Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

Davian · Feb 5, 2016

Joshua260 said:
But Craig's "playbook" is to deal with the actual arguments,

Your accusations of Matt's straw-manning remain unsubstantiated.

while Dawkins publicly advocates to his devotees that they actually refrain from interacting with the arguments, and rather mock and ridicule Christians. These are his own words!!

“Don't interact with their arguments...instead just mock them and ridicule them.” -Richard Dawkins

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3zFulTr3n

I'm curious as to what you think about Dawkins's comment above.

I'm no fan of Dawkins, and have only read three of his books (TGD, Blind Watchmaker, TGSoE). Having never been a believer, I got little from the first one.

I can only try to see it from his perspective, and imagine that, as a high profile target, he is inundated by every wannabe-Craigian or -Lennoxer with arguments that they think are as fresh as newly picked daisies, and but have no idea that they are just adding to a pile of rotting vegetation. An apologetic compost heap, as it were.

He is an accredited scientist, and you are levelling criticism at him for not respecting these anti-scientific claims of "floods" and "falls", literal Adams and Eves, cosmological speculation as fact, belief as a conscious choice, false dichotomies, and tautologies, as if he has not already had a chance to dismantle each one offline, or in debates.

I recall John Lennox at the wrap-up of the God Delusion debate with Dawkins; in response to Dawkins' comment on morality: "He's saying there is a bottom, no justice. The human heart cries for justice", as if human desires are evidence for the existence of something. Ironically - as portrayed in this thread - the Christian God is not about "justice", in the common vernacular, but more "might makes right".

I felt embarrassed for Lennox, and I can sense Dawkins' frustration.

As I am relatively new at this, I don't see the pile as nearly so high. I still find it interesting that so many of my posts are not addressed. That can paint a picture as much as your actual responses can.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 6, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
But thinking something is wrong is not 'just a preference'. The subjective view is based on human feelings and desires, the things most precious to us. Devaluing the subjective view devalues those precious things.

The Messianic Manic covers this in relation to a discussion between Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig:

quatona · Feb 6, 2016

Archaeopteryx said:
The Messianic Manic covers this in relation to a discussion between Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig:

This got me intrigued, and I watched the entire debate.
Gotta say that Craig appeared to be unusually open, considerate and responsive in this discussion. Sometimes I even got the impression that he was actually interacting and communicating with Kagan. Often he acted like a real human (whereas in most debates I´ve seen he looked more like a robot, remote controlled by his script). At the point where he talked personally about how depressing he finds a world without God, he was almost likeable.

Anyway.
One thing I didn´t understand about his argument that morality/values/meaning aren´t objective unless they are significant from an eternal/cosmic perspective (and I didn´t hear Kagan tackling it):
Exactly how does e.g. an immoral act have or get eternal/cosmic significance when it doesn´t even have signifance in the here and now?
I don´t seem to understand the idea that God created a finite universe (something that according to Craig´s reasoning is in itself depressingly meaningless and insignificant), but OTOH is said to lend eternal significance to that which happens within it.

Xalith · Feb 6, 2016

quatona said:
This got me intrigued, and I watched the entire debate.
Gotta say that Craig appeared to be unusually open, considerate and responsive in this discussion. Sometimes I even got the impression that he was actually interacting and communicating with Kagan. Often he acted like a real human (whereas in most debates I´ve seen he looked more like a robot, remote controlled by his script). At the point where he talked personally about how depressing he finds a world without God, he was almost likeable.

Anyway.
One thing I didn´t understand about his argument that morality/values/meaning aren´t objective unless they are significant from an eternal/cosmic perspective (and I didn´t hear Kagan tackling it):
Exactly how does e.g. an immoral act have or get eternal/cosmic significance when it doesn´t even have signifance in the here and now?
I don´t seem to understand the idea that God created a finite universe (something that according to Craig´s reasoning is in itself depressingly meaningless and insignificant), but OTOH is said to lend eternal significance to that which happens within it.

It's about spiritual growth of a person and the persons that they interact with.

Think of the Earth... no, the physical universe as a sort of... I don't know, flower pot which you intend to grow some sort of fruit plant in. You get this pot, you fill it with fertile soil, and then you put a seed in it. The pot and the soil is insignificant, and so is the plant itself, the only thing you care about is the fruit this plant will produce.

