Where's God?

[BNR32FAN]

And yet every day, you choose those actions that keep your life going. If continuing a long, fulfilling life is not your goal, why are you trying to do that?

So that I may live to serve God in this world until He sees fit to bring me home.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Lol you don’t really put much thought into these questions, do you?

Some people make it easy.

When somebody writes that God lets people die because "it's actually a blessing", then a quite natural followup question is: "If that is what they want, why are the doctors even bothering to help them?"

 

[BNR32FAN]

Some people make it easy.

When somebody writes that God lets people die because "it's actually a blessing", then a quite natural followup question is: "If that is what they want, why are the doctors even bothering to help them?"

Im confident that you could actually see situations where a person might want to stay in this world even despite the temptation of heaven’s paradise if you wanted to but it seems quite evident that it is not truly your goal here. To actually objectively ponder the answers to your questions would contradict the very reason your here to begin with. No one but God can give definitive answers to your questions, all we can really do is speculate. With that being said the only viable solution would be to contemplate the possible answers to these questions. It’s not hard to do when you try.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Im confident that you could actually see situations where a person might want to stay in this world even despite the temptation of heaven’s paradise if you wanted to

Yes, indeed, I can indeed see situations where a person might want to stay in this world. In fact, I would think that was normal.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Two questions.
First, by what means do you determine that Mengele acted wrongly? Because God told you so? In which case, by what means do you determine that God is correct to tell you so? Is it "Because He's God, and everything He says is right?", or something of that nature?

As I stated earlier, our moral conscience confirms God is correct and also because God has incorporated His moral law into the universe, and they violated that law. And we can look at his character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

ia: Second, how is it that Mengele was able to destroy the image bearers of the creator? All he did was destroy their bodies. Their souls survived, and went on to heaven - or, as is rather more likely given they were not Christians, to eternal hellfire. In either case, all Mengele did was hasten them on to the next part of their eternal journeys. Considering they will spend the rest of eternity there, Mengele's actions only changed their lives by a paltry handful of mortal years. They were bound for a destination and he helped them to get there a few seconds earlier than they otherwise might have.

So, by your moral system, what exactly did he do wrong?

In a few paltry years they very well could have converted and been saved or they could have made some discovery that saved many lives. Or their children could have done such things. And if they did convert, their testimony potentially could have saved millions from hell, who knows? That is why Mengele was an evil man. But as an atheist you have no rationally objective basis for condemning him.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Do you think those who use Door #2 are doing something wrong? Secular humanists are not very fair to unborn children. And what about their unfairness to gays by covering up evidence that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for them in this world or the next?

mm: You're derailing now and throwing out red herrings that are just gish galloping the whole issue by selectively pointing out what you don't like without actually substantiating it. Unborn are given far fairer treatment by those who recognize the broken adoption system and how casually people regard children like they're a social accomplishment instead of a lifetime commitment and don't even consider that maybe they shouldn't be parents, like I have. Why? Because I actually care about children's welfare, much as you would think I don't when I am pro choice, which is not pro abortion ever, because choice entails abortion as an option, not the only option

No, I am just demonstrating all the problems with secular humanism. I can substantiate it if you want me to. In fact I already did with homosexuality. Read the study I posted earlier in this thread. If you could ask an unborn child whether they would rather be dead or a casual social accomplishment, what do you think their answer would be? Or even ask those who have grown to adulthood as a casual social accomplishment whether they would have preferred to have been aborted, what do you think they would say?

mm: Gay behavior in itself is not the issue, it's being irresponsible, which can apply and likely does far more to straight people, given that they are the majority and would also be just as likely to do dangerous sexual activity where you're just having sex with multiple people without protection or such, very hedonistic stuff.

No, gay behavior itself is the issue too, given that it appears to cause mental problems as well as physical illnesses. In addition, studies have shown that gay couples have much higher domestic violence rates than straight couples.

mm: No one's covering up the evidence, you're misinterpreting one study that's often used that's easily 50 years old that was studying people that were in a generation that still barely understood HIV/AIDS (which many people today still don't seem to understand are not the same thing)

No, you obviously did not read the study, it was published in 2001 and was conducted in one of the most gay tolerant nations in the world. Not 50 years ago.

ed: Yes but those are just subjective reasons based on feelings, it is not based any thing real or objective.

mm: And again, you don't seem to be using an honest definition of objective that isn't just appealing to something you already believe in instead of actually arguing for it. Objective /=/ absolute by any of the definitions I've given and even in philosophical discussions, it isn't focused on this authoritarian bent you seem to have where there needs to be an outside source that declares it (which is technically subjective, because the subject in subjective can entail a mind)

See my post where I state which definition of objective I am using. No the moral standard exists outside human minds, therefore it is plainly objective.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As I stated earlier, our moral conscience confirms God is correct

Once again, you're in the wrong discussion. This is not about whether God is good or not. This is about how we can know what goodness is. If you are asserting that God is the one who defines what goodness is, you cannot use a tool that (you claim) He gave you in order to prove your point. That would be begging the question.

also because God has incorporated His moral law into the universe

Prove it.

