God is GOOD and I will defend Him. A Challenge for Atheists

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

What's your solution to it?

On page one, Tephra brought up the exact same thing you did.
I made a reply to her post, ending with, ". . .time to kill the gods. . .".

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Tephra

 

It is an awful thing to kill a god, even if it is evident that he is evil.
All mythology is wars between the gods.
Earlier Canaan had those who said god lived on a mountain in Sinai and those who said god lived on a mountain in Lebanon.
Later Canaan had Zion and Gerizim as the rival mountains.
Jesus said, "Forget it" in so many words.
Time to kill the gods, I say.

How is that an answer? No one is "killing" a God. I personally, just believe other men's descriptions of God to be false, and abhorrent. And most of us don't believe in such supertition as the "great flood" - Destroying an entire species (for the greater good?) That's a deity worth killing anyway.

The only answer i've heard to the problem of evil is things like

"God works in mysterious ways"

or

"...it's a test".

Now i ask you, prove that God is benevolent without referencing writing that was written many hundreds of years ago.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

. . .just believe other men's descriptions of God to be false, and abhorrent.

So, there you go. That's what I am talking about. Do you see what you just did?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Not at all.

Again, i ask; what is your defence of the Problem of Evil? If you could explain in detail and leave the poetry and the metaphors out, i might understand what you just did.

Are you a new-age Christian that only believes in the account of Jesus Christ as explained in scripture? You leave out the celestial dictatorship? The deity master.

As a Christian, I often hear the Atheist accuse God of not being Good.

I don't know any atheists who say god is not good. I know plenty of atheists who say religion is not good or the god portrayed in the bible is a genocidal, homicidal, xenophobic, jealous, immoral, tyrannical character.

Then again so is Darth Vader, but people who create policy and have control over nuclear weapons are not praying for guidance from Darth Vader or looking to Return of the Jedi for divine inspiration.

reply to post by megabytz


Andromeda Gallaxy in on a collision course with the Milky Way; it will cause death and destruction.

If a creator is loving, and omnipotent; he would stop such a collision? Right? Or perhaps he wouldn't have designed such a collision in the first place; it seems he has.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Unless he was a psychopath and had no care for his own creation. If that was the case he wouldn't be worthy of worship to begin with.

There are plenty of things a moral and loving god could put a stop to on a terrestrial level. I always find it funny when people thank god for preventing a tragedy, such as a child being cured of cancer. You would think god could of prevented the cancer in the first place.

Of course their usual response is that he is testing us. So god is playing games with peoples lives and emotions. Why would he be worthy of worship?

Now i ask you, prove that God is benevolent without referencing writing that was written many hundreds of years ago.

Assuming that I do not need to prove the existence of God, as we have assumed He exists for the sake of this thread, I can give you the following perspective, apart from ancient documents:

I'll need you to reflect on a few rhetorical questions. Do you make the cones and rods in your eyes activate to see? Do you cause the chemical and biological process in your gut work to digest food? Do you make your hair grow? Do you choose the speed at which it grows? Do you make the heavenly bodies transit the galaxy in synchronized movement? Do you do the calculations necessary to produce athletic movement on the basketball court? Do you cool and heat the body by your circularity system?

The answer to these and many more are no. You have little to do with any of these functions of a well designed bio-mechanical suit. The 'YOU' I refer to is not the body that you use to sense the world. You do not make the world work so that you can sense it. As a matter of fact, you have nothing to do with anything that your intellect (Nous) participates in.

The question then becomes obvious. Who does this for me?

You can blame it on chance accident, but you will be wrong. In quantum physics, the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability. Light is both a particle and wave. The observer that is housed in your body creates the world around you, not the other way around. The world can have no part of creating function and design as it is only raw energy and elements. This should be obvious to anyone who has observed matter apart from conscious choice and intelligence. We work to keep the man-made part of our world working. This is not so with the part of the world we have not designed and built. The part that is not us is in a perfect cycle of birth, development and death. Nothing we make can do that unless we design it to do so. This is proof that God is good.

