Why God allows evil

[MyChainsAreGone]

Nope, far from it.

Learn basic biology.

Please... enlighten me... where did I misspeak? What did I misrepresent?

Explain to me where and how biology has EVER observed or even postulated how new DNA data can be introduced into a living cell. Tell me how biology can explain the origin of the DNA code.

You cannot, and you won't attempt to, because you know probably better than I that no such mechanism--biologically or otherwise--exists.

 

[holo]

But if the universe has no meaning, then all the meaning you're feeling in your life is just a comfortable delusion.

Meaning isn't a delusion. I just happen to realize that meaning doesn't exist in and of itself. Just like a lump of gold has no value or meaning in and of itself, but it may be extremely meaningful to a person. I don't need to delude myself by thinking that my sense of purpose is somehow "objective" or from God.

How apt to invoke the language of the supernatural when pondering our existence!

Miraculous is the best word I know to describe it. I obviously don't mean it in a supernatural sense.

 

[HitchSlap]

Stop right there.

Sure thing.

Show my my misrepresentation.

Your claims about what 'atheists must believe'; unless you're willing to admit this is just your opinion and you could be wrong about what we actually believe. But I won't hold my breath, theists love to construct strawmen, then burn them down.

You can't just dismiss everything I said.

You mean in the way you've dismissed everything atheist's have said?

Having a book you really believe in doesn't make you right.

Give me solid scientifically plausible answers to the issues I raised...

Not a problem.

Nothing I said was about proving a God or any other aspect of religious faith.

I'm aware that you can't prove god/s exist.

My point is that atheistic faith requires the suspension of belief in the uniformity and immutability of the laws of physics.

Here's one of those strawmen I was referring to.

Answer that if you want any other answers from me about my personal faith.

Answer what? You made a statement.

 

[Ken-1122]

You know why I'm not an atheist?

Because I don't have enough faith to believe all the impossible things I'd have to believe.

• That at one point in time, there was nothing, then a Big Bang created everything from absolutely nothing...
  • That's simply and utterly contrary to every law of physics there is. Nothing can come from nothing.
  • I simply don't have enough faith to accept something so scientifically unfounded.
• That Order came out of Chaos.
  • There's nothing as chaotic as an explosion of such immensity that all the matter in the universe was blasted across the reaches of space.
  • The Law of entropy says that Order always descends into chaos, never the other way around.
  • I simply don't have enough faith to accept that the universe is not following it's own laws.
• That Life arose from Non-Life
  • There is no mechanism that has ever been observed or tested or tenably postulated that anything non-living could ever become anything living.
  • I simply don't have enough to believe that life created itself.
• That coded information created itself.
  • DNA is the code of life. All codes are information.
  • Coded information can only come from an intelligence. There's no other source that's even plausible.
  • Furthermore, information requires both a sender and a receiver of that information. And for coded information to even be helpful three things must be true:
    • There must be real information in the code
    • Something/someone other must be able to "read" and understand the code.
    • That something/someone must then act based upon the meaning of the code.
  • DNA meets all three of these requirements.
  • I simply don't have enough faith to believe that this system of coded information could EVER arise on its own without an intelligent force behind it.

Many times atheists chide Christians and other deists for their "faith" in something that cannot be proven.

Well, I'm sorry, but I simply don't have as much faith as the atheists, because I cannot believe that the things I listed above could ever happen... because they are simply contrary to everything we know scientifically about our universe.

Yet, atheists have no choice but to express the most improbable faith in these impossible violations of physics in order maintain their assertion that God is not. These beliefs are untested, unproven, untestable, unprovable.

Actually, the most logical--even scientific--conclusion based on our observations of the physical universe is that there must be a higher intelligence... a higher power... a Creative Force that is outside of and preeminent over the physical universe. No, it's not tested or proven, but it certainly fits the data better, and it doesn't require us to believe in the suspension of the laws of physics to offer an answer to the questions of origins.

Who told you that is what Atheists believe? It sounds like you've been lied to my friend!

 

[VirOptimus]

Please... enlighten me... where did I misspeak? What did I misrepresent?

Explain to me where and how biology has EVER observed or even postulated how new DNA data can be introduced into a living cell. Tell me how biology can explain the origin of the DNA code.

You cannot, and you won't attempt to, because you know probably better than I that no such mechanism--biologically or otherwise--exists.

I’m not responsible for your education.

May I suggest biology 101.

 

[Kylie]

Citation NOT required... when I use the term "God," that's what it means. God, as the originator of all things (by definition) is therefore the measure of all things (by definition).

So when you say "God" you could mean entirely natural processes that have no intelligence at all, huh?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Any dumb rock that tells itself that it's more valuable than gold is still just a dumb rock.