What happens if the plant takes in poisonous food? What if the very soil you put in the flowerpot was poisonous or was lacking in fertility? You're going to get a withered plant with no fruit, making the whole thing worthless.

God made the Heavens and the Earth, and sent souls down to it so that they could be born, grow, and eventually die. The experience and the learning is what matters -- the soul returns to Him with the experiences it collected on the Earth, and also with a list of deeds that soul did while on Earth. The end objective is to glorify Him, but yet so many souls do quite the opposite -- they grieve Him, they hinder the spiritual growth of other nearby souls, sometimes they even kill nearby souls altogether. These actions have eternal consequences. What if you killed someone who was meant to be great in Heaven, but never got the chance to have the learning experiences, or the chance to do the deeds that God had originally intended for that soul? You can't know what He intends for anybody, including fetuses. This is why many Christians hate Abortion -- we can't ever possibly know what God's plan for an unborn fetus is. For all we know, that unborn fetus could have been the next Mother Theresa or Ghandi, but they never had the chance because some mother didn't want to have the child and killed it while it was still in her womb.

That has eternal consequences.

quatona · Feb 6, 2016

Xalith said:
It's about spiritual growth of a person and the persons that they interact with.

So it has no intrinsic meaning - as is Craig´s concern - (i.e. if murdering another person wouldn´t interfere with spiritual growth, it wouldn´t be wrong), but extrinsic value/meaning?

Think of the Earth... no, the physical universe as a sort of... I don't know, flower pot which you intend to grow some sort of fruit plant in. You get this pot, you fill it with fertile soil, and then you put a seed in it. The pot and the soil is insignificant, and so is the plant itself, the only thing you care about is the fruit this plant will produce.

Exactly my point: What happens here on earth (in your analogy: the pot) is insignificant (not due to lack of a cosmic eternal perspective, but - au contraire - by virtue of it). It does in no way change the fact (as Craig postulates) that the significance we ascribe to it is an illusion. God wants us to act as though it were significant but himself doesn´t consider it significant at all.
Being actually and truly concerned with the well-being of my fellow humans, I find this outlook (including the prospect of spending an eternity with an entity who finds the suffering of his creatures insignificant) way more depressing than the mere prospect that the significance of minimizing it is timely limited.

That has eternal consequences.

I understand what you are saying. It doesn´t solve the problem, though. Rather, it confirms that which Craig would like to find a way around: The lack of "intrinsic value/meaning" to our actions here on earth.

Xalith · Feb 6, 2016

quatona said:
So it has no intrinsic meaning - as is Craig´s concern - (i.e. if murdering another person wouldn´t interfere with spiritual growth, it wouldn´t be wrong), but extrinsic value/meaning?

Not sure what exactly you are getting at here, your actions have both intrinsic and extrinsic meaning. You mention murder... okay... murdering someone interferes with their spiritual growth (obviously), but also causes lots of pain and suffering in everybody who knew the person you killed.

Sin is destructive. There's a reason why God lists sins and tells us not to do them. Setting Levitical Law aside (many people debate whether or not such laws apply to Christians today), let's go straight to what Christ and Paul says in the NT as for what ought not to be done, here are some examples:

Lying (causes various damage depending on what you lied about)
Murder (obviously)
Stealing (obvious)
Fornication (bringing up a child without a stable family to properly teach the child can have serious consequences down the road)
Adultery (causes lots of emotional distress and pain, and breaks up families, can also damage kids' lives)
Idolatry (valuing anything -- not necessarily idols -- more important than God -- this has obvious spiritual consequences)

All these sins have intrinsic meaning (you do damage to peoples' lives and your own life here on Earth) and extrinsic meaning (eternal spiritual consequences).

Exactly my point: What happens here on earth (in your analogy: the pot) is insignificant (not due to lack of a cosmic eternal perspective, but - au contraire - by virtue of it). It does in no way change the fact (as Craig postulates) that the significance we ascribe to it is an illusion. God wants us to act as though it were significant but himself doesn´t consider it significant at all.

