lampreys or biliharzia flukes? Did our decisions and actions cause viruses and cancers to evolve?

You seem to have stopped engaging with me on this thread, adjensen. I'm not altogether surprised, since my point is unanswerable, even though it is simply the observation that there is evil in the world and the God you believe in apparently permits it. Dark Ghost makes a similar point, though phrased somewhat differently. Why don't you answer it directly, instead of ducking and dodging?

Well, let me see if I can answer you both, since you're right, you are essentially making the same argument.

Do our decisions cause earthquakes? No, obviously not, but an earthquake isn't evil. It's part of a natural process, and it causes no suffering, in and of itself. Suffering comes because people choose to live where earthquakes happen, in spite of the knowledge that they run a risk. If you don't want to die in an earthquake, avoid places where they are known to occur. Make that decision, it's yours.

Now, I recognize that, while that takes care of some evil and suffering, it doesn't do all, but I acknowledge that we don't understand everything. I, for example, have Asperger's Syndrome. Didn't ask for it, haven't been super happy with the impact that it's had on my life, but it is what it is, and I don't blame God for it, because I don't believe that he gave it to me, and I believe that having it is a part of who I am, and that I would be different, and not necessarily better, if he'd have taken it away. Does that apply to all instances in the same way? Do I equate mild autism with severe autism? No, but, again, I don't claim to understand everything.

My simplified view of this reality is that God laid out the physical laws that would define it, set things off in the Big Bang, and then, largely, sits back to see what happens. He can involve himself, but generally does not, as it would impact the outcome is. Maybe he's done this over and over, creating Universe after Universe, slightly changing this rule or that, in order to see what works best, and screwing around too much would taint the results. As I wrote elsewhere, to expect a reality where we can't hurt each other, where there is no disease or death, where all is right and good, is to expect Heaven, not Earth.

But the reason that I think that might be the way it works is because it makes sense to me. If I was God, that would be my approach. So it's merely a guess, predicated on my own interests and expectations. I don't know God well enough, or reality well enough, to say whether I'm closer to the truth than a random guess.

But your theorem presumes that you do, in fact, know everything about God, everything about good and evil, and everything about this reality. It's as if something is stolen, and because you happen to be nearby, you are arrested, brought into court, and the judge looks at you and says "in the absence of evidence, I find you guilty. See ya."

Your theorem fails to prove that there is no God, because it allows for an evil God. And it fails to prove an evil God, because by opening the door to the existence of the supernatural, a rational person is forced to admit that they lack sufficient knowledge to make any judgement at all.

This is, in no way, critical of your non-belief, rather it is a refutation of your "proof", which is a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by adjensen
Do our decisions cause earthquakes? No, obviously not.

It's a relief to hear you say it, but Christian orthodoxy says different. Doctrinally, all worldly suffering and misery began with the Fall and is the result of humanity's original sin. This is the standard theological 'solution' to the problem of evil; it appears to shift the blame for evil onto Adam and Eve, though in fact it fails to do so; the responsibility remains with God, if He exists.

An earthquake isn't evil.

Not to an atheist, certainly. But as a believer, you have no legitimate recourse to this argument. All natural processes, in a world designed by God, must occur by His will. It cannot be otherwise, unless God is not the omniscient, omnipotent being He is claimed to be. An earthquake isn't evil, but one who causes or allows it to happen, knowing full well the death and pain and suffering it will cause, commits an evil act. No, an earthquake is not evil, but He who caused it and the suffering it brings must be evil--or else He does not exist.

An earthquake is part of a natural process, and it causes no suffering, in and of itself. Suffering comes because people choose to live where earthquakes happen, in spite of the knowledge that they run a risk. If you don't want to die in an earthquake, avoid places where they are known to occur. Make that decision, it's yours.

Earthquakes don't happen predictably, nor are they confined to specific locations. The same is true of all other natural disasters. People can't always choose where they live. Should no-one live by the sea for fear of tsunamis? Should no-one put to sea for fear of hurricanes? Should no-one live on the slopes of volcanoes, despite the fact that eruptions are rare and the soil on those slopes is unusually fertile? Should no-one live on the fertile flood-plains of the Nile, the Mississippi, the Ganges or the Mekong for fear of floods? Should no-one live in rainy mountain regions for fear of landslides, or in snowy valleys for fear of avalanches?