And we can look at his character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

Irrelevant.

In a few paltry years they very well could have converted and been saved or they could have made some discovery that saved many lives.

Or they could have all grown up to become mass murderers. Who knows? Therefore, your point is invalid.

That is why Mengele was an evil man.

That's a good argument. The problem is, you're making it from my side. According to you, the only reason anything is good or bad is "God says it is." Yet here you are, saying "X is bad because it leads to Y."
Of course, if God said that killing babies was good, then you would have to say that it is. And if God said that Mengele did right, you would have to agree that he did. Don't tell me God would never do such a thing. You lost your right to make that argument long ago.

But as an atheist you have no rationally objective basis for condemning him.

No, that's you. As you've demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: And your thoughts are just chemical reactions so why should someone be punished just for different chemical reactions that caused them to destroy a bunch of bags of chemicals on a tiny rock in a huge universe?
You are mixing up two invalid arguments: 1) that all thoughts coming from all brains are worthless, and 2) that all people are worthless.

I disagree with both of your arguments.

First I do not agree that all human thoughts are worthless to me. Think of the great things that Einstein and Lincoln and Socrates figured out.

Second, I do not agree with your argument that people to me are just a bag of chemicals. People have value to me.

No, you misunderstood. I am referring to ultimately. Ultimately What purpose does the actions of bags of chemicals, which if there is no God is all we are, have to an unfeeling gigantic cold impersonal universe?

dm: Was Hitler being fair to the Jews ? | Christian Forums

Please quit pretending that maybe Hitler was fair. He was not being fair.

I didnt say he was fair, but Mengele did. So how would you prove that your definition of fairness is the right one if there is no objective standard of fairness to Mengele and Hitler?

ed: He was wrong because humans have infinite objective value and he was destroying the image bearers of the Creator and Judge of the Universe and thereby deserving of eternal punishment.
dm: What if the Jews did not have infinite objective value? I contend that the Holocaust was wrong, regardless of whether the victims had infinite objective value.

On what objective basis would you contend that the holocaust was wrong? The universe doesnt care about the holocaust.

dm: What about the Amalekite babies? You said it was OK to kill those Amalekite babies. Did those Amalekite babies have value? I contend that they had value, and did not deserve to die.

Yes, they did deserve to die they had sinful natures, they were sinners. But of course, only God had the right to take their life.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ultimately What purpose does the actions of bags of chemicals, which if there is no God is all we are, have to an unfeeling gigantic cold impersonal universe?

The universe doesnt care about the holocaust.

What a strange attitude to take.
Of course the Universe doesn't care about the Holocaust, or anything else.
The Universe isn't alive.
"Caring" is something that only living things can do, and not all of them.
You seem to think you're making some important point here, but if it hinges on the universe being sentient, then whatever argument you're making fails.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, would you please quit arguing that Hitler might have been fair. Hitler was not being fair to the Jews.

Ultimately What purpose does the actions of bags of chemicals, which if there is no God is all we are, have to an unfeeling gigantic cold impersonal universe?

We humans think. Therefore we are.

And it matters to us.

I didnt say he was fair, but Mengele did. So how would you prove that your definition of fairness is the right one if there is no objective standard of fairness to Mengele and Hitler?

Once again you play devil's advocate and argue for Hitler and Mengele. Sorry, Hitler and Mengele lost 12-0 here: Was Hitler being fair to the Jews ? | Christian Forums

So that stands, unless you can come up with a better argument that shows that Hitler was fair. If you have a good argument that shows that Hitler was fair, then present that argument. Otherwise, please quit pretending you have a good argument in defense of Hitler. You don't.

On what objective basis would you contend that the holocaust was wrong? The universe doesnt care about the holocaust.

What standard of evidence do you think courts of law should use? In America and most democracies, it goes by the preponderance of the evidence. We do not need to prove guilt with absolute certainty. We need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond all reasonable doubt the Nazis were guilty. Do you or do you not agree, that, beyond all reasonable doubt, the Nazis were guilty?