Your statement is really just circular reasoning. How does a rock know how valuable it is? Just ask the rock! How does a cosmic accident (life) know how valuable it is? Just ask that cosmic accident (humans).

But Humans aren't rocks, are they?

Because meaning/value does not rise out of meaninglessness and worthlessness.

If the big bang was meaningless, how can anything that happened as a result have meaning? It's logically impossible.

For the record, you still have not given any tenable explanation how your life or any life can have any meaning at all within a naturalistic framework of origins. My "irrefutable" assertion remains un-refuted. The only thing you've given me is "I think we can" and "why not?"

You seem incapable of finding anything of value within yourself.

Thankfully, it's not the same. Here's why.

God is waiting for you to come to Him. He's done His part. And when you reach the end of yourself, I want to make sure that you know that you can still turn to Him and find the purpose that He's really created you for. But hey, if you're not feeling that need yet, it's not your time yet.

He created people and He gave them their own choices (like we've been talking about... they can choose good or evil). And, just like He doesn't "overrule" people's evil choices, He also doesn't force people to respond to Him and His offer of forgiveness and restoration to a relationship with Him.

But I'd be remiss if I didn't at least let you know that He loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you. He's a gentlemen, though... He'll wait until you're ready.

Another advertisement for Christianity isn't going to convince me that you aren't advertising for Christianity...

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Your claims about what 'atheists must believe'; unless you're willing to admit this is just your opinion and you could be wrong about what we actually believe. But I won't hold my breath, theists love to construct strawmen, then burn them down.

Who told you that is what Atheists believe? It sounds like you've been lied to my friend!

I’m not responsible for your education.

May I suggest biology 101.

It's a lot easier to insult and make spurious claims of "straw man" than it is to articulate a credible defense of your own positions.

If my representation of what Atheists believe is a straw man, then someone please explain to me how I was wrong about what Atheists believe.

You do know, by the way, that by calling my representation a "straw man," you are actually admitting that as I've represented the atheist beliefs, it's easy to see how untenable they are... to "burn them down." And since arguing that the belief (as I've presented them) is actually sound and tenable is not possible, you instead claim that I've created a straw man. It's the only strategy available to you.

But it's not a straw man. It's accurate. You don't think so? Then make your case... defend your accusation.

I will re-articulate the points.

• That at one point in time, there was nothing, then a Big Bang created everything from absolutely nothing...
  • Yes, I know that some postulate (with no evidence at all) that there may have been a series of "big bangs"... but there had to have been a "first" big bang, so somewhere, sometime, everything came from nothing.
  • If this is a "Straw man" then, please give me the real Atheist position... one that is rational and tenable. I predict that you won't, because you can't... because there is no tenable explanation for why the first big bang happened.
• That Order came out of Chaos.
  
  • How cold the chaos of the big bang produce the magnificent and precision order we see in the movements of all the stellar and planetary systems throughout the universe?
  • You either have to claim that the universe is NOT orderly, or you have to explain how such a result came in the face of the second law of thermodynamics and the irreversible increase of entropy in a closed system (in this case, the entire universe). Or is there another option?
• That Life arose from Non-Life
  
  • This is no straw man. Everyone believes that life came from non-life. Theists just believe that God was the agent by which it happened.
  • So... tell me how it is not an unbelievable leap of faith to believe that life arose from non-life by natural processes.
• That coded information created itself.
  
  • How could this possibly be a straw man? Tell me... where did the information in DNA come from? Where did the code come from? How did anything without intelligence ever learn to read and act on it?

Where's the straw man? What have I misrepresented about Atheists beliefs? Put up or shut up, folks. Just calling it "STRAW MAN, STRAW MAN" is not a logical debate or a credible position.

I predict that not a single one of the Atheist here will honestly respond to this challenge. Why? First, because my representation is not inaccurate and no one will be able to "clarify" the Atheist position to anything more plausible. Secondly, because the Atheist position on these questions really and truly is indefensible logically or scientifically.

I've thrown down the gauntlet.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Another advertisement for Christianity isn't going to convince me that you aren't advertising for Christianity...

Well, guilty as charged... I didn't deny that I was "advertising" Christianity... I just was denying that it was a "create a need people don't have and then offer the product to fill that need" sort of advertising.

It's more like a public service announcement that "Hey, everyone... if your sick, there's a free doctor available to you!" An advertisement, yes. But not a con job.

God really does love you more than you know.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's a lot easier to insult and make spurious claims of "straw man" than it is to articulate a credible defense of your own positions.

If my representation of what Atheists believe is a straw man, then someone please explain to me how I was wrong about what Atheists believe.

