The arguments of God's nonexistence

That quasi-catholic kindness makes me weak enough to continue to ship some cheese, time to time, to antechristic Dys...

One is meant to have some flaws...

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The main arguments that give philosophers and theologies the evidence that there is no God is mainly because of the many, many, many, many logical contradictions that support such claims.

Let me pick on this a bit. It is important to distinguish between logical contradictions that you find within your perception of what God is like, and logical contradictions that you find within other people's perception of what God is like. For instance, if you perceive that the Bible says that God can do anything at all, but then you perceive that the Bible says that God cannot lie, then there is most definitely a contradiction within your perception of what the Bible says about God. You could, in fact, conclude that no such God could logically exist as you perceive the Bible to be explaining him.

Reason and logic aren't just my way to try to understand the world that surrounds me; it also applies to everyone. Since reason and logic are what we humans depend on to understand the intricacies of this physical universe, to the world that surrounds us, and then they must also be applied to the concept of God, His words, His motives, and the logic of His own existence.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The comments that I provide to this forum aren't just my opinions, but also the opinions of a great significant number of atheists.

But realize that other people (taking this example further) would not agree with you that the Bible says that God can do anything at all. They might, for instance, claim that their perception of the Bible is that it speaks of a God who can do anything that he desires to do, but that there are many things he cannot do (because they are not consistent with his nature). There is no objective logical contradiction within this type of person's perception of God. In other words, this person could believe that such a God exists, and s/he would not be irrational to do so.

Are not consistent with his nature"? Is this your opinion about God's existence? Or is this a fact?

Implicator wrote:

The point I am making is this (and I think this is why someone else mentions the term "straw man" a little further down): understand that people have their own perceptions of what the Bible says about God, and for you to present your perception as if it is someone else's is to create a straw man. All you can really do is listen to what other people say their perception is, and see if you can find contradictions within their perception. (You might also try to show some objective contradictions, but I would think that would be much more difficult to do.)

But why doesn't the Bible articulate this and address it properly?

Isn't my logical evidence relevant to debunk your opinions about God's existence?

You already know why this concept seems wrong; you can't just ask people about their own individual concept of God. If the Bible tells you about what God is, why would the need of different people's perception of God needed? I know that I can find more contradictions from asking them than what I have posted here so far.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

For instance, we can say that an object can be red all over, but that same object can't be red and black all over. This would contradict the logic and sense of what the object actually is.

More specifically it would be a contradiction to state that "it is the case that the object is black all over" and "it is not the case that the object is black all over", with the added caveat of "at the same time and in the same sense." I suspect this is what you were saying, but I felt a more exact definition of a contradiction was important, considering the example we now turn to ...

The same object that is black all over can't be any other color but black. Is this difficult to understand?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

This gives birth to the Argument from Evil that reveals an evil God totally opposed to what a lot of people think

I am quite familiar with Hume's "Problem of Evil" argument, which is why your post captured my attention. Hume attempts to posit that a God described as all-good and all-powerful cannot exist in universe where evil exists. Hume's problem is that he assumes an all-good God is a God whose every action must be perceived by every person as good. I see you doing the same thing below.

You are familiar with Hume's "Problem of Evil", but you seem to not understand it.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

For example, an innocent little girl (about six years old) is trapped in a room engulfed in fire.

First of all, please realize that not everyone would agree with you that this girl is innocent, specifically because many people feel that the Bible presents the "truth" that there are no innocent people at all. This doesn't address the main point of your argument below, but it is a good example of how the assumptions we might make will impact the conclusions we come to. (In other words, rethink your example with a 30-year old serial killer in the room instead of the little girl, and see whether your perception of the situation changes. If it doesn't, then ask yourself why you used the example of an "innocent" little girl.)

But the Bible says that all children are innocent. Why would I possibly include the example you give me about the 30-year old serial killer if I'm using mine (the example of the innocent little girl) to present a contradiction between God's words that fall into logical conflict?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The little girl desperately gets on her knees, closes her eyes and begins to ask God to save her. The girl dies consumed by the fire. Why didn't God save her? If God could not hear her, he's not omnipresent.

In essence, yes. But specifically, if God did not "know" her situation, then he is not omnipresent (all-knowing).

Why the repetition of my own words? Do you agree or not?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God could hear her but didn't want to save her, He's not all good.

Let's stop right here. Specifically *why* is God not all-good if he does not want to spare her life? Is it because she is "innocent"? Is it because she is a little girl? Is it because she prayed to God to save her? I don't want to assume that I know your reason for stating that God is not good for not saving her, so that is why I am asking you to tell me exactly why he isn't good if he doesn't want to save her.