Or are you going to continue to play devil's advocate, and continue to argue that possibly Hitler was just doing self defense?

Yes, they did deserve to die they had sinful natures, they were sinners. But of course, only God had the right to take their life.

You wrote this in response to these questions, "What about the Amalekite babies? You said it was OK to kill those Amalekite babies. Did those Amalekite babies have value?"

If all the Amalekite babies were sinners and deserved to die, what about the Jews in the Holocaust? Do you say the same about them?

I'm sorry, you tell us people are of infinite value, and yet you tell us that babies deserve to die because babies are sinful. With infinite value like that, who needs infinity? I will stick with basic human decency. I condemn the slaughter of babies, even if you declare those babies to be "sinners".

 

[doubtingmerle]

So that I may live to serve God in this world until He sees fit to bring me home.

Ah, so you really want to live a long fulfilling life.

And if you got COVID and died a painful death, that would be a bummer.

So one wanders where God is when people suffer and die with COVID.

 

[Halbhh]

Ed1wolf, would you please quit arguing that Hitler might have been fair. Hitler was not being fair to the Jews.


We humans think. Therefore we are.

And it matters to us.


Once again you play devil's advocate and argue for Hitler and Mengele. Sorry, Hitler and Mengele lost 12-0 here: Was Hitler being fair to the Jews ? | Christian Forums

So that stands, unless you can come up with a better argument that shows that Hitler was fair. If you have a good argument that shows that Hitler was fair, then present that argument. Otherwise, please quit pretending you have a good argument in defense of Hitler. You don't.


What standard of evidence do you think courts of law should use? In America and most democracies, it goes by the preponderance of the evidence. We do not need to prove guilt with absolute certainty. We need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond all reasonable doubt the Nazis were guilty. Do you or do you not agree, that, beyond all reasonable doubt, the Nazis were guilty?

Or are you going to continue to play devil's advocate, and continue to argue that possibly Hitler was just doing self defense?


You wrote this in response to these questions, "What about the Amalekite babies? You said it was OK to kill those Amalekite babies. Did those Amalekite babies have value?"

If all the Amalekite babies were sinners and deserved to die, what about the Jews in the Holocaust? Do you say the same about them?

I'm sorry, you tell us people are of infinite value, and yet you tell us that babies deserve to die because babies are sinful. With infinite value like that, who needs infinity? I will stick with basic human decency. I condemn the slaughter of babies, even if you declare those babies to be "sinners".

Try to consider your underlying assumption.

We understand that God exists, therefore 'death' is only like "sleep".

No one is dead. (Or not yet.)

So, if you refer to "God" as you write a post, the meaning of the name "God" is exactly that the deaths you yourself refer to in your post aren't.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Do you think those who use Door #2 are doing something wrong?

dm: Of course. "Door #2" in my illustration meant willfully choosing to take advantage of what others were doing without doing anything of value for others. That would definitely be unfair, by any definition of the word unfair. Acts that are unfair are wrong, based on the common English definition of the word wrong. So yes, those who could give back, but take advantage of others by receiving without giving anything back to anybody, are unfair, and therefore wrong.

Do you agree with me that those who could help others, but instead take from others without giving anything back, are wrong?

Yes, but my understanding of fairness comes from Christianity. Mengele and Hitler get their understanding of fairness from their own feelings with maybe some evolutionary theory thrown in.

ed: Yes but those are just subjective reasons based on feelings, it is not based any thing real or objective.

dm: Huh? My life is real. In order to have a meaningful life, I need to receive from others, and give to others. How is that not real?

Yes, but your feelings are not based on any objectively real moral standard. Feelings are subjective, they could just be indigestion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Try to consider your underlying assumption.

We understand that God exists, therefore 'death' is only like "sleep".

No one is dead. (Or not yet.)

So, if you refer to "God" as you write a post, the meaning of the name "God" is exactly that the deaths you yourself refer to in your post aren't.

Ah, so God, in the opening post, is hoping that the doctors trying to keep this man with us...fail?

Wait, what?

 

[Halbhh]

Ah, so God, in the opening post, is hoping that the doctors trying to keep this man with us...fail?

Wait, what?

Wait, why are we in mortal bodies? Well, that's a story of broken trust, broken relationship, in the Garden, the story of us all. This mortal life is a chance to choose to trust in the one who told us to "love one another". You choose whether to trust in Christ, and be brought into eternal life, or instead to reject him. All face this choice (even those from past times we think from 1 Peter 3:18-20).