Apart from God, we do none of this. Our free will can only make choices that are then answered by nature by the laws of physics. All of the universe is comprised of action and reaction. God's perfect laws answer anything we throw at them. We cannot choose to break the laws of nature without reaping what we sow. Our only act of free will is how hard or easy our path will be through this life by our choices. God loves us enough to ensure that He follows the same rules. They are fixed and our sense of right and wrong have little to do with what God knows is best for us. This is His ultimate love to us that He provides this amazing automated world for us to experience through the senses of our automated body.


reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

reply to post by SuperiorEd

If I am wrong, then God is still obligated to deal with Satan in love, not hate.

So god is obligated to deal with satan in love but not his own creations?

There is a question you must ask to take this stance against God. Where will He stop in doing things for us instead of allowing them to happen by His law and free will? The answer is all or nothing. God cannot act for us or we are remote controlled vehicles. Automatons for his delight. No. Faith demands that we do not know fact without finding it ourselves. Autonomy demands that we are on our own. Survival demands that God does not interfere unless completely necessary.

Next Question for you to ask. Why doesn't He just tell us truth?

Have you ever shined a light straight in your eyes? Have you ever looked straight into the sun? Light is knowledge, wisdom and understanding. You do not know by hearing or seeing.

Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand." This is God's wisdom, not ours. He knows, we don't. You would be blinded by the light if He revealed it before you are ready. You must experience pain and loss to understand pain and loss. You must 'DO'. That is God at work for us in love and patience. Loving-kindness to us. Love requires pain at times to recognize value and worth.

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Unless he was a psychopath and had no care for his own creation. If that was the case he wouldn't be worthy of worship to begin with.

There are plenty of things a moral and loving god could put a stop to on a terrestrial level. I always find it funny when people thank god for preventing a tragedy, such as a child being cured of cancer. You would think god could of prevented the cancer in the first place.

Of course their usual response is that he is testing us. So god is playing games with people lives and emotions. Why would he be worthy of worship?

reply to post by SuperiorEd

I'll need you to reflect on a few rhetorical questions. Do you make the cones and rods in your eyes activate to see? Do you cause the chemical and biological process in your gut work to digest food? Do you make your hair grow? Do you choose the speed at which it grows? Do you make the heavenly bodies transit the galaxy in synchronized movement? Do you do the calculations necessary to produce athletic movement on the basketball court? Do you cool and heat the body by your circularity system?

You are correct. We have no part in these things, natural laws do. We have a good understanding of all of these things and none of it requires a deity. No more prime mover arguments please.

Essentially you are using an argument from incredulity. You personally cannot understand how these things happen so it must be an invisible supreme being controlling it all.

Maybe you should attempt the ontological argument next.

Your chart of God killing and Satan killing is not accurate. People make choices, as do God and Satan. Choices are the responsibility of those making them. Choices. Buddha knew the truth of love. Replace 'he' in the passage below with God. God or any other man. You get your answer. Blame yourself for your life. God provided everything you need. Ask, and He will provide answers to you doubt. It starts with trust and faith.

Dhammapada (Buddha)

1. Choices

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

If I am wrong, then God is still obligated to deal with Satan in love, not hate.

So god is obligated to deal with satan in love but not his own creations?

Incredulity would be this: If I say to you, "You are wrong because God is amazing." This is incredulity. I have, however, provided sound reasoning, science and a litany of evidence for the nature and character of God. Anything I say can be verified by living life well or living life apart from the love of God. The fruit you bear will tell the story.

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I'll need you to reflect on a few rhetorical questions. Do you make the cones and rods in your eyes activate to see? Do you cause the chemical and biological process in your gut work to digest food? Do you make your hair grow? Do you choose the speed at which it grows? Do you make the heavenly bodies transit the galaxy in synchronized movement? Do you do the calculations necessary to produce athletic movement on the basketball court? Do you cool and heat the body by your circularity system?

You are correct. We have no part in these things, natural laws do. We have a good understanding of all of these things and none of it requires a deity. No more prime mover arguments please.

Essentially you are using an argument from incredulity. You personally cannot understand how these things happen so it must be an invisible supreme being controlling it all.