I would actually propose the opposite -- God very much does care what we do on Earth. He considers it very significant. If He didn't, then He wouldn't have gone through such great lengths to provide a plan of salvation for all of the sins that everybody commits. If these sins (or sinful actions) weren't significant, then why would He care so much about getting us to repent and turn away from them?

Being actually and truly concerned with the well-being of my fellow humans, I find this outlook (including the prospect of spending an eternity with an entity who finds the suffering of his creatures insignificant) way more depressing than the mere prospect that the significance of minimizing it is timely limited.

Who said He finds the suffering of His creatures insignificant? He's our Loving Father, He loves each and every one of us, but yet He refuses to break the one rule He instated from the very beginning: Man shall have his Free Will to do as he pleases. God won't even break this rule, even if it means a soul's eternal separation from Him.

God so loved each and every one of us that He manifested as a man, walked amongst us, and allowed Himself to die in THE most painful and humiliating way there is to die. He was wrongfully convicted and executed, but yet He broke absolutely no laws.

Those actions do not speak of Someone Who "doesn't care" about His creatures. There's a passage in the Bible somewhere, that there is not a single sparrow that falls to the ground that He doesn't shed a tear over, and Jesus asks us... if He feels that way about the birds of the air, how much more do you think He feels about the creatures He made in His own image?

He cares about our pains and our sufferings... many of them are caused by our own sins, even though we don't realize it most of the time. That's why He tells us to turn away from these things. They have consequences both down here, and up there.

I understand what you are saying. It doesn´t solve the problem, though. Rather, it confirms that which Craig would like to find a way around: The lack of "intrinsic value/meaning" to our actions here on earth.

There is intrinsic value/meaning to our actions. It's a ripple-effect. Ever seen a Japanese Stone Garden?

Our actions are like the stones in one such garden. Our actions affect ourselves and everybody around us. God has given us a list of things that will always lead to pain, suffering, and eventually death and has asked us not to do these things. Many people want to do them anyways, because in the short-term they are enjoyable, but the long-term, they cause distress and destruction.

How many STDs got passed around because of Fornication?

How many billions of dollars do we spend on Healthcare for smokers who knowingly do damage to their own bodies, which pushes up the price of Healthcare for everybody else?

How many thousands of people die per year to drunk driving accidents?

How many marriages end up in divorce because the marriage was founded upon lust rather than love, and how many kids end up in foster homes, or single-parent homes and go on to be damaged psychologically, who end up making more damaged kids in the future?

How many pimps are there out there selling sex, because people are willing to buy it (if nobody bought it, nobody could sell it)? How many sex slaves are there in the USA alone? Don't think it doesn't happen; it very much does.

How many people gamble away their hard-earned money because of greed and end up in poverty? We have Gambling Addiction hotlines, but yet the lotteries and casinos are set up in such a way to get you hooked thinking that any play might be the big winner...

The list of societal pains goes on and on and on and on and they are always founded in sin.

I'd call that "Intrinsic Significance" to our (society in general) sinful actions.

Moral Orel · Feb 6, 2016

Xalith said:
All these sins have intrinsic meaning (you do damage to peoples' lives and your own life here on Earth) and extrinsic meaning (eternal spiritual consequences).

But if there was no extrinsic meaning, then the intrinsic meaning is, well, meaningless... At least according to Craig and it seems according to your flowerpot analogy, since you said that the only thing that matters is the fruit, and not the soil, etc. So, the intrinsic only has value as it applies to the extrinsic, which means that the intrinsic value is worthless.

Xalith said:
I would actually propose the opposite -- God very much does care what we do on Earth. He considers it very significant. If He didn't, then He wouldn't have gone through such great lengths to provide a plan of salvation for all of the sins that everybody commits. If these sins (or sinful actions) weren't significant, then why would He care so much about getting us to repent and turn away from them?

Plan of salvation = extrinsic value.

Xalith said:
Those actions do not speak of Someone Who "doesn't care" about His creatures. There's a passage in the Bible somewhere, that there is not a single sparrow that falls to the ground that He doesn't shed a tear over, and Jesus asks us... if He feels that way about the birds of the air, how much more do you think He feels about the creatures He made in His own image?

And yet he will annihilate millions of humans with a flood because they didn't act the way he wanted them to. And as far as any information is possible, he didn't tell them how to act either since the Bible never says he guided anyone or offered a warning to the people about what they had done.