If a God forces people to choose between living under a volcano and raising enough food to feed their communities, or living on the dusty plains and starving, can that God be called good?

Besides, your definition of suffering seems only to include humans. What about the animals who die in these disasters? Do you feel nothing for them?

More broadly, do you not see that pain, misery and suffering are implicit in the way the universe is constituted? Life is suffering, misery and pain. They are inseparable. If God made the universe, God surely knew in advance that it would be so, yet he went ahead and made it anyway. How can you make excuses for behaviour like that? What excuse can you make?

Your theorem presumes that you do, in fact, know everything about God, everything about good and evil, and everything about this reality.

I merely use the same commonsense standards I apply to the world and people about me to God. I don't presume I know anything but what any normally constituted person knows about God, good and evil, or reality. I am simply extrapolating from that. I think it is far more legitimate to do so than to make excuses for and ascribe inscrutable purpose to a being whose existence is merely assumed, and assumed without a shred of evidence at that.

Your theorem fails to prove that there is no God, because it allows for an evil God. And it fails to prove an evil God, because by opening the door to the existence of the supernatural, a rational person is forced to admit that they lack sufficient knowledge to make any judgement at all.

This is, in no way, critical of your non-belief, rather it is a refutation of your "proof", which is a logical fallacy.

You wish, I'm sure. But I am not trying to disprove the existence of God; I am merely showing that the the Christian God, that all-wise, all-powerful, good-by-definition Father Almighty and Creator of the world is logical and practical impossibility. If there is a God, He must be evil.

It is you, not I, who 'open the door to the existence of the supernatural'. It is you, the believer in ghosts in machines and fathers in the sky, who 'lack sufficient knowledge to make any judgement at all.'

[edit on 19/7/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

Your theorem presumes that you do, in fact, know everything about God, everything about good and evil, and everything about this reality.

I merely use the same commonsense standards I apply to the world and people about me to God. I don't presume I know anything but what any normally constituted person knows about God, good and evil, or reality. I am simply extrapolating from that. I think it is far more legitimate to do so than to make excuses for and ascribe inscrutable purpose to a being whose existence is merely assumed, and assumed without a shred of evidence at that.

Again, you operate from the perspective that you know all that is needed to know to make your assumption, or that you can extend out, from your human "commonsense" to determine facts that plug the holes of your lack of knowledge. I disagree. I know precious little about astronomy, and I highly doubt that I could take my limited understanding of it, apply my commonsense, and come out with a reasonable understanding of the nature of the Universe.

Your theorem fails to prove that there is no God, because it allows for an evil God. And it fails to prove an evil God, because by opening the door to the existence of the supernatural, a rational person is forced to admit that they lack sufficient knowledge to make any judgement at all.

This is, in no way, critical of your non-belief, rather it is a refutation of your "proof", which is a logical fallacy.

You wish, I'm sure. But I am not trying to disprove the existence of God; I am merely showing that the the Christian God, that all-wise, all-powerful, good-by-definition Father Almighty and Creator of the world is logical and practical impossibility. If there is a God, He must be evil.

Which is a conclusion that you only come to by interjecting conjecture and guesswork, because you don't have a full and complete understanding of good and evil, the nature and plans of God, or the whole of our reality. Since your stated argument assumes God exists, you must take all of him, his understanding and his perspective into account, in order to make a judgement. Anything less is arbitrary and purely subjective, from your point of view, and yours only. Similar to a baby in the womb, attempting to rightly discern the meaning of the lights and sounds that filter into his reality, only to realize, on emergence, that he had no clue.

reply to post by adjensen

you don't have a full and complete understanding of good and evil

Subjective agreed upon set of behaviors that varies between civilizations, cultures, religious creeds and doctrines as well as personal convictions.

the nature and plans of God

If we go by the biblical mythology doctrine, God himself lays out his plan and the final result he will personally bring about.

or the whole of our reality

The assumption that some mythological deity written by man a few thousand years ago to explain the origins of reality and man himself is accurate to reality is assuming to know the whole of reality as one is deeming reality as being created by some invisible deity.

