What proof would you need? (2)

[selfinflikted]

?
State of exactly what ... "everything???"

I believe you are foolishly trying to say that, when we look at the consequences to our behavior as a species, we can complain that the "parent" or creator hasn't taken care of us as well as you would have expected.

This is the same point of view about Uncle Sam, in regard to Americans who might complain on the liberal side of issues.

I have already explained why the creator = parent analogy doesn't work.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Could it be said that one can be perfect and lack free will?

No, you cannot have a will of your own without freedom. By definition (link) you cannot have a will without being able to make intentional choices. Besides, I would have thought 'free-thinkers' of all people would value free will above all else.

Because he created it. There's no way around this. None, whatsoever.

I and several users have already pointed out this is incorrect. It requires giving up all sense of personal responsibility.

No, it has nothing to do with us shirking responsibility. It's the Christians who won't admit that their god is stagnant, impotent.
...
Why would we? It's obvious god has no interest in helping people.

Now that's completely unfounded. The Bible frequently talks of helping people (indeed thats one of the main requirements of getting into heaven) and there are hundreds, if not thousands of religious organizations dedicated to helping others because of their belief in God.

By contrast, atheists claim humanitarian causes surpass religious ones because they are doing so to help people, rather than earn a place in heaven ... all the while claiming God should be responsible for everything wrong in the world.

Haven't you ever wondered why Christians practically never use this argument?

 

[jpcedotal]

Who are we to say that God "should" step in or that by not stopping every form of evil or wrong-doing is some sort of proof that He does not exist?

Your if-then argument falls short because you are defining the right action that should be taken. We can not know this, only God does.

 

[begt]

By contrast, atheists claim humanitarian causes surpass religious ones because they are doing so to help people, rather than earn a place in heaven ... all the while claiming God should be responsible for everything wrong in the world.

Well assuming god exists he is responsible. But atheists obviously dont think he does...

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Well assuming god exists he is responsible. But atheists obviously dont think he does...

Selfinflikted already made this point and I answered him. It's quite amazing how free-thinkers so eagerly give up free will. Indeed I would even argue it is atheists - not Christians - who wish to be totally dependant on God.

 

[Huram Abi]

Who are we to say that God "should" step in or that by not stopping every form of evil or wrong-doing is some sort of proof that He does not exist?

Your if-then argument falls short because you are defining the right action that should be taken. We can not know this, only God does.

We can only know right and wrong through our own perspective.

If God doesn't conform to that understanding, that is His own right.


However, an expectation that we conform to things that He doesn't allow us to understand is unreasonable.

 

[selfinflikted]

No, you cannot have a will of your own without freedom. By definition (link) you cannot have a will without being able to make intentional choices.

I don't agree that perfection precludes free will. Please explain why you think it does.

Besides, I would have thought 'free-thinkers' of all people would value free will above all else.

I consider free will valuable, sure.

I and several users have already pointed out this is incorrect. It requires giving up all sense of personal responsibility.

I must've missed that. Besides, I am not saying that people shouldn't try to make a difference. What I am saying, is that if god exists in the way that his followers describe him, he could make all the difference.

Now that's completely unfounded. The Bible frequently talks of helping people (indeed thats one of the main requirements of getting into heaven) and there are hundreds, if not thousands of religious organizations dedicated to helping others because of their belief in God.

It's not unfounded. Please point to ONE example, sans Biblical stories, of god doing something to help someone. I've never seen it.

By contrast, atheists claim humanitarian causes surpass religious ones because they are doing so to help people, rather than earn a place in heaven ... all the while claiming God should be responsible for everything wrong in the world.

Haven't you ever wondered why Christians practically never use this argument?

No, and that's irrelevant. I haven't argued this point at all. All I'm trying to say is, god created it, he screwed it up (twice), and he is responsible.

There. Is. No. Way. Around. This.

None.

 

[jpcedotal]

We can only know right and wrong through our own perspective.

If God doesn't conform to that understanding, that is His own right.


However, an expectation that we conform to things that He doesn't allow us to understand is unreasonable.