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, the two main types of evolution are theistic and atheistic. I am just making the point if atheistic evolution is true then human are no more valuable or special than other animals. But if evolution is theistic then humans have infinite intrinsic value just as they would with creation. Evolution would just be the process by which we were created.

mm: You're adding an unnecessary metaphysical qualification to evolutionary biology and the scientific theory that models and predicts the aspects we observe that best explains the diversity of species. One's belief in God or lack thereof is not pertinent to evolutionary biology, because it's not making a claim of value as you claim it does, that's you insinuating something into science that isn't there.

Yes it does. Atheistic evolution is not only irrational but extremely unlikely to occur and even if did it would not be able to produce humans.

mm: No one said humans were more special than other animals based on evolutionary biology, that's a patent strawman that is also dishonest, because you haven't substantiated that this is remotely the position of anyone in this discussion in the first place. There can be a valuation of humans and it doesn't require appealing to science at all

Not an objective value, just subjective value.

ed: In what way other than quantitative?

mm: Do you mean qualitative? Pretty sure insects are animals and they vastly outnumber humans even at present in terms of their sheer population estimates.

I mean quantitative and qualitative. From an atheistic perspective the only difference between humans and animals is that there are many more animals than humans and humans are more intelligent.

mm: Humans value each other because of a social instinct we have that, combined with our empathy through mirror neurons, allows us to understand humans are all very similar in our experience of suffering, of happiness, etc. The differences are more environmental and habitual based on individuals. The problem is your idea that value is a substantive quality in and of itself and not an assessment by a subject, thus subjective, by its nature

Exactly, it is based on subjective emotion or personal preference. Thereby not being based on anything objectively real. If God exists, then humans have objective value as the value exists outside the human mind.

ed: It depends on what you mean by benefits and well being. Only Christianity maximizes your well being eternally. Yours does not and may not even temporally depending on what you mean.

mm: Oh we're just going to play the semantic game now? By that logic, all you're doing is just affirming some authority for your meaning and not anything resembling a reliable standard that isn't "might makes right,"

Christian teaches the opposite of might makes right. Rather reality makes right. God wants us to live according to reality so that we may have a life and live more abundantly.

mm: And eternal well being is arguably antithetical to genuine well being, which fully acknowledges that suffering will happen (I should know, right, being a Buddhist and all, though suffering is one translation of that word used for one of the 3 universal truths) rather than wanting perfection and absolute goodness

How is eternal well being antithetical to genuine well being? Christianity considers those terms synonymous. Though in this world suffering can be a good, as this world is a training ground for spiritual growth and suffering is an aid to spiritual growth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ah, so you really want to live a long fulfilling life.

And if you got COVID and died a painful death, that would be a bummer.

So one wanders where God is when people suffer and die with COVID.

Im in no hurry to get to heaven. My children are young and I would like to be able to teach them and guide them in their walk with Christ. But if God sees fit that it is my time to come home then so be it. I know that He has a far better plan than I do and I fully trust that He will do what is best for me and my family. I don’t fear death because I have nothing to fear from it. I can understand why death would be the ultimate loss for you because you do not have Christ and your fate will be the lake of fire for all eternity if you do not change that my friend.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wait, why are we in mortal bodies? .

I sorta like being in a human body.

And my guess is the man in the opening post sorta liked his life in his mortal body before he got COVID.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, but my understanding of fairness comes from Christianity.

If you were living in King Saul's day, and you heard the command to kill Amalekite infants, would you willingly and gladly thrust your sword through an Amalekite infant?

If the Bible said it was blessed to dash Babylonian babies against the rocks, would you willingly and gladly cast Babylonian babies against the rocks?

If you had heard what Abraham heard, would you have willingly and gladly set out to kill your son on an alter?

If the Bible said to give to everyone that asks of you, and I asked you for everything you have, would you willingly and gladly give me everything you have?

If the Bible commanded you to kill your brother that taught to worship another god, would you willingly and gladly kill your brother?

I don't think so.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, but your feelings are not based on any objectively real moral standard. Feelings are subjective, they could just be indigestion.

Huh? I was not talking about my feelings.

Once again this is what you responded to (and ignored in your response):

My life is real. In order to have a meaningful life, I need to receive from others, and give to others. How is that not real?​

Do you care to respond to what we actually say, or will you just keep on repeating the same canned, irrelevant words forever?