The desire to understand, experiment and observe reality in which to know reality requires no assumptions about reality and only allows one to believe in that which is discovered true to reality.

Since your stated argument assumes God exists, you must take all of him, his understanding and his perspective into account, in order to make a judgement.

Given that the monotheistic God give's a decent account of his nature, intentions and emotional stability in the biblical mythology, which is generally attributed as being his direct divine word, we can safely establish that those traits of God, spoken by God, are taken well into full account in the description of God.

Similar to a baby in the womb, attempting to rightly discern the meaning of the lights and sounds that filter into his reality, only to realize, on emergence, that he had no clue.

One could immediately and rightfully attribute this statement as a trait of religious people. You have a failure to take into account that man is still within it's infancy as an intelligent species and lacks proper technological advancements to fully explore reality itself and as a result poorly understands reality even in this modern day and age. This would give proper logical conclusion that less technologically advanced description of reality as less accurate to reality, in so much to the point that any mythological descriptions of the origins of reality and mankind are woefully inaccurate and bear no resemblance to reality itself. This would hold true even for current descriptions of reality five hundred years from now as we develop more advanced techniques and methods of discovery.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
You operate from the perspective that you know all that is needed to know to make your assumption, or that you can extend out, from your human "commonsense" to determine facts that plug the holes of your lack of knowledge.

Has it already come to this? Unable to refute my arguments, you cast doubts on their legitimacy? A desperate stratagem, I'm afraid, and hopeless withal.

Thinkers and planners use assumptions where knowledge is lacking. These assumptions are not plucked out of the air but based on what is known.

If you regard my assumptions as illegitimate or flawed, show why. Simply to say 'it's an assumption, therefore it is wrong' is nonsense.

And what's wrong with using my human gifts of observation, inference and ratiocination (that which you miscall 'common sense') to arrive at a conclusion? That is what humans do. It's called 'thinking'.

You say I come to my conclusions by 'interjecting conjecture and guesswork'. Read back over my previous posts in the thread and see if you can find even one example of conjecture or guesswork. I don't deal in that coin, at least not on ATS.

You say I 'don't have a full and complete understanding of good and evil'. Why not? Are good and evil beyond human understanding? Good and evil are human conceptions. Even your precious Bible says I have such an understanding, because my ancestors Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Besides, if humans don't have a full and complete understanding of good and evil, how can God be justified for rewarding good deeds and punishing evil ones? What Christian doublethink makes that morally acceptable to you?

You say I don't have a full and complete understanding of the nature and plans of God, or the whole of our reality. Here, at least, you are correct. Not being God, I freely admit to being neither omnipotent nor omniscient. But I am not stupid, either; I don't believe that fairytales and bogey stories are a substitute for knowledge.

Since your stated argument assumes God exists...

I fear I must pry this last straw, too, from your grasp. My argument only assumes that the Christian God exists in order to prove the absurdity of that assumption by exploring its consequences.

... you must take all of him, his understanding and his perspective into account, in order to make a judgement.

Fiddlesticks. Are you saying that everyone must have complete knowledge of a subject before they draw inferences on it? Absurd. If that were the case, there could never be any discussion about anything. All human conversation would be reduced to lectures and dull statements of fact.

I suggest you admit defeat now, and withdraw. The Problem of Evil has never been solved by any theologian and never will be. It exposes the logical impossibility of Christian belief and it will not be gainsaid. Where St. Augustine and the other great schoolmen of old failed, do you honestly imagine you have a hope of succeeding?

*

Atheist Entertainment

For the grown-ups on this thread, here's an example of the kind of meaningless doubletalk theologians fall into when they try to explain away the Problem of Evil. Hilarious, no?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by adjensen

 

Originally posted by adjensen
You operate from the perspective that you know all that is needed to know to make your assumption, or that you can extend out, from your human "commonsense" to determine facts that plug the holes of your lack of knowledge.

Has it already come to this? Unable to refute my arguments, you cast doubts on their legitimacy? A desperate stratagem, I'm afraid, and hopeless withal.

Thinkers and planners use assumptions where knowledge is lacking. These assumptions are not plucked out of the air but based on what is known.