Xalith said:
God so loved each and every one of us that He manifested as a man, walked amongst us, and allowed Himself to die in THE most painful and humiliating way there is to die.

This is up for debate. I'm not going to get all dark in these forums, or speak inappropriately about truly abhorrent behavior, but if you're being honest with yourself, you can think of things that have happened and continue to happen that are worse than being crucified.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 6, 2016

quatona said:
This got me intrigued, and I watched the entire debate.
Gotta say that Craig appeared to be unusually open, considerate and responsive in this discussion. Sometimes I even got the impression that he was actually interacting and communicating with Kagan. Often he acted like a real human (whereas in most debates I´ve seen he looked more like a robot, remote controlled by his script). At the point where he talked personally about how depressing he finds a world without God, he was almost likeable.

That is why I like conversations better than debates. Two (or more) human beings challenging each other and trying to figure it out.

quatona · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
Not sure what exactly you are getting at here, your actions have both intrinsic and extrinsic meaning. You mention murder... okay... murdering someone interferes with their spiritual growth (obviously), but also causes lots of pain and suffering in everybody who knew the person you killed.

Then objective morality doesn´t require a God. There´s an objective foundation for morality even if there is no such thing as a cosmic perspective. You have just outlined it.

Xalith · Feb 7, 2016

Nicholas Deka said:
But if there was no extrinsic meaning, then the intrinsic meaning is, well, meaningless... At least according to Craig and it seems according to your flowerpot analogy, since you said that the only thing that matters is the fruit, and not the soil, etc. So, the intrinsic only has value as it applies to the extrinsic, which means that the intrinsic value is worthless.

The pot and the soil matters, and even the plant matters up until the end. Then the fruit is harvested, you throw the plant out, maybe change the soil, and then plant a new seed to grow more fruit. In terms of the Bible, Revelation speaks of a New Heavens and a New Earth at the very end. This is to erase all of the damage that has been done by the collective sin of everybody across all time, so that He can have a clean slate to start with.

Plan of salvation = extrinsic value.

Maybe so, but there is intrinsic value in trying to keep people away from sin, at least for the interim. Since sin causes so much damage and destruction, and affects so many people collectively, it is still in His best interests to keep people from doing it as much as possible and using the occasional punishment when the sin is just too great.

And yet he will annihilate millions of humans with a flood because they didn't act the way he wanted them to. And as far as any information is possible, he didn't tell them how to act either since the Bible never says he guided anyone or offered a warning to the people about what they had done.

He had to. Consider a few verses:

Genesis 6:5
Genesis 6:3
Genesis 6:11

Basically, what this is saying, is that God did not want to strive against men for the entire period of Earth's existence, but yet the hearts of men were filled with such vile and evil, that they were beyond repair, and that the Earth was "corrupt and filled with violence" so that this implies that the sins of mankind at this point affected even the environment too.

This is the generally accepted viewpoint, and I'll go one step further:

Matthew 24:37

Consider what is going on in the world today: There's much violence, and much damage being done to the environment. The sins are getting worse every day, we're cutting down rainforests in giant swaths, we're filling the environment with pollutants, we're playing around with genetics, and these days, nothing is sacred anymore in some peoples' eyes. That's to say nothing about possibility of WWIII breaking out any day now. There's enough nuclear weapons on in stock right now, to wipe out all life on the planet. Of course, God wouldn't allow that, but you can see how Mankind is capable of destroying the whole world (or at least life on it) if sin became great enough.

It depends on how long a believer thinks that this will go on until the End arrives; if a believer thinks the Last Days are right around the corner, then this is what Christ meant by "so shall the coming of the Son of Man be". If the believer thinks we've got another 30, 50, whatever years.. then that even further justifies God's decision to flood the Earth, because that would mean that the Days of Noah were even worse than Today's world!

This is up for debate. I'm not going to get all dark in these forums, or speak inappropriately about truly abhorrent behavior, but if you're being honest with yourself, you can think of things that have happened and continue to happen that are worse than being crucified.