God isn't all good, all powerful, or all knowing because of those traits that define Him, which contradict the logic of His own existence. And the answer to your question regarding God's refusal to save the innocent little girl is: (d) all of the above.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God could hear her, wanted to help her but couldn't, He's not all powerful.

Agreed. If God could not do something he wanted to do, then he is not all powerful (according to the definition of a being who can do everything he wants to do.)

Then if you agree to this, it means that you contradicting yourself.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

This means that if God exists He's all three, which means He doesn't exist.

Or (and this is important), it might be the case that one of more of your premises above are incorrect. In other words, if you misapply the example you have given to the attributes of God, then the conclusion is not necessarily that this God does not exist.

How did I misapply my example? I'd like to know, please.

Implicator wrote:

You can probably see where I am going with this, from what I said above. I think you need to support your contention that God is not all-loving if he decides he does not want to save this girl.

I don't seem to understand where you are going.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Another example is the Book of Job (if you have read it) that reveals a sadistic, selfish God who makes a wager with the devil trying to prove Job's faithfulness by inflicting leprosy, killing all his children, and making him a vagabond, and rewards him later by giving him more than he ever had.

Well first of all, the Bible does present God as selfish - I agree with you on that. Whether or not such selfishness is morally "bad" for this God is another topic for discussion. But I am interested to hear why you think the example of Job makes God out to be "sadistic" (i.e. deriving pleasure specifically from inflicting pain on others.) Does the book of Job state anywhere that God's "pleasure" in his dealing with Job was derived entirely (or even in part) from inflicting pain? If you can't show that, then please realize you have interjected some personal feelings you have about this God - you haven't provided any objective proof that he is sadistic.

If God allowed the Devil to inflict pain on Job, then God should also be held accountable for this action (doesn't God suppose to protect us from evil?). He allowed the Devil to torture Job to convince the Devil he would still be faithful to Him. And why would God want to convince the Devil that Job would be faithful to Him? Isn't this wager below God's standards, nature?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

There are other disagreements I would have about your characterization of the book of Job, but I won't go into them here. All I will do is point out the fact that since I *do* disagree with your perception of what the Bible says about God's actions in the book of Job, that your conclusions as it pertains to your perception of God are not necessarily binding on me, as I have different perceptions of him than you do.

Enlight me. I have the hunger for knowledge.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If this is the characteristic behavior of a good God, then there is a contradiction of what the Bible tries to depict Him as the all-good, moral God.

Well what does it mean for God to be good? Does it mean he must do things in accordance of what you think it means to be good? The mere fact that there is more than one definition of good floating around out there should lead you to question just what standard of good you should use when judging God, right?

What is the definition of "good" (not your own definition, but general definition, in accordance to the definition of "good" that applies to humanity).

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

That we must do the things that please him, not because they're the right things to do, but because we desperately want the salvation of our souls.

Do you think Job did what he did because he was trying to save his skin, or because he wanted to please God?

But why do you think Job would want to please God? Didn't Job desire a place in Heaven next to God? I don't think Job wanted to go to Hell.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Why is it very important to Him?

Do you think the Bible might tell us why that is?

If the Bible points out why we have to depend on Him, then that would contradict the logics mentioned above.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Other arguments among others that prove God's nonexistence are the Allegory of the Cave, The Invisible Gardener, and Socrate's The Apology.

You might want to provide some specifics here, if you are hoping to convince anyone that these arguments actually do what you claim they do.

Try to read them, analyze them, and come to a conclusion.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The main arguments that give philosophers and theologies the evidence that there is no God is mainly because of the many, many, many, many logical contradictions that support such claims.

Let me pick on this a bit. It is important to distinguish between logical contradictions that you find within your perception of what God is like, and logical contradictions that you find within other people's perception of what God is like. For instance, if you perceive that the Bible says that God can do anything at all, but then you perceive that the Bible says that God cannot lie, then there is most definitely a contradiction within your perception of what the Bible says about God. You could, in fact, conclude that no such God could logically exist as you perceive the Bible to be explaining him.

Reason and logic aren't just my way to try to understand the world that surrounds me; it also applies to everyone. Since reason and logic are what we humans depend on to understand the intricacies of this physical universe, to the world that surrounds us, and then they must also be applied to the concept of God, His words, His motives, and the logic of His own existence.

Logic is objective, yes. However, logic is applied by subjective individuals based on their subjective perceptions of the concepts in question (e.g. God). So, although it may be the case that you may find contradictions in your perception of God, it is not necessarily the case that another person with different perceptions of God would find the same contradictions that you do. In short, to show that there are many, many, many logical contradictions in the Bible requires you to show that your perception of what the Bible says is objectively true, and that there are contradictions within that perception. Otherwise, you have not shown in the general sense that there are contradictions in the Bible.