If you regard my assumptions as illegitimate or flawed, show why. Simply to say 'it's an assumption, therefore it is wrong' is nonsense.

And what's wrong with using my human gifts of observation, inference and ratiocination (that which you miscall 'common sense') to arrive at a conclusion? That is what humans do. It's called 'thinking'.

Again, if I apply my limited knowledge of astronomy, think about it, fill in the holes in my knowledge with what seems right to me, I should come up with a pretty accurate picture of the nature of the Universe, right?

Since you have no firsthand knowledge of God, you take what other people have told you, put the spin on it that you prefer, and come to a conclusion that no rational logician would put stock in, since you combine limited observation about the state of reality, a black and white view of good and evil, and a bafflingly limited view of God, and yet are able to come to a concrete conclusion.

Believing that you are correct does not make you correct, and all you have is a belief, because your "proof" is deficient, both in fact and in logic.

... you must take all of him, his understanding and his perspective into account, in order to make a judgement.

Fiddlesticks. Are you saying that everyone must have complete knowledge of a subject before they draw inferences on it? Absurd. If that were the case, there could never be any discussion about anything. All human conversation would be reduced to lectures and dull statements of fact.

I suggest you admit defeat now, and withdraw. The Problem of Evil has never been solved by any theologian and never will be. It exposes the logical impossibility of Christian belief and it will not be gainsaid. Where St. Augustine and the other great schoolmen of old failed, do you honestly imagine you have a hope of succeeding?

I wasn't aware that St. Augustine had debated the subject with you. I am not claiming to understand the problem, and I admit that I likely can't understand the problem. I am saying that you don't, either, and thus, your conclusion is invalid. To claim that you "know enough" of a subject as abstract and unknown as God, reality and good and evil because you know "something" of it, and can just make up the rest is a claim made in arrogance, not confidence.

For the grown-ups on this thread, here's an example of the kind of meaningless doubletalk theologians fall into when they try to explain away the Problem of Evil. Hilarious, no?

Rather than positing that this is hilarious, why don't you honour us with your picking apart what Kreft has written? I won't debate the subject with you, but you can feel free to ridicule and belittle him for his struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by adjensen
If I apply my limited knowledge of astronomy, think about it, fill in the holes in my knowledge with what seems right to me, I should come up with a pretty accurate picture of the nature of the Universe, right?

Right.

That is, in fact, precisely what astronomers and cosmologists do.

The only difference is that they know more about the subject than you do. On the subject of God, no such difference obtains. God is a subject on which everyone is equally ignorant, or equally expert if you will.

Since you have no firsthand knowledge of God, you take what other people have told you, put the spin on it that you prefer, and come to a conclusion that no rational logician would put stock in, since you combine limited observation about the state of reality, a black and white view of good and evil, and a bafflingly limited view of God, and yet are able to come to a concrete conclusion.

No-one has any firsthand knowledge of God.

Some fools disbelieve this, and believe what others tell them about God. I do not. Again, look through my earlier posts. Do I make any statement about God that is not based on my own observations of reality?

My conclusions are wholly empirical. There is no 'spin' whatsoever.

If you say my conclusions are illogical, show where the logic is flawed.

If you say my observations are limited, show how they are.

You speak of my 'bafflingly limited view of God'. Does 'immortal, omnipotent and omniscient' sound bafflingly limited to you? I place absolutely no limits on the concept of God; it is the concepts of morality, good and evil that I regard as having intrinsic limits. Any sane, intelligent person must agree to that; limitation and exclusion are fundamental to these concepts. Morality without limits is amorality. Good and evil are terms used to define the acceptable limits of behaviour. I merely refuse to make exceptions for God. Why should I?

I wasn't aware that St. Augustine had debated the subject with you.

And I am not responsible for the deficiencies of your education. Read the Confessions, particularly Book II, where Augustine discusses the Problem of Evil and proposes his own theodicy.

I am not claiming to understand the problem, and I admit that I likely can't understand the problem.

Indeed. Yet you still believe you are qualified to say

you don't, either, and thus, your conclusion is invalid.

Yes, yes, of course they are. There now.

[edit on 21/7/10 by Astyanax]

..............................

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Why does God allow the existance of people who go to hell




[edit on 21-7-2010 by soleprobe]