Questions for Jesus-Freak

[Beleth]

Belelth says,

It's where you’re coming from and were I'm coming from that make the differences Belelth.

Okay Edgde.

You are trying to say man fell up and I say he fell down, you are using a theory and I am using what is written down as a historical documentation to the best of what was comprehended by men writing down what they could on what they could use.

I am using a theory in the scientific sense, an idea backed up by evidence. You are using what was written down by people who weren't there claiming to know how the universe started. They had no idea so they made something up. Just like the Greeks and the Norse and the Indians and the Chinese and the Finnish and the Aztecs did.

If only they had computers back then with cameras.

Naah, even then it could be faked. That's one of the beauties of science; even if someone fakes something, the same evidence is available for all to see. Anyone can go look through a telescope, or a microscope, or drop two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or dig up a Neanderthal fossil. The raw data is acesssible to everyone who goes and looks, no matter where they live or when they live. Why rely on pictures, or testimony, or words on a page, when you can go see it yourself?

The answer was, Coelacanth ...
These things should be dead according to evolution.

This is Creationist Claim CB930.1. Coelacanths living today are not the same species as coelacanth fossils. They are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

 

[bruto]

A simple question for Edge, one that I put (more as a statement) to JF:

Have you ever made a good faith effort to study and understand evolution or natural selection using sources other than those written by people whose clear intent is to challenge or deny it? Your statements here, and your misunderstanding of relatively basic principles, suggest that you have not.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

They’re learning now that coal only takes a couple of weeks to form in a laboratory.

and "diamonds" take only days... that doesn't make them real. and i love that we can't look at selective breeding as proof of evolution, but coal in a labratory is proof that the world is newer than scientists want to believe.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is Creationist Claim CB930.1. Coelacanths living today are not the same species as coelacanth fossils. They are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

Powerful support for bruto's tentative conclusion. "These things should be dead according to evolution." Does ignorance cut any deeper? I think not.

The Ceolocanth that have been caught are dead. The first one examined was too primitive to survive in the market .

 

[edge]

A simple question for Edge, one that I put (more as a statement) to JF:

Have you ever made a good faith effort to study and understand evolution or natural selection using sources other than those written by people whose clear intent is to challenge or deny it? Your statements here, and your misunderstanding of relatively basic principles, suggest that you have not.

Yes I have.


I'm just offering another explanation to see if it can be done.
I am however completely convinced that this is a spiritual world as well so how does it all fit together?

Maybe 2001 Space Odyssey is correct or at least the concept?
But there’s a problem with that theory.

You see what I don’t buy is that we have the Hebrew religion, it has been going good for thousands of years, Now comes Jesus and ruins everything and then rises from the dead.
Why change a working system?
If it’s a lie why perpetuate it and suffer death to do it?
Unless it is truth!

They already knew that they would meet God after death.
Or so they thought.

The great lie could be that we evolved from the apes.

If it weren’t for Jesus I would probably be in your camp.
We are all going to find out about what we discuss here, some of us sooner than others.

Then there’s the modern tale of supernatural interventions some I have witnessed and some are passed on, from one person to the next.

We are all stuck with a veil that we cannot see through, to know for sure about these things that we wonder about.
But every story I hear from different people that tell about when the veil is lifted for the moment (and they are very convincing) adds, hope upon hope.

The bottom line is you can’t use science to prove or disprove God.
Who invented science? From my view point God did.
The science that we know about to this date is used to disprove God.

Where does that come from?



The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and the depth of evil in the world--whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or natural catastrophes--, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe in God. No doubt, many of you feel the same way. Perhaps we should all become atheists. But that’s a pretty big step to take. How can we be sure that God does not exist? Perhaps there’s a reason God permits all the evil in the world. Perhaps it somehow fits in to the grand scheme of things, which we can only dimly perceive, if at all. How do we know?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen1.html

There is also the skeptical side of this.
Thanks for the link R.R.
I’m going there to read some more.

 

[bruto]

Yes I have.


I'm just offering another explanation to see if it can be done.
I am however completely convinced that this is a spiritual world as well so how does it all fit together?

Maybe 2001 Space Odyssey is correct or at least the concept?
But there’s a problem with that theory.

You see what I don’t buy is that we have the Hebrew religion, it has been going good for thousands of years, Now comes Jesus and ruins everything and then rises from the dead.
Why change a working system?
If it’s a lie why perpetuate it and suffer death to do it?
Unless it is truth!

They already knew that they would meet God after death.
Or so they thought.

The great lie could be that we evolved from the apes.

If it weren’t for Jesus I would probably be in your camp.
We are all going to find out about what we discuss here, some of us sooner than others.