I don't just find contradiction in my perception of God because of assumptions I make; contradictions about God existence is derived from logic, not from me, and from people who study the matter from reasoning and logic. If another person hasn't found any contradictions regarding the Bible, and God's existence, then that individual isn't applying logic the way he or she should, to understand the basis of the arguments. If you tell me that the Bible doesn't have any contradictions that means you lack sense of logic, according to the definition of what logic is.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The comments that I provide to this forum aren't just my opinions, but also the opinions of a great significant number of atheists.

But realize that other people (taking this example further) would not agree with you that the Bible says that God can do anything at all. They might, for instance, claim that their perception of the Bible is that it speaks of a God who can do anything that he desires to do, but that there are many things he cannot do (because they are not consistent with his nature). There is no objective logical contradiction within this type of person's perception of God. In other words, this person could believe that such a God exists, and s/he would not be irrational to do so.

Are not consistent with his nature"? Is this your opinion about God's existence? Or is this a fact?

This is the opinion that many people have about God. It may vary from your opinion. Whether or not it is a fact depends on whether or not there is some way to know objectively what God's attributes are, no? Do you think there is a way to know this? If not, then it is just your opinion against someone else's, despite the objective nature of logic.

If the Bible tells you about the nature and objectives of God, then no assumptions should be take about what His nature and objectives are. That's where reasoning comes into play. Why did God try to mix reason and contradictions together? Either God doesn't know about the nature of logic, or He created logic to confuse the Hell out of us and following His will blindly.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

The point I am making is this (and I think this is why someone else mentions the term "straw man" a little further down): understand that people have their own perceptions of what the Bible says about God, and for you to present your perception as if it is someone else's is to create a straw man. All you can really do is listen to what other people say their perception is, and see if you can find contradictions within their perception. (You might also try to show some objective contradictions, but I would think that would be much more difficult to do.)

But why doesn't the Bible articulate this and address it properly?

I'm not sure what you are saying, Jason.

The Straw Man arguments implies to debunk the nature of science and its effectiveness to understand the world using logic (from what I read so far). I think that I explain the origin of life on this planet by applying logic with the information given by science. I don't know why it should be called Straw Man. I simply don't get it.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Isn't my logical evidence relevant to debunk your opinions about God's existence?

Your evidence must be applied (using logic) to my perception of God, if you are intending to debunk *my* opinions about God's existence. You can't expect to apply your evidence to *your* perception of God unless you can also show that your perception is correct.

How can I apply logic to YOUR perception of God? You are misunderstanding. Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning". How YOUR logic here stands if you lack a reasonable one?

In short, be sure you aren't misrepresenting what someone else says in order to argue against it - that's known as a strawman, which is a logical fallacy.

If I explained something giving you logic (explain through provable evince), why i'sn't logical?

How can something be logical if it is serived from the supernatural and assumptions?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You already know why this concept seems wrong; you can't just ask people about their own individual concept of God. If the Bible tells you about what God is, why would the need of different people's perception of God needed? I know that I can find more contradictions from asking them than what I have posted here so far.

If I am speaking with someone else about the God of the Bible, then I most certainly can (and should) ask that person about their concept of the God of the Bible. That is how I would treat you if I was asking you about the God of the Bible, and that's how I would expect you to treat me as well. You do realize that not everyone agrees on what the Bible says, don't you?

You can't possibly ask people about their perception of God. You know what the problem of assumption is. You have to analyze the evidence presented to you and then, only then you can apply a reasonable conclusion.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

For instance, we can say that an object can be red all over, but that same object can't be red and black all over. This would contradict the logic and sense of what the object actually is.

More specifically it would be a contradiction to state that "it is the case that the object is black all over" and "it is not the case that the object is black all over", with the added caveat of "at the same time and in the same sense." I suspect this is what you were saying, but I felt a more exact definition of a contradiction was important, considering the example we now turn to ...

The same object that is black all over can't be any other color but black. Is this difficult to understand?

An object can be black all over and blue all over, if that object is a person, and the sense in which we use the term "blue" has to do with a feeling, and not a color. You have, in fact, ended up making this very clarification (of "sense") by using the term "color" in your response to me. My addition of "at the same time and in the same sense" was intended (as I said) to be sure that we all understood exactly what a contradiction is, in preparation for the next statement …

How can an object be a person? do you see logic in that? I literally said color to clarify a point, a literal point (don't introduce metaphors to my examples, please).

I apply logic, the general definition of logic.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

This gives birth to the Argument from Evil that reveals an evil God totally opposed to what a lot of people think

I am quite familiar with Hume's "Problem of Evil" argument, which is why your post captured my attention. Hume attempts to posit that a God described as all-good and all-powerful cannot exist in universe where evil exists. Hume's problem is that he assumes an all-good God is a God whose every action must be perceived by every person as good. I see you doing the same thing below.