Maybe you should attempt the ontological argument next.

We have no understanding of natural laws. At the end of the day, our science ends at the front door of where these laws originate. Intelligence is your answer. Information is the root of all energy in form and function.

Augustine said it best:

Augustine, from City of God

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I'll need you to reflect on a few rhetorical questions. Do you make the cones and rods in your eyes activate to see? Do you cause the chemical and biological process in your gut work to digest food? Do you make your hair grow? Do you choose the speed at which it grows? Do you make the heavenly bodies transit the galaxy in synchronized movement? Do you do the calculations necessary to produce athletic movement on the basketball court? Do you cool and heat the body by your circularity system?

You are correct. We have no part in these things, natural laws do. We have a good understanding of all of these things and none of it requires a deity. No more prime mover arguments please.

Essentially you are using an argument from incredulity. You personally cannot understand how these things happen so it must be an invisible supreme being controlling it all.

Maybe you should attempt the ontological argument next.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

. . .explain in detail and leave the poetry and the metaphors out,. . .

Really? Can you do that, explain god concretely?
Suppose you drop the stipulation on the argument that there is one god, but multiple gods of varying degrees of status, a hierarchy of gods. You would have one person saying, my god is good because I am well off and his demands are reasonable, but your god is evil because he fights against my people and would allow you to kill us and loot our possessions and carry off our wives. Besides, your rituals and worship, I find detestable and not what my god would find acceptable. If you could kill a god, you would kill the one of someone else who is your enemy and keep the one good for you. My answer is, kill them all. They are all bad, for someone, does not matter if they are good for some. So, why defend a god? I will not. Look at the world under those gods. They need to all be impeached. Charges brought before them, tried, and executed.

Can you explain physics concretely?

In the beginning (TIME), God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER). Let there be light (ENERGY). Einstein figured it out for mankind recently. Humans read it in the Bible thousands of years ago. Only the God of the Bible can get it all right. This is your sign that He is who He says He is. Who else are we quoting here? Any gods you can name that can compare? Any books attributed to a god you can name that contain any trace of this evidence? Any Gods who dare to draw the future into the past for us to see as it happens? Name one!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

. . .explain in detail and leave the poetry and the metaphors out,. . .

Really? Can you do that, explain god concretely?
Suppose you drop the stipulation on the argument that there is one god, but multiple gods of varying degrees of status, a hierarchy of gods. You would have one person saying, my god is good because I am well off and his demands are reasonable, but your god is evil because he fights against my people and would allow you to kill us and loot our possessions and carry off our wives. Besides, your rituals and worship, I find detestable and not what my god would find acceptable. If you could kill a god, you would kill the one of someone else who is your enemy and keep the one good for you. My answer is, kill them all. They are all bad, for someone, does not matter if they are good for some. So, why defend a god? I will not. Look at the world under those gods. They need to all be impeached. Charges brought before them, tried, and executed.

We will be in a new heaven and a new earth by that point. All things are bound by birth, development and transition. The point is to make the transition by the requirements set by God.

An article I wrote has a good answer. LINK

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by megabytz

 

Andromeda Gallaxy in on a collision course with the Milky Way; it will cause death and destruction.

If a creator is loving, and omnipotent; he would stop such a collision? Right? Or perhaps he wouldn't have designed such a collision in the first place; it seems he has.

edit on 3-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd
You know there are rules of civility on this forum so I can not say all that I feel towards you but the word, "Madd" comes to mind. I would say you follow the god of my enemy.
You are exactly what I am aiming at with my little metaphors.
There you go with the exact sort of language, my god is better than your god.
So one country goes up in a radioactive cloud. Oh, well, wrong god. Tisk tisk.
I side with Job when he says, you may be the god of this world, and you may be able to make me suffer or kill me but you yourself will face a higher judge and I will be vindicated.
You, serve the god of this world.

reply to post by SuperiorEd



I suppose you also believe in santa, the easter bunny ,and global warming

Not unless they have a book that covers every topic on the planet with accuracy and truth.

Originally posted by roswell5151
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I suppose you also believe in santa, the easter bunny ,and global warming