You do know, by the way, that by calling my representation a "straw man," you are actually admitting that as I've represented the atheist beliefs, it's easy to see how untenable they are... to "burn them down." And since arguing that the belief (as I've presented them) is actually sound and tenable is not possible, you instead claim that I've created a straw man. It's the only strategy available to you.

But it's not a straw man. It's accurate. You don't think so? Then make your case... defend your accusation.

I will re-articulate the points.

• That at one point in time, there was nothing, then a Big Bang created everything from absolutely nothing...
  • Yes, I know that some postulate (with no evidence at all) that there may have been a series of "big bangs"... but there had to have been a "first" big bang, so somewhere, sometime, everything came from nothing.
  • If this is a "Straw man" then, please give me the real Atheist position... one that is rational and tenable. I predict that you won't, because you can't... because there is no tenable explanation for why the first big bang happened.
• That Order came out of Chaos.
  • How cold the chaos of the big bang produce the magnificent and precision order we see in the movements of all the stellar and planetary systems throughout the universe?
  • You either have to claim that the universe is NOT orderly, or you have to explain how such a result came in the face of the second law of thermodynamics and the irreversible increase of entropy in a closed system (in this case, the entire universe). Or is there another option?
• That Life arose from Non-Life
  • This is no straw man. Everyone believes that life came from non-life. Theists just believe that God was the agent by which it happened.
  • So... tell me how it is not an unbelievable leap of faith to believe that life arose from non-life by natural processes.
• That coded information created itself.
  • How could this possibly be a straw man? Tell me... where did the information in DNA come from? Where did the code come from? How did anything without intelligence ever learn to read and act on it?

Where's the straw man? What have I misrepresented about Atheists beliefs? Put up or shut up, folks. Just calling it "STRAW MAN, STRAW MAN" is not a logical debate or a credible position.

I predict that not a single one of the Atheist here will honestly respond to this challenge. Why? First, because my representation is not inaccurate and no one will be able to "clarify" the Atheist position to anything more plausible. Secondly, because the Atheist position on these questions really and truly is indefensible logically or scientifically.

I've thrown down the gauntlet.

Lol. Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out.

Take care.

 

[Ken-1122]

If my representation of what Atheists believe is a straw man, then someone please explain to me how I was wrong about what Atheists believe.

You don’t have to believe

*The Big bang created everything
*That order came out of Chaos
*Life arose from non-life
*Coded information created itself

To be atheist.

 

[HitchSlap]

You don’t have to believe

*The Big bang created everything
*That order came out of Chaos
*Life arose from non-life
*Coded information created itself

To be atheist.

Yeah, it’s all part of the straw man (they really don’t know what to do when it goes off script).

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, guilty as charged... I didn't deny that I was "advertising" Christianity... I just was denying that it was a "create a need people don't have and then offer the product to fill that need" sort of advertising.

It's more like a public service announcement that "Hey, everyone... if your sick, there's a free doctor available to you!" An advertisement, yes. But not a con job.

God really does love you more than you know.

Right, “created sick and commanded to be well.”

 

[VirOptimus]

It's a lot easier to insult and make spurious claims of "straw man" than it is to articulate a credible defense of your own positions.

If my representation of what Atheists believe is a straw man, then someone please explain to me how I was wrong about what Atheists believe.

You do know, by the way, that by calling my representation a "straw man," you are actually admitting that as I've represented the atheist beliefs, it's easy to see how untenable they are... to "burn them down." And since arguing that the belief (as I've presented them) is actually sound and tenable is not possible, you instead claim that I've created a straw man. It's the only strategy available to you.

But it's not a straw man. It's accurate. You don't think so? Then make your case... defend your accusation.

I will re-articulate the points.

• That at one point in time, there was nothing, then a Big Bang created everything from absolutely nothing...
  • Yes, I know that some postulate (with no evidence at all) that there may have been a series of "big bangs"... but there had to have been a "first" big bang, so somewhere, sometime, everything came from nothing.
  • If this is a "Straw man" then, please give me the real Atheist position... one that is rational and tenable. I predict that you won't, because you can't... because there is no tenable explanation for why the first big bang happened.
• That Order came out of Chaos.
  • How cold the chaos of the big bang produce the magnificent and precision order we see in the movements of all the stellar and planetary systems throughout the universe?
  • You either have to claim that the universe is NOT orderly, or you have to explain how such a result came in the face of the second law of thermodynamics and the irreversible increase of entropy in a closed system (in this case, the entire universe). Or is there another option?
• That Life arose from Non-Life
  • This is no straw man. Everyone believes that life came from non-life. Theists just believe that God was the agent by which it happened.
  • So... tell me how it is not an unbelievable leap of faith to believe that life arose from non-life by natural processes.
• That coded information created itself.
  • How could this possibly be a straw man? Tell me... where did the information in DNA come from? Where did the code come from? How did anything without intelligence ever learn to read and act on it?

