That, DT, is my point exactly.
Thank you for taking the chum I threw into the water so swiftly.
Now take what you just said, with consideration of your previous response to me.
Seriously. Think about it.
Poser.
I haven't weighed in on this topic in a while, so I'll throw my bit out now. If we're going to use the Bible as a reference, then evil is absolutely of divine origin. First, Satan was made subject to evil by God; Lucifer had no choice in the matter. Second, Adam had no choice but to eat the fruit, because before he ate it he was ignorant. A choice of right and wrong that is made while one is ignorant of right and wrong is no choice at all. If we're going to say that Adam made a free will choice, then certainly, at the very least, it was an unfair choice for him to have to make, and since it was God who put him into the position of making that choice then God is to blame for making it unfair. Since, according to the Bible, evil entered the world through the actions of these two beings, Lucifer and Adam, one can only come to the logical conclusion that God created evil.
If we don't use the Bible as a reference, or some other viable source, then any speculation about the nature of God and/or evil is purely that, speculation. Baseless and unfounded.
So the atheist's Problem of Evil cannot be so easily brushed away by the theist who would say that evil is the result of free will. If you're going to say that evil is the result of free will you'd best be able to back it up soundly. Otherwise the atheist is entirely justified in believing what he believes.
Hue-man:
I think that what we are accusing you of doing, is being too general. And indeed, you are being too general. The only way to end this is by you ceasing to make such general comments as 'theists say/do this' 'sweeping generalization of conception of god X is invalid because it means god is Y' the very structure of your arguments are drawing the circles. Not to mention, that god is benevolent and omnipotent and omniscient ect would not indicate that god is cruel, as benevolence negates that. You could show, maybe, that there is a logical contradiction found in the set of traits, say benevolence and omnipotence, but as I said, the old argument is that evil is a result of free will, and not divine will.
In actuality, the sense that I am getting from you is a self righteous one and that you seem to take less-than-scholarly view points as your object of attack; as a result, it seems that your attacks aren't totally justified.
I am not sure what your intent is, but many of the attacks you have made, such as against those who would be agnostic towards unicorns, indicates that you haven't fully looked into how complicated and nuanced that viewpoint is. If something is not known to be, but potentially is, then it is absurd to deny that it could be, though possibly pointless to suggest that it really could exist. Thus it is not very sensible to be a strong atheist(i.e. to deny that something exists or could exist due to lack of empirical evidence).
Solace: The bible does not contain the story of Lucifer's fall. So no point in bringing the bible into that. That story comes from tradition. And, Lucifer had no choice? According to the version I am familiar with it was indeed his own doing. He was angry with God. He did not like the creation of Man Kind because it wounded his pride. Out of pride he thought he was as powerful or at least should be as powerful as God himself. The battle was fought and he and the angels that joined his cause got tossed into hell.
Anselm: You mentioned scientific findings regarding free will. I would very much like to read about that. Can you point me to where you found this information? I would much appreciate it!
I haven't weighed in on this topic in a while, so I'll throw my bit out now. If we're going to use the Bible as a reference, then evil is absolutely of divine origin. First, Satan was made subject to evil by God; Lucifer had no choice in the matter. Second, Adam had no choice but to eat the fruit, because before he ate it he was ignorant. A choice of right and wrong that is made while one is ignorant of right and wrong is no choice at all. If we're going to say that Adam made a free will choice, then certainly, at the very least, it was an unfair choice for him to have to make, and since it was God who put him into the position of making that choice then God is to blame for making it unfair. Since, according to the Bible, evil entered the world through the actions of these two beings, Lucifer and Adam, one can only come to the logical conclusion that God created evil.
If we don't use the Bible as a reference, or some other viable source, then any speculation about the nature of God and/or evil is purely that, speculation. Baseless and unfounded.
So the atheist's Problem of Evil cannot be so easily brushed away by the theist who would say that evil is the result of free will. If you're going to say that evil is the result of free will you'd best be able to back it up soundly. Otherwise the atheist is entirely justified in believing what he believes.