That tip-toes Blasphemy, so I'm not going to go into that too deeply other than to say it isn't about which act was worse, but it is more about the rules God set forth from the very beginning. He started this with Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel, and then in Levitical Law, where He said "without shed blood, there can be no remission of sin". (the word 'remission' isn't used exactly in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, but the concept was taught). Now obviously, killing animals didn't actually accomplish anything; it was more of a reminder or a foretelling of what God would later do with His Son at Golgotha. We don't have all the answers as to why this works the way it does, but God has told us that's how it is.

We either accept His provision, or we don't -- each person has their choice that they may freely make. If one refuses His provision, then there is nothing else that can save someone from the penalty of sin (which is the second death).

@quatona :

Then objective morality doesn´t require a God. There´s an objective foundation for morality even if there is no such thing as a cosmic perspective. You have just outlined it.

While it might be true that defining such "objective morality" doesn't "require" God, you still have to ask yourself something:

Where'd our conscience come from? Our conscience goes against the very nature of what evolution is described as being. If the meaning of life were truly "Survival of the Fittest" then shouldn't every human (like any other animal) be instinctually bent towards trying to improve its own life, regardless of the cost of others? But yet our conscience tells us when we are doing something that we shouldn't, unless we've spent years quieting it to the point you can no longer hear it (and some mental disorders also suppress it). Our conscience also pokes us to do things that have no immediate value to us whatsoever, and sometimes even detrimental to us, just to help others, sometimes even when there's no possible way that they could return the favor.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 7, 2016

Archaeopteryx said:
The Messianic Manic covers this in relation to a discussion between Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig:

Thanks, that was interesting

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
...What if you killed someone who was meant to be great in Heaven, but never got the chance to have the learning experiences, or the chance to do the deeds that God had originally intended for that soul? You can't know what He intends for anybody, including fetuses.

Hmm. I was told in another thread here that you can't frustrate God's intent - if it happens, freewill or no, it happens because God intends or allows it. Is this just an example of the differences in theological position between Christians, or is it an interpretation of some deeper ambiguity? Or am I misunderstanding compatible positions?

quatona · Feb 7, 2016

Archaeopteryx said:
That is why I like conversations better than debates. Two (or more) human beings challenging each other and trying to figure it out.

There is a very touching moment (which is also documented in the short video):

When Craig for a short moment lets go off his "objectivist" pseudo-logic and suddenly becomes authentic, genuine, honest, personal and totally subjective: "But I find [a world without cosmic meaning] soo depressing!"

Interestingly, Kagan (who certainly is aware that this is the moment when he could kill Craig´s complete intellectual construct with one strike) doesn´t go for the intellectual throat but - seeing a person´s suffering and vulnerability - merely says "Well, I don´t."

I suspect that the most convincing answer to the question "Why should we care for our fellow beings" is an almost tautological "Because we can, we do, and we want to. Because it makes the world a bit more like we desire it to be."
Anyone who isn´t convinced by that won´t be convinced by whatsoever post-hoc rationalization, no matter how intellectual, cosmic, transcendental... it may be or appear to be.

Xalith · Feb 7, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Hmm. I was told in another thread here that you can't frustrate God's intent - if it happens, freewill or no, it happens because God intends or allows it. Is this just an example of the differences in theological position between Christians, or is it an interpretation of some deeper ambiguity? Or am I misunderstanding compatible positions?

God has the final say-so in what happens, and if there is something that would happen that He absolutely will not allow, then yes, He will put His foot down and say, "NO." and cause it not to happen the way a person, or a group of people would have wanted it to happen. I'm sure that if you looked up major events in history, you can see that some events have some ridiculously crazy astronomical coincidences in them that are just too wild to believe, that if it were to have happened any other way, the outcome would have been much worse. I see these types of things as God sticking His fingers into the mix, saying "Uh, Nope. That is SO not going to happen...". These are usually called "Miracles" by many, and if you look up the details, you wonder just how that could have possibly happened.

However, this doesn't mean that He doesn't have intent for things. Let's say, for example, He sends someone to the world with the intent in making them a great minister, or just general good person and this person is aborted in the womb. He knew this was going to happen beforehand, however at Judgment Day, He can still say "I had great plans for this person, and you killed him while he was still in your womb" to the mother. He allowed it to happen for whatever reason He decided to allow it, but that doesn't mean that He didn't have plans when He sent that soul to the Earth.