You are familiar with Hume's "Problem of Evil", but you seem to not understand it.

I understand it all too well, Jason. Let me say what I said again, and will bold the important clarification I made - Hume's problem is that he assumes that an all-good God is a God whose every actions must be perceived by every person as good.


Do you understand the importance of the point I am making here by adding the clarification of "every person"? Do you see why it causes Hume's argument to falter? If not, then I will be happy to explain myself.

But Hume's "Problem From Evil" addresses the contradictions of God being all good, all powerful, and all knowing when logic is applied to every premise. If you apply methaphor and opinions, then such premises would not contradict themselves (based on the opinions of others), but they will become relevant. But Hume's problem should be applied to every person since it's derive from logic. Why do we all need definitions then? Let's leave the method of definition out, lets not used it, and you'll see that everything will become methaphors; everything will be said literally and mean something else. And you know why it is problematic to assume things.

You can explain it if you can give logic (not the concept of your own logic, but the logic that applies to reason). But if you're going to give me your own opinion, then I know what're you are going to say.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

For example, an innocent little girl (about six years old) is trapped in a room engulfed in fire.

First of all, please realize that not everyone would agree with you that this girl is innocent, specifically because many people feel that the Bible presents the "truth" that there are no innocent people at all. This doesn't address the main point of your argument below, but it is a good example of how the assumptions we might make will impact the conclusions we come to. (In other words, rethink your example with a 30-year old serial killer in the room instead of the little girl, and see whether your perception of the situation changes. If it doesn't, then ask yourself why you used the example of an "innocent" little girl.)

But the Bible says that all children are innocent. Why would I possibly include the example you give me about the 30-year old serial killer if I'm using mine (the example of the innocent little girl) to present a contradiction between God's words that fall into logical conflict?

I will say it again - not everyone would agree with you that the Bible says this girl is innocent, many would say just the opposite, which means your analogy would have no impact on them, because it would be as if you were presenting an analogy using a 30-year old serial killer.

I don't understand what you trying to present here. I understand that lots of people will not agree with me on this. But don't you think that if they apply logic ( logic that they don't seem understand) to the things that they want to understand about the Bible, they will find many, many contradictions. But if they apply assumptions and their own opinions, the logic that I'm talking about will cease to exist.

But more to the point, show me where the Bible says all children are innocent.

Do you think I have everything written down on paper to prove a point. Besides, you don't have to believe everything that I post here. That's up to you. If you want to find out if I'm telling the truth about any biblical event, You can begin by doing some research, and you'll see if I'm lying or not. Simple.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The little girl desperately gets on her knees, closes her eyes and begins to ask God to save her. The girl dies consumed by the fire. Why didn't God save her? If God could not hear her, he's not omnipresent.

In essence, yes. But specifically, if God did not "know" her situation, then he is not omnipresent (all-knowing).

Why the repetition of my own words? Do you agree or not?

Once again, did you read what I said? First of all, I did not repeat your words, I clarified them by introducing the term "know". Second, I did agree with you when I said "in essence, yes".

But why do you continue to refute my arguments then? If you agree with this, then you are contradictiong yourself logically. why? because If one of these premises is wrong, then everything is worng according to the definiton of reason and logic. Think about this (logically, not with assumptions).

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God could hear her but didn't want to save her, He's not all good.

Let's stop right here. Specifically *why* is God not all-good if he does not want to spare her life? Is it because she is "innocent"? Is it because she is a little girl? Is it because she prayed to God to save her? I don't want to assume that I know your reason for stating that God is not good for not saving her, so that is why I am asking you to tell me exactly why he isn't good if he doesn't want to save her.

God isn't all good, all powerful, or all knowing because of those traits that define Him, which contradict the logic of His own existence. And the answer to your question regarding God's refusal to save the innocent little girl is: (d) all of the above.

You are avoiding my question by simply restating your position. The Problem of Evil states that God cannot exist because his traits would not allow evil to exist, yet it exists, so therefore he cannot exist with those traits. But your burden is to demonstrate for me that God is evil (i.e. not good) when he allows the little girl to die. That was the reason for this example, no?

You're right. That was the reason for my example. Don't you think that logically (not logic of assumption) those premises would contradict themselves if one, at least one, was wrong (in this case, all of them are wrong, meaning that they contradict to the nature of God).

And so I will ask it again, and give you another chance to support your assertion. What is it about God's letting this little girl die that makes him not good (i.e. evil)?

I'll try to answer it in a way that you might understand. Find the definition of "good"(not assumed by people), the definition of evil"(not assumed by people), the definition of innocense"(not assumed by people), the definition of "all knowing" (not assumed by people), the definition of all powerful"(not assumed by people), and you'll probably will understand what I mean. If you're telling me that God exists outside logic, why would He try to apply logic to His words, motives, etc. Don't you think it's contradictory?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God could hear her, wanted to help her but couldn't, He's not all powerful.