No, we are right or wrong based on God's perspective. He reveals this perspective in His written Word and also through the Holy Spirit that dwells inside each Christian.

What you are saying puts "self" first. That has been the problem with the world since Adam and Eve. That is why the world is in the shape that it is in now. We must put God first.

 

[selfinflikted]

Who are we to say that God "should" step in or that by not stopping every form of evil or wrong-doing ...

I only argue that god should step in and at least help out because of the attributes his followers ascribe to him. It is the Christians themselves that repeatedly claim "God is Love", he is benevolent, he is all-powerful, he is omniscient, etc etc.

is some sort of proof that He does not exist?

I don't need proof that he doesn't exist; only proof that he does.

Your if-then argument falls short because you are defining the right action that should be taken. We can not know this, only God does.

I don't have an if-then argument.

 

[Huram Abi]

No, we are right or wrong based on God's perspective. He reveals this perspective in His written Word and also through the Holy Spirit that dwells inside each Christian.

What you are saying puts "self" first. That has been the problem with the world since Adam and Eve. That is why the world is in the shape that it is in now. We must put God first.

You can think that if you want.


But it is unreasonable to think that God does evil in the world and that humans will be willing to accept such evil simply because you explain it as "Human perspective is irrelevant."


Why is our adherence and acceptance relevant but not our perspective?

 

[Greg1234]

I only argue that god should step in and at least help out because of the attributes his followers ascribe to him. It is the Christians themselves that repeatedly claim "God is Love", he is benevolent, he is all-powerful, he is omniscient, etc etc.

The way has been shown repeatedly. Men choose everyday.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't agree that perfection precludes free will. Please explain why you think it does.
...
I consider free will valuable, sure.

And yet you think you can have perfection without free will. Obviously it can't be that valuable if you're willing to give it up.

It's not unfounded. Please point to ONE example, sans Biblical stories, of god doing something to help someone. I've never seen it.

I'll say to you what I said to Begt: trying to discuss God without using the Bible is like trying to discuss evolution without using fossils. A creationists would day "Those fossils only prove evolution true is you assume evolution is true in the first place". You don't believe God exists, therefore you believe any stories about God are automatically untrue.

No, and that's irrelevant. I haven't argued this point at all. All I'm trying to say is, god created it, he screwed it up (twice), and he is responsible.

There. Is. No. Way. Around. This.

None.

Repeating yourself didn't with with Astridhere and it won't work with you.

Furthermore, question ("Haven't you ever wondered why Christians practically never use this argument?") is not irrelevent at all. We believe in God, yet we don't automatically assume that He is responsible for everything bad in the world. Why not? Wouldn't it be nice to have someone to blame?
------------------------------------

The impression I get with these posts (I've had similar debates with atheists on many other occasions) is that atheists want a God who...

- Doesn't give His subjects minds of their own
- Doesn't allow them to do anything by themselves in case they do something wrong (or if they do something wrong He immediately fixes it)
- Dictates everything to them - including science and morality - instead of letting them figure it out for themselves.

Ironically that's the very kind of God most of them complain about: a kind of celestial dictator.

 

[cupid dave]

However, an expectation that we conform to things that He doesn't allow us to understand is unreasonable.

By definition, we have been given no reason, so we have only been told we are not allowed.

That does not mean we we shouln't do it, though.

It is unreasonable when a parent tells young people to behav in certain ways but gives no reason.

Mother knows best, and Dad says, ..."because"... meaning he cn't explain way to you now.
But you you must accept the raw authority anyway.

With reasons or without.

Why?
Because you have faith that dad amd mom know best, and have your welfare at heart.

 

[CabVet]

The impression I get with these posts (I've had similar debates with atheists on many other occasions) is that atheists want a God who...

- Doesn't give His subjects minds of their own
- Doesn't allow them to do anything by themselves in case they do something wrong (or if they do something wrong He immediately fixes it)
- Dictates everything to them - including science and morality - instead of letting them figure it out for themselves.