Where's the straw man? What have I misrepresented about Atheists beliefs? Put up or shut up, folks. Just calling it "STRAW MAN, STRAW MAN" is not a logical debate or a credible position.

I predict that not a single one of the Atheist here will honestly respond to this challenge. Why? First, because my representation is not inaccurate and no one will be able to "clarify" the Atheist position to anything more plausible. Secondly, because the Atheist position on these questions really and truly is indefensible logically or scientifically.

I've thrown down the gauntlet.

What a load of crap.

Atheists dont belive in god(s), thats it.

 

[Skreeper]

I will re-articulate the points.

• That at one point in time, there was nothing, then a Big Bang created everything from absolutely nothing...

I can say with high confidence that most atheists do not believe that.

We currently lack the knowledge and technology to investigate what happened before the big bang. Maybe there was something before the big bang, maybe there really was nothing (whatever that means). But until we can invastigate it further, everything about the state of the universe before the big bang is speculation.

 

[Ken-1122]

We have not witnessed the end of the story yet...

Oh so we gotta wait till the end of the story now? Well perhaps YOU should wait till the end of the story before claiming mankind is unable to enforce judgment on God!

 

[Kylie]

Well, guilty as charged... I didn't deny that I was "advertising" Christianity... I just was denying that it was a "create a need people don't have and then offer the product to fill that need" sort of advertising.

It's more like a public service announcement that "Hey, everyone... if your sick, there's a free doctor available to you!" An advertisement, yes. But not a con job.

God really does love you more than you know.

Of course, if the doctor does nothing more than wave rocks around your head and claim that you are being treated, and then charging you money, despite knowing that nothing he has done will have any benefit, yes, it is a con job.

And as soon as you say, "Without X, you'll have to face the horrors of Y!", it's an advertisement, and a manipulative one too (unless you can demonstrate that Y is a real thing and constitutes a real danger).

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Lol. Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out.

Take care.

Sarcasm is not Evidence.

Strike one.

You don’t have to believe

*The Big bang created everything
*That order came out of Chaos
*Life arose from non-life
*Coded information created itself

To be atheist.

Sorry, Ken... that's no answer. Tell me what they DO believe about these points...

Strike two... foul tip.

What a load of crap.

Atheists dont belive in god(s), thats it.

Ridicule is not Reason.

A swing and a miss.

Strike three.

How many strikes do you all need? Where's your heavy hitter that can step up to the plate to address these issues and offer ANY sort of alternative view of these issues that is consistent with atheism and scientifically plausible? Go ahead... knock it out of the park.

My predictions stands...

I predict that not a single one of the Atheist here will honestly respond to this challenge.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I can say with high confidence that most atheists do not believe that.

We currently lack the knowledge and technology to investigate what happened before the big bang. Maybe there was something before the big bang, maybe there really was nothing (whatever that means). But until we can invastigate it further, everything about the state of the universe before the big bang is speculation.

Thanks for the reply on point.

I don't think "We just don't know" really addresses my challenge. And I don't think that it proves "straw man."

I do think that science postulates that all things have a beginning... that's why the Big Bang is offered as an explanation to the beginning of the universe. Does anyone suggest that matter is eternal? Has always existed? That fails the second law of thermodynamics because, with endless time past, that law demands that equilibrium will have been reached.

So the fact remains that all this "stuff" had to come from somewhere. My representation of the belief that there was once nothing, and then there was everything is still apt... even if the suggestions/theories of how it happened may differ.

The first law of Thermodynamics demands that matter cannot be created or destroyed. While the second law guarantees equilibrium within a closed system. These two laws are literally at odds with one another when considering the origin of the universe...

• 1st Law - Energy/Matter cannot be created or destroyed. There can be no beginning.
• 2nd Law - Because there's not yet equilibrium, there must be a beginning.

In a naturalist perspective, there's no logical reconciliation of these two laws... because it (the universe) is a closed system.

The only thing that can reconcile these two laws is the postulate that there must have been an agent outside of the closed system acting upon it.

Whatever atheists do believe about the origin of the universe, It's worth noting that it's still a matter of "faith." And the whole point of my original post was that it is more reasonable and consistent with the laws of physics to believe in that "Outside Agent" than it is to deny that Agent exists.

 

[holo]

I predict that not a single one of the Atheist here will honestly respond to this challenge.

Atheism means to not believe in god(s). Nothing else.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Of course, if the doctor does nothing more than wave rocks around your head and claim that you are being treated, and then charging you money, despite knowing that nothing he has done will have any benefit, yes, it is a con job.

And... if the sick person thinks that about the doctor and for that reason refuses to see him... they miss out on a cure they really need.

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?