Then there’s the modern tale of supernatural interventions some I have witnessed and some are passed on, from one person to the next.

We are all stuck with a veil that we cannot see through, to know for sure about these things that we wonder about.
But every story I hear from different people that tell about when the veil is lifted for the moment (and they are very convincing) adds, hope upon hope.

The bottom line is you can’t use science to prove or disprove God.
Who invented science? From my view point God did.
The science that we know about to this date is used to disprove God.

Where does that come from?



The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and the depth of evil in the world--whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or natural catastrophes--, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe in God. No doubt, many of you feel the same way. Perhaps we should all become atheists. But that’s a pretty big step to take. How can we be sure that God does not exist? Perhaps there’s a reason God permits all the evil in the world. Perhaps it somehow fits in to the grand scheme of things, which we can only dimly perceive, if at all. How do we know?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen1.html

There is also the skeptical side of this.
Thanks for the link R.R.
I’m going there to read some more.

If you have indeed studied some science that was not perpetrated by the opponents of natural selection, some of your arguments suggest either that you did not quite understand it, or that you are being disingenuous in your arguments when you imply that natural selection makes assertions or requires assumptions which it does not.

If you feel that science disproves God or attempts to do so, I believe that either you are mistaken about what science does or attempts, or that your idea of God is impoverished. It is unfortunate that you feel that you must make the choice of one or the other. Many do, but Many more do not. But if you do indeed believe that science in general, or the science of evolution in particular, is incompatible with your faith, I think it is unseemly to represent an argument from faith as an argument about science. If the "science we know about" cannot coexist with your faith, that's fine. Reject it, learn to do it better, or be a scientific agnostic and hope it all works out in the end. But replacing the science we know about with faith and calling it science mocks and demeans both.

 

[Beleth]

I am however completely convinced that this is a spiritual world

Why?
Why do you think that?
What convinced you?

Tell me what convinced you and maybe it will convince me too.
Seriously.

 

[RandFan]

You see what I don’t buy is that we have the Hebrew religion, it has been going good for thousands of years, Now comes Jesus and ruins everything and then rises from the dead.
Why change a working system?
If it’s a lie why perpetuate it and suffer death to do it?
Unless it is truth.

You assume a number of premises to arrive at a conclusion. Let's look at just a few.

1.) Did Christ even live?
2.) Was Christ crucified?
3.) Did Christ know that he would be crucified?
4.) Did Christ perpetuate a lie?

If we assume 1 and 2 (they are generally accepted by many scholars but not all) 3 and 4 are quite arguable. We could assume both 1 and 2 and still assume that Christ didn't know he would die. If we can question whether or not Christ was perpetuating a lie then we can question the written record that says that he knew. We can also question whether or not he was deluded. There are many arguments and assumptions we can make. Your argument just doesn't stand up. It's post hoc reasoning to justify your belief. It might be convincing to you and others who already believe but it won't convince a non believer because it is logically problematic and requires the acceptance of unwarranted assumptions.

 

[flume]

...Keep in mind I am not trying to do any thing here other than learn what facts lead you know evolution was the answer. Thanks

You see one of my main things is that a mutation is just that...a mutation, and mutations do not prove evolution or anything even close to it

Look, JF, you said you were here to learn about facts about evolution. But I don't think you made any effort to understand that section. I think you saw the word 'mutations' and immediately dismissed the whole section, respondingwith a pre-programmed, canned line about mutations that really made no sense.

Can you honestly say that you think that quote was saying that 'mutations prove evolution'? I don't think you can honestly say that. If you don't understand how mutations fit into the evolutionary process, you don't know enough to dismiss the whole subject the way you did.

 

[bignickel]

posted by Bruto
Have you ever made a good faith effort to study and understand evolution or natural selection using sources other than those written by people whose clear intent is to challenge or deny it? Your statements here, and your misunderstanding of relatively basic principles, suggest that you have not.

Yes I have.

What books have you read, exactly?

The reason I ask is that, if you had read books explaining evolution, and had understood them, and/or asked others for help with points you didn't understand, then how the heck did you think this?:

The answer was, Coelacanth ...
These things should be dead according to evolution.

Just about any of Dawkin's books would have made the point clear that that is not what we would expect from evolution. So, I'd like to know which books I should avoid recommending to other people, since I don't want to advocate a book that made such a crucial omission.

 

[RandFan]

The answer was, Coelacanth ...
These things should be dead according to evolution.

No.