Agreed. If God could not do something he wanted to do, then he is not all powerful (according to the definition of a being who can do everything he wants to do.)

Then if you agree to this, it means that you contradicting yourself.

What? Where did I do that? Do you think I that I agree that God wanted to save her, yet could not do so? If so, you are mistaken. I would claim that ultimately God did not want to save her.

I don't know if God wanted to save her or not. But don't you think that if God wanted to save her and didn't, He isn't powerful enough? But He supposedly is and didn't, which means He might be not all good, all powerful, or all knowing. If you don't understand the logic involved here, then you have to start trying to get the true definition of what "logic" and "contradiction"are.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

This means that if God exists He's all three, which means He doesn't exist.

Or (and this is important), it might be the case that one of more of your premises above are incorrect. In other words, if you misapply the example you have given to the attributes of God, then the conclusion is not necessarily that this God does not exist.

How did I misapply my example? I'd like to know, please.

By implying that God was not good if he didn't save the little girl's life. If God's not saving the little girl was not evil, then your argument collapses. God exists, is able to save her, yet has chosen not to do so. Unless you can show how his choice to let her die is "not good", then one of the three necessary premises fails, and with it your conclusion.

Tell me what is the definition of "Good" that contradicts Hume's problem, and therefore, me. Why do you think that letting the little, innocent girl die (according to the definition of "good" is good?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

You can probably see where I am going with this, from what I said above. I think you need to support your contention that God is not all-loving if he decides he does not want to save this girl.

I don't seem to understand where you are going.

If you do not support your contention that God is not all-loving is he does not want to save this girl, then one of the three necessary premises fails, and with it your conclusion.

How do you want me to support mine contention?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Another example is the Book of Job (if you have read it) that reveals a sadistic, selfish God who makes a wager with the devil trying to prove Job's faithfulness by inflicting leprosy, killing all his children, and making him a vagabond, and rewards him later by giving him more than he ever had.

Well first of all, the Bible does present God as selfish - I agree with you on that. Whether or not such selfishness is morally "bad" for this God is another topic for discussion. But I am interested to hear why you think the example of Job makes God out to be "sadistic" (i.e. deriving pleasure specifically from inflicting pain on others.) Does the book of Job state anywhere that God's "pleasure" in his dealing with Job was derived entirely (or even in part) from inflicting pain? If you can't show that, then please realize you have interjected some personal feelings you have about this God - you haven't provided any objective proof that he is sadistic.

If God allowed the Devil to inflict pain on Job, then God should also be held accountable for this action (doesn't God suppose to protect us from evil?). He allowed the Devil to torture Job to convince the Devil he would still be faithful to Him. And why would God want to convince the Devil that Job would be faithful to Him? Isn't this wager below God's standards, nature?

First of all, whether God is to be held accountable is irrelevant to whether he is sadistic. You claimed he was sadistic, I provided the definition and asked you where it states God's motive in his dealings with Job was purely pleasure. You didn't supply me with a direct quote (or an argument supporting your contention), so I will continue to await your response to my question. Until that time, the truth of your assertion that God is sadistic is still "up in the air".

God let the Devil inflict pain on Job; God was happy when "Job passed the test"; "Job passed the test" after God let the devil inflict pain on Job; God is all knowing; If God knew that Job was going to be faithful to Him, why did he continue the wager with the Devil in the first placel?; Was it the torture applied on Job a lesson for him to learn, was a confirmation of his faith to God? But God knew he was faithful to him; Job knew that he was faithful to God; God knew the outcome of the wager. Don't you think (logically) God found some pleasure into letting the Devil by inflicting pain on Job. Give me the definition of "sadis", please, because I don't think that it has changed since Job time.

Second, I don't believe God's motive was what you said it was. I will explain this in the next response below …

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

There are other disagreements I would have about your characterization of the book of Job, but I won't go into them here. All I will do is point out the fact that since I *do* disagree with your perception of what the Bible says about God's actions in the book of Job, that your conclusions as it pertains to your perception of God are not necessarily binding on me, as I have different perceptions of him than you do.

Enlight me. I have the hunger for knowledge.

I don't believe God's motive was to convince Satan of anything - it was to make sure Job understood the concept of God's sovereignty and glory. This is why your conclusions as it pertains to your perceptions of the book of Job are not binding on me.


So, Job didn't understand the concept of God's supremacy? Wow. God let the Devil inflict pain on Job to make him understand His supremacy? Wow. Can you see the contradiction here? But God knew that Job was devoted to Him, why the test?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If this is the characteristic behavior of a good God, then there is a contradiction of what the Bible tries to depict Him as the all-good, moral God.