Guys the biggest unresolved, unresolvable irreconcilable topic in relation to our daily uncomfortable reality of eat or be eaten
Surly an infinite intellect could have come up with a better way of energizing our bodies, this killing of other innocent life forms to prolong our miserable short existence, is horrible, what do you think?
Maybe we are not the creation of a benevolent god as many like to think , maybe God is a malignant evil entity. The gnostics believed our world and how it is ordered, was created by just such an awful being?
OK Zetetic, let's really try and resolve this argument, because I feel like I am repeating the same things over and over again, and that makes me feel like this debate is not fruitful.
I am not being too general. I have conceded to the fact that there are other conceptions of the word God, none of which I agree with, but I am attacking a particular viewpoint, and that is the position of theism, and fideism.
Theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fideism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am simply taking theistic attributes that have been echoed for ages and refuting them. What about that is so hard to understand?! No modern Judea-Christian scholar can change the attributes of the God of the bible, because they believe the bible is his word, and it is a dogma.
This (Theism) is what I disbelieve in. Please get that through your head and end it? If your repetitions are an attempt to show me where you stand on the issue of theism then you can stop, because I get it.
The authors of the bible clearly intended for it to be read literally, and evidence of their ancient law system indicate such.
Some modern biblical scholars only say that not everything is meant to be taken literally, because it is archaic, and this is a way of trying to make it fit with modern developments even when it clearly doesn't; and there are things in the bible that are incompatible with the ethical standards of modern society. How do you not take commands to stone homosexuals and non-believers literally? Where does the ass kissing apologetics stop?
Lucifer was not made subject to evil by God: at least, not in any verse I can recall.
Yeah, I get that you disbelieve in theism: that's grand. My point is that your arguments so far only address some varieties of theism and not all varieties of theism. Because your arguments do not address all of theism, or even the more popular theological manifestations of theism, your conclusion (your belief) is not adequately supported by your argument.
Now, you can believe whatever you like regardless of what you do or do not argue. But it's not as if you have debunked theism.
Ancient legal codes in no way suggest that mythology is to be read literally. The Bible is a collection of a variety of works, by a variety of authors. Some of those texts are laws, but others are mythology. Writers of mythology are typically aware that they are writing mythology. I have a hard time believing that Dante thought he had actually traversed Hell and Heaven.
Some modern scholars, yes, and some ancient scholars, too. In fact, scholars throughout history have read the mythology of the Bible as figurative: that the Bible is not literal has been Catholic dogma for centuries. You might check Anselm for an example thereof.
Yeah, I get that you disbelieve in theism: that's grand. My point is that your arguments so far only address some varieties of theism and not all varieties of theism. Because your arguments do not address all of theism, or even the more popular theological manifestations of theism, your conclusion (your belief) is not adequately supported by your argument.
Now, you can believe whatever you like regardless of what you do or do not argue. But it's not as if you have debunked theism.
Ancient legal codes in no way suggest that mythology is to be read literally. The Bible is a collection of a variety of works, by a variety of authors. Some of those texts are laws, but others are mythology. Writers of mythology are typically aware that they are writing mythology. I have a hard time believing that Dante thought he had actually traversed Hell and Heaven.
Some modern scholars, yes, and some ancient scholars, too. In fact, scholars throughout history have read the mythology of the Bible as figurative: that the Bible is not literal has been Catholic dogma for centuries. You might check Anselm for an example thereof.
Hue-man: I no longer wish to converse about this either, because you seem to do nothing but ignore or dance around what I have said. Either you have not at all understood me or you don't want to take a second to think about what I have said. In either case, I no longer wish to speak about this until you have a shift in view, at least enough to see the issue from the angle I am speaking from. You continue to make presumptions about what the concept of god is and misunderstanding what I have said. If you have not read scholarly works on this subject, then you are going by common views and word of mouth. There are so many religious officials, especially Rabbis and old Islamic scholars, who have considered god in a more abstract way long, long ago. How about the Zarathustrians and the Hindu scholars? I have seen some of the most dense, philosophical, abstract dissertations on the gods in ancient Hindu poetry. If you do not wish to step outside of one simple minded sect of the Judeo-Christian realm of thought, then it is easy to criticize.