Ironically that's the very kind of God most of them complain about: a kind of celestial dictator.

Oh, you mean the same type of God that Christians describe?

- Doesn't give His subjects minds of their own - you are free to do whatever you like, as long as it is in the Bible.

- Doesn't allow them to do anything by themselves in case they do something wrong (or if they do something wrong He immediately fixes it) - more than once I have heard Christians say "that went wrong because I didn't listen to God", or "that went wrong because I didn't consult God".

- Dictates everything to them - including science and morality - instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. - This one is good; it reminds me posts like "science can take a hike", or "evidence does not matter"; how many times have creationists here said that all that we figured out by ourselves (evolution, etc) is wrong?

 

[cupid dave]

I only argue that god should step in and at least help out because of the attributes his followers ascribe to him.

It is the Christians themselves that repeatedly claim "God is Love", he is benevolent, he is all-powerful, he is omniscient, etc etc.

.

?
The "sum of the Torah is love God and love thy neighbor."

Where is this stuff about "god is love coming to me?"

 

[mzungu]

I'll say to you what I said to Begt: trying to discuss God without using the Bible is like trying to discuss evolution without using fossils. A creationists would day "Those fossils only prove evolution true is you assume evolution is true in the first place". You don't believe God exists, therefore you believe any stories about God are automatically untrue.

Evolution can survive without fossils as genetics has progressed to the point that common ancestry is evident in DNA! Fossils are valuable but I would say not vital for ToE!

 

[cupid dave]

I have already explained why the creator = parent analogy doesn't work.

Fine.
Then we agree on that.

God is not the Fedeal Government who is acting like its supposed to take care of us in accord with what politicains see as "fair," ...


... ( as they build constitutiencies that re-elect them for unfair union contracts, more entitlements, and waste of our money.)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Oh, you mean the same type of God that Christians describe?

- Doesn't give His subjects minds of their own - you are free to do whatever you like, as long as it is in the Bible.

- Doesn't allow them to do anything by themselves in case they do something wrong (or if they do something wrong He immediately fixes it) - more than once I have heard Christians say "that went wrong because I didn't listen to God", or "that went wrong because I didn't consult God".

- Dictates everything to them - including science and morality - instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. - This one is good; it reminds me posts like "science can take a hike", or "evidence does not matter"; how many times have creationists here said that all that we figured out by ourselves (evolution, etc) is wrong?

Like I said - the kind of God atheists complain about is the same kind of God they seem to want:

Free will doesn't mean freedom from responsibility. If you do something terrible, you pay. The atheist answer to this topic would simply be to eliminate free will altogether. So much for "thinking for yourself".

Earlier I was talking to another atheist user (Begt) who wrote that God doesn't seem to care about our suffering - if He did, why didn't He get rid of people such as Stalin and Hitler. I replied by saying He often intervened in the Old Testament, the ten plagues of Egypt for example. Yet whever such topics are brought up, atheists use it to prove God is evil for killing so many people. We can't decide whether we want him to intervene or not.

The Creationists we see nowadays, such as Ken Ham, are a modern phenomenom. Many theists (particuarly monotheists) throughout history were great scientists, even though their science went against the ideas of the church at the time.

 

[cupid dave]

Well assuming god exists he is responsible. But atheists obviously dont think he does...

They just fail to define the God of the Bible properly.

Certainly they believe in Truth, becvause they constantly argue that what they say is the Truth.

They expect other people to fall down before the Truth, as they revel it us.

They contend that the Truth is that women have the total right to do whatever they want with their bodies, for instance. Vonsequently, society can not impliment rules in the Social Contract that include women physically conforming to such rules.

Abortion is a personal deision that has no place in considering the impact on the larger society, they would argue.

Illegitimacy is not the business of men, and how single mothers raise their children is not the business of the govenment.

Every social argument reveals our modern worship of Truth as the god whose will should be obeyed.

 

[CabVet]

Like I said - the kind of God atheists complain about is the same kind of God they seem to want:

Except that atheists don't "want" a God, they only want you to prove there is one.