Well what does it mean for God to be good? Does it mean he must do things in accordance of what you think it means to be good? The mere fact that there is more than one definition of good floating around out there should lead you to question just what standard of good you should use when judging God, right?

What is the definition of "good" (not your own definition, but general definition, in accordance to the definition of "good" that applies to humanity).

Excuse me, but I am fairly certain I asked you what it means for God to be good. And since you are the one asserting God is not good, it is up to you to provide the definition you are using … so have at it.

I asked you why you think the meaning of the word "good" is (not assumed by you, but the right definition). Give me the right definition of "good"and you probably understand this example. I know the right definition. It's you who don't seem to know the definition by logic.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

That we must do the things that please him, not because they're the right things to do, but because we desperately want the salvation of our souls.

Do you think Job did what he did because he was trying to save his skin, or because he wanted to please God?

But why do you think Job would want to please God? Didn't Job desire a place in Heaven next to God? I don't think Job wanted to go to Hell.

I don't think anyone wants to go to hell, really, but Job's motive was not necessarily based on a desire to not go there. Maybe Job loved God, and so wanted to please him. Fact is, there is nothing in the book of Job that tells us his motive for his actions was to not go to hell.


"Maybe" Job loved God? Maybe? Why do you love God, Implicator? Don't you want everything that God offers opposed to what he doesn't offer (which leads to Hell)? Is it logical that Job didn't want to go to Hell? This is the logic I'm trying to explain to you.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Why is it very important to Him?

Do you think the Bible might tell us why that is?

If the Bible points out why we have to depend on Him, then that would contradict the logics mentioned above.

You will have to explain this one to me … I don't see how you arrive at such a conclusion as this.

If we are so insignificant to him, why does He want us to believe in Him? The Bible doesn't specify his motives clearly: He wants to save us all; He punishes by sending us to He if we don't do what He tells us; he loves us; He forgives us; He won't accept apologies when we face trial. Do you want me to continue, Implicator?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Other arguments among others that prove God's nonexistence are the Allegory of the Cave, The Invisible Gardener, and Socrate's The Apology.

You might want to provide some specifics here, if you are hoping to convince anyone that these arguments actually do what you claim they do.

Try to read them, analyze them, and come to a conclusion.

I don't really have the time to go and investigate these, Jason. If you want to be taken serious as to your contention that any or all of these provide proof that God does not exist, then you are going to have to get into specifics.

I

thats got to be one of the longest posts ever, about 1.25m.

Implicator wrote:

Hey Jason, I saw another post of yours and felt the need to reply. So here goes ...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But why do we need to pay the price because "we're not perfect"? Well, this argument has to be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve, since God did not succeed in granting them perfection.

Why do you think it was God's "plan" to grant them perfection? Specifically (which I think you imply) why do you think that God's plan was for them to stay perfect? Many people would say that this was not God's plan at all, and they would say this based on other parts of the Bible."

Give me proof of your claims. But why wasn't "perfection" in God's plan? He wanted us to be perfect, didn't He?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But why God condemned them to a life of misery and denied them paradise?

Because they sinned, no?

But why a just God condemned Adam and Eve to a life of despair for one mistake? Why didn't He give them a second chance? Isn't God forgiving? This seems to be another contradiction of His nature.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

What kind of God would do this to His children?

Wouldn't a "just" God exact judgment when someone did something wrong?

Define Just (I will come to this definition later. Just hold on).

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Adam and Eve were given the choice of free will.

This is a far reaching statement, depending on what you mean by the phrase "free will". I will assume you are using the most commonly used definition, and because of that I will ask you why you think God granted Adam and Eve (or any of us) free will?"

What other "commonly used definition" of the concept of "free will" is out there?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

They were given each other a partner, abundance of food and beauty, but they were also given a limitation or a rule. God asked them to eat from the fruits of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they should die. They ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and they were banned from Paradise and were punished, even the serpent that seduced them into eating the fruit was punished. For the first time Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. But don't you think small children do that? Don't you think small children disobey their parents? The whole Adam and Eve story seems like a metaphor, children who disobey their parents and get punished about it.

Some people perceive it as an analogy, others perceive it to be descriptive of literal events that provide the reason as to why small children (and big adults for that matter) do the wrong thing.

But why does God talk in riddles? Why not deliver His message plane and simple? Don't you think He has the power over logic? Isn't He the God who can do it all?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Nevertheless, why did God lie to them about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, telling them that they would die if they ate from it? Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't die, but they were thrown out of Paradise.

Are you telling me Adam and Eve are still alive today, Jason?

But more to the point, isn't there more than one way to perceive the term "die"? Do you realize many believe this refers to a spiritual death, and not an (immediate) physical one? And if this *is* what it refers to, then you have not shown that God lied?