1. Science is a human endeavor and therefore subject to error.
2. The strength of science is that it is not dogmatic. When better evidence comes along science can adjust.
3. The Coelacanth was simply believed to be extinct. No scientist ever predicted that an extinct species would never be found to not be extinct because of evolution. That is just silly and without basis. Scientists do make predictions that would falsify evolution BTW. The Ceolcanth just wasn't one of those predictions and there would not have been a reason for it to have been.
4. Evolution says nothing as to what should be extinct and what shouldn't.

 

[Ossai]

edge

If evolution is true, shouldn't there be fossils everywhere and billions upon billions of them?

This shows a distinct ignorance on your part as to how fossils form. How do you know that there are not billions of fossils? If a billion is all you require I can show you that, easily. In fact you can even visit Dover.

You are trying to say man fell up and I say he fell down,

What ‘fall up’, it was a long arduous climb up.

you are using a theory

Theory, based on a preponderance of evidence.

and I am using what is written down as a historical documentation to the best of what was comprehended by men writing down what they could on what they could use.

Stories they made up to explain the world. You may not be aware, but people have learned more since then. The bronze age stories you cling to were humanities attempt to understand the world and they are very limited. They believed the world was flat, covered in a dome (vault of heaven), that stars hung from the vault, the sun traveled across the sky every day, when god was angry he shook the pillars upon which the earth rested etcetera.

I am however completely convinced that this is a spiritual world as well so how does it all fit together?

Convinced based on what evidence?

You see what I don’t buy is that we have the Hebrew religion, it has been going good for thousands of years, Now comes Jesus and ruins everything and then rises from the dead.
Why change a working system?
If it’s a lie why perpetuate it and suffer death to do it?
Unless it is truth!

Carry your logic out another step. Why would Mohammad create Islam, unless it were true?
Why would Joseph Smith have worked so hard to found Mormonism, unless it were true?
Why would…
By your logic the newest religion must be true, so why are you even bothering to argue one that is that old?

The great lie could be that we evolved from the apes.

The great lie is religion. Based on all available evidence.

Then there’s the modern tale of supernatural interventions some I have witnessed and some are passed on, from one person to the next.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

We are all stuck with a veil that we cannot see through, to know for sure about these things that we wonder about.

And yet you still claim that a loving all powerful god still wants 9/10 of the world population to go to hell.

The bottom line is you can’t use science to prove or disprove God.

Sorry, incorrect. You can’t use science to prove or disprove some definitions of god.

Epicure’s riddle

The following three statements cannot all be true:

1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists

The argument is as follows:

• If god can prevent evil, but doesn't,
then he is not all-loving.

• If god intends to prevent evil, but cannot,
then he is not omnipotent.

• If god both intends to prevent evil and is
capable of doing so, then how can evil exist?

2000+ years and still waiting on a logical answer.

Ossai

 

[edge]

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. ``That's why in a 70-million-year-old fossil it is so interesting,'' he said.
Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was ``pretty exciting stuff.''
``You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at,'' said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html

Even though the reconstructed fossil is made up of both Neanderthal and human bones, Sawyer doesn’t believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species.
http://www.livescience.com/history/050310_neanderthal_reconstruction.html


Still, researchers say the perseverance of Flores Man smashes the conventional wisdom that modern humans began to systematically crowd out other upright-walking species 160,000 years ago and have dominated the planet alone for tens of thousands of years.
And it demonstrates that Africa, the acknowledged cradle of humanity, does not hold all the answers to persistent questions of how -- and where -- we came to be.
"It is arguably the most significant discovery concerning our own genus in my lifetime," said anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who reviewed the research independently.
Discoveries simply "don't get any better than that," proclaimed Robert Foley and Marta Mirazon Lahr of Cambridge University in a written analysis.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/prehistoric_dwarf_041027.html



Paleontologists previously discovered in Ethiopia the remains of Ardipithecus ramidus, a transitional creature with significant ape characteristics dating as far back as 4.5 million years. There is some dispute over whether it walked upright on two legs, Latimer and Aiello said.
Scientists know little about A. ramidus. A few skeletal fragments suggest it was even smaller than Australopithecus afarensis, the 3.2 million-year-old species widely known by the nearly complete "Lucy'' fossil, which measures about 4 feet tall.

The specimen is the only the fourth partial skeleton ever to be discovered that is older than 3 million years. It was found after two months of excavation at Mille, 37 miles from the famous Lucy discovery.
"It is a once in a lifetime find,'' Latimer said.



http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050305_human_ancestory.html

I look at the evidence all the time.

 

[edge]

In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three points. For you Ossai,

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four.