In the end, He gives free will to Mankind, but yet there are times when He has to put His Holy foot down and say NO, when someone attempts to disrupt His plans enough. In the end, He already knows what will happen before it even happens somehow.

A Being like God cannot be fully or truly understood by mortal men, so it can be difficult to put into writing, and sometimes it may sound contradictory, but it really isn't. It just takes some effort to work one's mind around the concepts.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
... I'm sure that if you looked up major events in history, you can see that some events have some ridiculously crazy astronomical coincidences in them that are just too wild to believe, that if it were to have happened any other way, the outcome would have been much worse. I see these types of things as God sticking His fingers into the mix, saying "Uh, Nope. That is SO not going to happen...". These are usually called "Miracles" by many, and if you look up the details, you wonder just how that could have possibly happened.

Wildly improbable things are statistical certainties in the long run. It would be even more surprising if they didn't happen, but we do make a fuss when we notice them because our intuitive sense of probability and statistics is generally poor; it uses heuristics based on magical thinking rather than mathematics, e.g. the Gambler's Fallacy. See Biases and Fallacies in Reasoning about Probability. Daniel Kahneman's book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' has some entertaining empirical examples.

However, this doesn't mean that He doesn't have intent for things. Let's say, for example, He sends someone to the world with the intent in making them a great minister, or just general good person and this person is aborted in the womb. He knew this was going to happen beforehand, however at Judgment Day, He can still say "I had great plans for this person, and you killed him while he was still in your womb" to the mother. He allowed it to happen for whatever reason He decided to allow it, but that doesn't mean that He didn't have plans when He sent that soul to the Earth.

It seems to me that God, being omniscient, would inevitably know the outcome - human freewill and all - from the start, so there would be no point harbouring intentions for circumstances that He knows will not occur... it would be like intending to enter a race for which you know you are not eligible - pointless. Unless omniscience means something else in this context...

A Being like God cannot be fully or truly understood by mortal men, so it can be difficult to put into writing, and sometimes it may sound contradictory, but it really isn't. It just takes some effort to work one's mind around the concepts.

OK, lets skip the bits that can't be understood, and focus on those that can. When something sounds contradictory but really isn't, an explanation is implied. If you understand it, you should be able to explain it to me - that's a feature of understanding; I'm prepared to make some effort to work my mind around the concepts, so try me.

quatona · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
@quatona :

While it might be true that defining such "objective morality" doesn't "require" God, you still have to ask yourself something:

Well, no. Regarding the topic "Does morality require" a God this is the answer.

Of course this is not an answer to all questions, but before we move on to new shores I think we can spend at least a short moment celebrating the fact that a controversial question has been settled.

Ok, now for your new questions.

Where'd our conscience come from?

I don´t know. I must admit that in the philosophical realm I have problems with childlike wordings such as "Where did [X] come from?".
I wouldn´t even know how to go about answering the question "Where do our legs come from?". I just don´t know exactly what sort of answer you are looking for.

Our conscience goes against the very nature of what evolution is described as being.

I don´t see how it does. Evolution has to do with survival of the species, and - looking at almost 8 billion people - the human species seems to do remarkable well in this respect. There is no reason to assume that having a conscience is at odds with the survival of the species.

If the meaning of life were truly "Survival of the Fittest"

I never claimed nor think that "Survival of the fittest" (or any evolutionary criterium, for that matter) is the "meaning of life".
So please don´t expect me to defend a position I don´t hold.

then shouldn't every human (like any other animal) be instinctually bent towards trying to improve its own life, regardless of the cost of others?

I think you are misunderstanding evolution theory. It´s not about individuals. It´s about species. Plus, nowhere is it claimed that evolution actually grants the survival of a species. Species have gone extinct, after all.

But yet our conscience tells us when we are doing something that we shouldn't, unless we've spent years quieting it to the point you can no longer hear it (and some mental disorders also suppress it).

Yes, among others, this is a unique trait of humans. Each species has unique traits.

Our conscience also pokes us to do things that have no immediate value to us whatsoever, and sometimes even detrimental to us, just to help others, sometimes even when there's no possible way that they could return the favor.