God specifically said that they (Adam and Eve) "should die if they ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree; He never said anything about taking away their immortality. Don't you think if He meant that He would take away their immortality, He should've said it and not "you should die"? That's a lie, to me.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The story depicts God as a selfish parent who didn't want to see His children grow up; He wanted them to remain children forever, innocent. It seems like they were part of some sort of celestial experimentation, in which God failed to obtain a much desired result.

Once again, realize that though the Bible "seems" to present something a certain way to you, it won't seem the same to someone else.

But the experimentation observation seems logical if you know what the definition of experimentation is.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But you might say that we shouldn't take the words of the Bible literally. But how should we interpret the words of the bible if not literally?

How does one go about determining whether to take any book literally? Or better yet, what parts of any book should be taken literally? Do we not look at the claims in the book, the context provided, the history of the writers, who it was written to, etc? Don't you think we can use these same tools in evaluating the Bible?"

Don't you think laws are supposed to be taken literally? If the Bible is the book of all the laws that we must follow in order to live our lives in total rejoice (in accordance to God), then these laws are not clearly written.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Wasn't Jesus son to Mary? Didn't Moses free his people? Didn't Satan betray God? Didn't Kane kill Abel?

The Bible certainly seems to say all of these things, yes.

Do you give me credit here? These ideas are literally articulated.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But don't you think that if God had the ability to create good in this world also created evil, since He created every thing in the physical world?

I think the Bible presents a God who is ultimately responsible (not necessarily morally, but certainly creatively) for everything that exists. So yes, it is fair to say that evil only exists because God (in some sense) desires that it exist.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

About the example I gave previously about the little girl who died in the fire, if she is an innocent girl and is free of sin (she's is innocent because the Bible says that a child under seven years of age is innocent. It's at seven when he or she begins to know what's good and evil) why God allowed her to die such a brutal death?

Where does the Bible say this again - the part about being seven, that is?

I thought you knew this all alone.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God lives outside time, differently than we live here in the physical world, then He would be wise enough to make us understand what he truly wants- articulate his purpose which includes us, without any contradictions:

Wise enough, or certainly powerful enough, no? So if we posit a God that is powerful enough to make us understand what he wants, and yet we do not all understand what he wants, then maybe this God's ultimate desire is not that everyone truly understand (i.e. and accept) what he wants.

"Wise enough," since the word of the Bible (His words) contradict the premises which they all stand for, of His objectives toward humanity.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

More to the point ... therefore, it is logically contradictory for a God to exist who fits your definition and understanding of the attributes being discussed. Don't sell other definitions/understandings short.

Again, this isn't my definition; it's logic. How am I supposed to determine the existence of God and understand it? Just by feeling Him in me?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

About the Ten Commandments, how can it be that if a man lusted for a woman (thought about having her) is the same as raping her, which leads to burning in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think that's too extreme? Just by thinking about wanting a woman carnally, the punishment is the same as if he raped her.

My perception is that the Bible is saying that such an act as this makes one "worthy" of spending an eternity in Hell, but that it doesn't necessitate that you do.

"Your perception"? Why does it have to be your perception? Weren't the Ten Commandments intended for all humanity?

Jason, rather than respond point by point (which will no doubt cause our responses to continue to grow beyond what can reasonably be managed), let me make a couple of observations about where this thread is going.

1) You seem to think that if you find contradictions in the Bible, then the Bible has contradictions. What you fail to see is that each person has their own view of what the Bible says. If you find contradictions in the Bible, it is because you have found contradictions in your particular perception of what the Bible says. A different person may view the Bible differently than you, and therefore may not find contradictions in their particular perception of what the Bible says. So (and this is crucial), if you want to prove to another person that the Bible has contradictions in it, you have two choices. First, show this person that there are contradictions in their particular understanding of what the Bible says. Or second, prove that there is an objective (not specific to any person) understanding of the Bible, and then proceed to show that there are contradictions in that understanding. If you continue to say "there are contradictions in the Bible" without clarifying which of the two approaches you are taking above, then you aren't really accomplishing anything but to state an opinion.

How can I possibly prove to another person that the Bible has contradictions when that person is centered onto his or her own beliefs? I'm giving you logical proofs of the contradictions using examples from the Bible. There is no way for me to make you understand my points when you don't want to see them. There are contradictions in the Bible when I use the approach of logic (no assumptions).

2) The technical definition of a logical contradiction is this: "It is the case that A, and it is not the case that A, at the same time and in the same sense." Keep this definition in mind whenever you are trying to show a contradiction. To simply state "it is the case that A, and it is not the case that A" is not good enough. I can say "the pepper is hot, and it is not the case that the pepper is hot" without necessarily stating a contradiction.