A. The chief purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God. One reason the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that the goal of human life is happiness in this world. But on the Christian view this is false. Man’s end is not happiness as such, but the knowledge of God--which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which seem utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or perhaps those around him. Whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering all depends on how we freely respond.
B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at the human evils in the world. On the contrary, he expects them! The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen. He does not interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.
C. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet he wrote: "We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. For we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (II Cor. 4. 16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.
D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good--the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God--no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain--can still say, "God is good to me" simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good.
These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen1.html

I try to understand both sides. The why.

RandFan
You my friend are an organized individual.

Beleth said,

Why?
Why do you think that?
What convinced you?

Tell me what convinced you and maybe it will convince me too.
Seriously.

I'm not sure of your sincerity, and these things are of a personal nature that's how god works to bring us back to him.
There may be more ridicule directed at me because of the nature of the unfaithful.
I have how ever divulged one story in a pm, to only one person on this forum so far, and she has respected my wishes.
There are certain parameters to the many stories because of the personal natures of them.
Then there’s that word Anecdotes. You tell me.
Are you confident about what you think you know?

 

[edge]

What books have you read, exactly?

The reason I ask is that, if you had read books explaining evolution, and had understood them, and/or asked others for help with points you didn't understand, then how the heck did you think this?:


Just about any of Dawkin's books would have made the point clear that that is not what we would expect from evolution. So, I'd like to know which books I should avoid recommending to other people, since I don't want to advocate a book that made such a crucial omission.

How do I think this?
I started reading the books since I was a child, I specifically went to the library to read about the fossil evidence and I learned how to make them out of clay and to draw them.
I was very good at it.
It is an interesting field.
I have been to numerous museums and it's about death not life.

I always, even when I was young thought and knew where that field of study was going and for a while I believed it.
I had the religious upbringing, which was always there thanks to my parents.
Then in my teen years I turned heathen again.
Some things are shown to a person and I can’t say why exactly.
Which bring you back to the belief.

The answer was, Coelacanth...
These things should be dead according to evolution.

I should have said, the evolutionists.
They went extinct 200 million years ago.
So they aren’t as knowledgeable as they think.
What I recommend is to rethink your stance.
The books are good to a point but they leave as many questions as they answer.
Kind of like the Bible.
What if they are both right.

 

[Beleth]

I'm not sure of your sincerity,

I have never lied to you. But that's beside the point.

and these things are of a personal nature

This is the point.

See, edge, I ask everyone who says that they are "convinced" that God exists what it was that convinced them. The number of people I have asked must be in the dozens by now. And do you know how many straight answers I have gotten?

Zero.

No one has ever given me a straight answer.
It's always "it's personal" or "you wouldn't understand" or "why should I tell you?" or "you'll just try to talk me out of it".

And yet, they come here and try to argue about the accuracy of the Bible, or the inaccuracy of science, when it's obvious that those arguments are not what convinced them.

I consider this the definition of wasted time.

It's like trying to feed people by showing them pages from a cookbook.
"Look! I've had the dish created by this recipe, and it's quite filling! Now that I've shown you this recipe exists, you should be full too!"

How is that supposed to get any reasonable person on your side?

To convince me, you need to tell me what convinced you. Feed me the dish you ate, don't show me the recipe. If it's personal, then send it to me in a PM. If you don't think I'll understand, then you have prejudged me and you might as well stop posting. If you think I'll try to talk you out of it, well, then again, you are prejudging me... and if you are afraid that I'll be successful at talking you out of it, then I put it to you that you aren't truly convinced after all.

But don't give me this "I'm convinced" line and then retreat into "it's personal" when someone calls you on it.

that's how god works to bring us back to him.

If God works through personal means, then of what use is a public document like the Bible?

 

[mylfmyhnr]

...the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate.

then it isn't free will at all. if god "orders history" to create what he wants anyway then it isn't free will. he knows what we will do and adjust it so that we do what he wants. besides which, i'm really uncomfortable with the idea that a god would damn his creation to make his own point to himself. he will subject the world to horrible wars and suffering to defeat satan and usher in a 1000 years of peace. well, if the game is already won, why play it? why cause his creation to suffer if he already knows the outcome... and if it's his game because he's the creator of all) why does he create the rules that he knows we can't follow to punish us for our free will that he gave us by sending us into the temptation he laid out for us leading us to the second coming and a war he knows he will win??? (whew, thats a lot to get through.)

 

[bruto]

....
I should have said, the evolutionists.
They went extinct 200 million years ago.
So they aren’t as knowledgeable as they think.
What I recommend is to rethink your stance.
The books are good to a point but they leave as many questions as they answer.
Kind of like the Bible.
What if they are both right.