Yes, I agree.
Apparently, giving joy is a joy to us. Apparently, we are experiencing cooperation and mutual support as beneficial.
But I sense (correct me if I am wrong) that you aren´t reporting this a mere observation, but want to make some point that seems to escape me here.

Xalith · Feb 7, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It seems to me that God, being omniscient, would inevitably know the outcome - human freewill and all - from the start, so there would be no point harbouring intentions for circumstances that He knows will not occur... it would be like intending to enter a race for which you know you are not eligible - pointless. Unless omniscience means something else in this context...

Well as I said in my post, He does indeed know what will happen from the beginning. But like I said, this doesn't mean that He doesn't have his "What If", in fact, I would venture a guess as to say that He knows the near-infinite "what ifs". What if the murderer hadn't killed people? What would the people he have killed went on to do? God knows the alternate outcomes. That's why He allows some things, but not others.

A murder looks bad... and we ask "God, why did you allow this!?" ... what if the person the murderer killed would have went on to do something even worse? We can't know that -- but God can.

Why does God allow suffering? Why did God allow Katrina to kill all of those people in New Orleans? Who knows, other than Him?

OK, lets skip the bits that can't be understood, and focus on those that can. When something sounds contradictory but really isn't, an explanation is implied. If you understand it, you should be able to explain it to me - that's a feature of understanding; I'm prepared to make some effort to work my mind around the concepts, so try me.

The understanding is difficult for a mortal man to put into words of a mortal language. God is a spiritual Being, and it takes spiritual understanding to even grasp some of the basic concepts in such a way to actually understand them. The Bible teaches that when a Christian is saved, they receive an indwelling of His Spirit which imparts truth and understanding, right? I would try to explain things and I do try... but my words fail, even though I can picture this stuff in my mind, I just... don't know what words to use to explain it.

I'm becoming convinced more and more that it is... something that one can only start to understand when they receive His Spirit, and to do that, one has to begin by having faith in Jesus and accepting Him, which for some people... well, some people just won't believe in what He did, or that He existed, or that He is the Son of God.

Because they have issues grasping the faith, they start posing philosophical questions, attempting to use the understanding of Man to define God, and it just doesn't work that way. A man who attempts to put God in a man-shaped box will always fail, because God is not a man, nor is He restricted to the limits that we are. His thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways.

Not sure how else to say it.

Moral Orel · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
While it might be true that defining such "objective morality" doesn't "require" God, you still have to ask yourself something:

Where'd our conscience come from? Our conscience goes against the very nature of what evolution is described as being. If the meaning of life were truly "Survival of the Fittest" then shouldn't every human (like any other animal) be instinctually bent towards trying to improve its own life, regardless of the cost of others? But yet our conscience tells us when we are doing something that we shouldn't, unless we've spent years quieting it to the point you can no longer hear it (and some mental disorders also suppress it). Our conscience also pokes us to do things that have no immediate value to us whatsoever, and sometimes even detrimental to us, just to help others, sometimes even when there's no possible way that they could return the favor.

That's very untrue. Who wins in a fight: one man, or a tribe of men? How do you get a tribe of men to fight with you instead of against you? This is how we formed our morality.

Even many animals understand this. Have you ever heard of a pack of wolves or a pride of lions? Even animals know that working together accomplishes more than working only for yourself. So no, your analogy is completely false.

Moral Orel · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
He had to.

I hate this response when it comes to God. People never think about the consequences of what they are stating when they make this assumption. You are saying that an omnipotent and omniscient God had no choice in the matter. You are saying that this omnipotent and omniscient God couldn't come up with any other ideas that would solve the problem.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 7, 2016

Xalith said:
But like I said, this doesn't mean that He doesn't have his "What If", in fact, I would venture a guess as to say that He knows the near-infinite "what ifs".

You've moved God's goalposts; knowing what would happen if choices were different is very different from what you described previously - having the intent that those things should happen, and having that intent frustrated. Are you now withdrawing the idea of God's frustrated intent?

<describes inability to explain> ...Not sure how else to say it.

Perhaps you should have just said that you can't explain it, rather than, "it can be difficult to put into writing" and "It just takes some effort to work one's mind around the concepts."

Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

fallible

Wanderer

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Wanderer

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Similar threads