Okay, I do dislike having to bring direct passages into these debates, but to clarify precisely what the Bible says on the matter;
Romans 8:19-21
19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
As for Adam, where does it say that he was only ignorant of duality? It says that the fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Without that knowledge how could Adam have known what good and evil were? And if he didn't know what good and evil was, then how could he have obeyed God's command, since obedience to God's commands is good, according to the Bible, is it not? So we are left with one of two interpretations; either God intended for Adam to do evil, or else God would have had Adam do good whilst ignorant. What lesson is there then, that ignorance is good?
Now I'm not trying to argue any of this from a literal standing. Rather we must, if we are to base any argument on scripture, at least try to understand what the scripture says. Granted, DT, we can reason without scripture, but if we leave theology to reason alone then we have no more to go by than the atheist. Not as much even, for certainly atheists will resort to scripture, if for no other reason than to point out perceived inconsistincies.
Excuse the common local vernacular, but OH MY GOD! I gave you the definition of theism. Any other form of theism is not really theism; like deism, or pantheism for example. The word theism arose as a more specific contrast to the widely held deism of the 18th century.
What I have been doing is presenting valid arguments against theism, none of which you have directly rebutted. Other than the fact that someone with a mature intellect should be able to tell the difference between imagination/myth and reality, I presented a thoroughly logical argument against the attributes of a personal deity; omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and benevolence; if you want to keep of this game of tag, or debate, then please argue against that.
If what you are saying is true and most of the churches have accepted that the stories of Noah's ark, Jesus, and Moses are myths, then Christian followers must not have received the memo.
"I have a hard time believing that Dante thought he had actually traversed Hell and Heaven."
Unless someone intentionally lies for egoistic reasons (Joseph Smith for example), which people do all of the time, myths are usually started as allegorical tales, and only later are they taken literally.
What creature is being talked about here if it is not Lucifer?
Zetetic11235,
I do not wish to continue our debate, because I no longer feel that it is necessary. I have conceded to points you have made about their being different concepts for God, and I have even named some of them; like deism, and pantheism for example. The problem is that I never stated that there was only one concept for God, and your arguments don't directly apply to what I have said. I also never made an empirical claim against the existence of any deities, as those claims are infallible (just like imaginary friends). I have only made logical/rational arguments against the belief in deities.
You seem to agree with my argument that the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and benevolence are logically incompatible with the nature of the universe, the human condition, and the problem of evil. These are divine attributes that the believers believe in, and I am simply rebutting them. Believers (theistic fideists) are not objective scholars.
Therefore, I see no need for us to keep up a back and forth by basically repeating the same things over and over again. I understand you, but after seeing your response to my post, I think that you are the one who refuses to understand me.
Some translations have "creation" rather than creature. In any case, the passage is referring to us: mankind.
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve did not think of reality in terms of some things being good and others evil until they ate the fruit. Remember that a popular theology in early religion was that of duality: see Zoroastrianism, a battle between Good and Evil. Genesis is a rejection of this theology, in favor of a theology of following God.
What's wrong with atheism? Atheists can be spiritual: we don't have to use the word God. It's just a word.
But I see your point - after all, we were using the word God. But even then, someone had to write scripture in the first place. Some human being with human experience. Well, we are also humans with human experience. Our humanity allows us to discuss the matters, with or without scripture. I suggest scripture because I favor learning, but scripture is not necessary. I'd say it is dangerous to rely too heavily on scripture: remember the commandments against idolatry (yeah, the contradiction there is intentional).
I'm not sure what your definition of theism is, but your arguments have not addressed all notions of theism - and I'm not talking about deism or pantheism. For example, your arguments say nothing about some mainstream Christian understandings of God, like the Catholic understanding of God.
And you have skirted my point the whole time:
Not all theists believe that God literally has the following attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and benevolence.
Right, because all Christian practitioners have exactly the same views...
So then you should know that the authors of the Bible were aware that the tales they were writing were not literal. Breakthrough!