I think you're just wrong about that. Can you cite any "evolutionist" who contends that an ancient creature like the coelacanth ought to have been extinct, when they simply believed that it was, or any evolutionist who considered the discovery of the coelacanth to be in any way contrary to the theory of natural selection?

I do not see how a literal interpretation of the Bible can be compatible with science. This goes deeper than "current scientific knowledge. " It goes to the heart of what science is and what it means. A literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with some of the most basic principles of physics, astronomy, biology and geology. It requires that we deny not only the evidence that is presented to us, but the very principle of how evidence is interpreted, how theories are arrived at, tested and falsified, how science is done, and how it ought to be done. Millions of people, Christian and not, scientists and not, have found it both possible and comfortable to accept scientific facts, theories, practices and principles without discarding their belief or faith in God. People who attempt to subvert science by first making biblical assumptions and then denying all that contradicts them are cooking the books in a way that insults the intelligence and integrity not only of science but also of faith.

 

[Ossai]

edge

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

What a steaming pile of manure. You use special pleading to assert that god is so powerful and all knowing and such a mystery to mankind that we can’t possibly understand him. You also conveniently negate human freewill. Then, in practically the same breath, declare that god is incapable using that great power to make the world a better place or at least come up with a better plan. Sorry Edge but you can’t have it both ways. Either god is omnipotent, people have no freewill and god is a capricious, vindictive, cruel evil bastard or god does not have the power to effectively change how things work.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil.

God created and perpetuates evil as stated in the bible. How does faith increate the probability of the existence of a god? I don’t know if this is an attempted appeal to popularity or what. If it is then you should follow the religion with the greatest number of adherents (BTW that’s not Christianity, include the variations and the number of TRUE Christian adherents falls dramatically.)

In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four.

Again, this is not exactly a clear statement.

A. The chief purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God. One reason the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that the goal of human life is happiness in this world. But on the Christian view this is false. Man’s end is not happiness as such, but the knowledge of God--which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which seem utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God.

OK, you just declared god cruel and evil.

Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or perhaps those around him. Whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering all depends on how we freely respond.

Again, another steaming pile of manure. The world is set up so that 9/10 of all humanity that has ever lived, is alive and will ever live will go directly to hell.

B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.

Sorry, but if god is omnipotent then mankind is only doing as it was programmed from the very beginning. Again you just declared god evil.

The Christian isn’t surprised at the human evils in the world. On the contrary, he expects them! The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen. He does not interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.

God = Evil, again and again. You keep this up and I’ll just start posting excerpts of this as explanations in other arguments against liberal christians.

C. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. In the Christian view, this life is not all there is.

The carrot, nothing more than special pleading and definitely not unique.

Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord.

No he didn’t. Paul promised all those who place their trust in Jesus eternal life.

In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy.

Special pleading and just heightens the unjust nature of your fantasy god.

Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.

All those billions of innocents doomed to hell for never having heard of Jesus and the eternal suffering they endure because of YHWH’s cruelty.

Sorry edge, but you’ve stated exactly nothing new. This is all just a typical rehash of the standard Christian manure.

D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.

Based on what criteria? Christians spout ‘faith over knowledge’ so define knowledge. If you have knowledge of god then you cannot have faith in the existence of god.

To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good--the fulfillment of human existence.

More manure, again the world is set up so that 9/10s of all people go to hell.

The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it.

But the infinite torments of hell can be directly compared to it.

Thus, the person who knows God--no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain--can still say, "God is good to me" simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God.

Considering that all four are baseless the only logical conclusion is that god doesn’t exist.

Ossai

 

[edge]

More manure, again the world is set up so that 9/10s of all people go to hell.

You know more about judgement than most then where do you get your manure?
You got some deep issues dude.

then you say things like this,

Special pleading and just heightens the unjust nature of your fantasy god. What a steaming pile of manure. You use special pleading to assert that god is so powerful and all knowing and such a mystery to mankind that we can’t possibly understand him.OK, you just declared god cruel and evil.

god is a capricious, vindictive, cruel evil bastard or god does not have the power to effectively change how things work.
Sorry edge, but you’ve stated exactly nothing new. This is all just a typical rehash of the standard Christian manure.
The carrot, nothing more than special pleading and definitely not unique.

Considering that all four are baseless the only logical conclusion is that god doesn’t exist.

Do you always answer like this?
The only thing I see that is baseless is you.
The only thing you have done is go on a rant Kind of childish.
I just can't believe you understood nothing?
It boggles my mind.
Your soul is very angry with you, so you must be venting that toward me is the only thing I can figure.
Have you read the rebuttal to that, on the site?