How can the pepper be hot and not hot at the same time and not contradicting with its definiton of what the state of the pepper is? - If you believe this, it means that you don't understand reasoning, and therefore, my arguments will be misunderstood.

3) The person making the assertion (i.e. "God does not exist") bears the burden of proof. As you are the one making this assertion, it is up to you to provide the premises of your argument, and provide support for them. This includes providing the definition of terms you are using when requested to do so (e.g. the definition of "good"). Simply telling me to look it up in the dictionary, or asking me what my definition is does not fulfill your burden of proof. My definition of good is irrelevant until such time as I choose to disagree with yours (which I haven't done as of yet.) Additionally, when you claim something is in the Bible but can't show me where it can be found, then I am under no obligation to believe you. And if what you say is in the Bible is crucial to your argument (i.e. "all children are innocent"), then your lack of ability or desire to show me exactly where this can be found in the Bible only hurts your ability to support your assertions.


Well, you are truly right about that. If I don't show evidence to my arguments, they would most likely fail to make a point. I tirelessly have said that it is futile to assume something, because when something is assumed it'd lose it credibility. And you are making assumptions by feeling alone.
Since I thought that you knew about the Bible claims about children being innocent, it wasn't necessary for me to provide examples. But now that you are eager for me to do so, here they are. Here are two examples:

Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3).

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:4)

(and the is an issue with these statement. But I won't go into them yet)

4) Hume's problem of evil starts with three premises: God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, evil exists. It then concludes that no such God could exist with these attributes, because evil exists. If you want to use this argument to show God does not exist, then you must show why it is that God could not allow (or even use) evil while still being all-loving. Why does "all loving" require that there be no evil?

Why do you need more evidence than the one I have presented so far? Since God is all good, how can He use evil? It seems that you have misinterpreted what the definition of "good"is. Doesn't God want to get rid of evil? He knows that evil exist, and does nothing about it to eliminate it (and he is all powerful).

5) Your comments on Job don't add up. You claim that it is contradictory for God to make use of the Devil's painful infliction upon Job in order to teach him about his supremacy, but you do not explain why this is the case. Please refer to the technical definition of what a contradiction is above, and show me how God's actions here present a contradiction.

Implicator, I don't know God (if He exists). I don't know why He acted in such way with Job. The contradictions I speak about are :God is defined as something, and His actions reveal something else contrary to His nature. Do I have to write the definition of what a contradiction is again? You're killing me, man. Can you just go a couple of pages down and find it?

6) In general, you rail against God and attempt to hold him accountable before some objective standard of right and wrong, just and unjust. If you want me to take this as anything other than personal distaste for God, you need to 1) show that there is an objective standard of right and wrong, and 2) show that God should/can be held accountable according to it.

If God is the way, and God is the one looking after us, then He allows the Devil to inflict pain upon Job, then God should be held accountable for His actions agaist Job (can't you find logic here. If not, I'm doomed). God did what He did probably to teach Job a lesson he knew? But God knew Job would be faithful. And why did He continue with the wager? Job never cursed the name of God; he passed the test. God knew this in advance. Doesn't this tell you what kind of God He is? Why not tell the Devil "Go screw with yourself. I know Job wouldn't be unfaithful to me." It seems that He wasn't sure about Job's faithfulness (see the contradiction?).

On a side note - the reason I don't have time to (currently) look up your other arguments is specifically because I am spending so much time on this one. Once we are done with this, I will be happy to hear what you have to say about these other arguments. I

Implicator wrote:

Jason, rather than respond point by point (which will no doubt cause our responses to continue to grow beyond what can reasonably be managed), let me make a couple of observations about where this thread is going.

1) You seem to think that if you find contradictions in the Bible, then the Bible has contradictions. What you fail to see is that each person has their own view of what the Bible says. If you find contradictions in the Bible, it is because you have found contradictions in your particular perception of what the Bible says. A different person may view the Bible differently than you, and therefore may not find contradictions in their particular perception of what the Bible says. So (and this is crucial), if you want to prove to another person that the Bible has contradictions in it, you have two choices. First, show this person that there are contradictions in their particular understanding of what the Bible says. Or second, prove that there is an objective (not specific to any person) understanding of the Bible, and then proceed to show that there are contradictions in that understanding. If you continue to say "there are contradictions in the Bible" without clarifying which of the two approaches you are taking above, then you aren't really accomplishing anything but to state an opinion.

How can I possibly prove to another person that the Bible has contradictions when that person is centered onto his or her own beliefs? I'm giving you logical proofs of the contradictions using examples from the Bible. There is no way for me to make you understand my points when you don't want to see them. There are contradictions in the Bible when I use the approach of logic (no assumptions).

Implicator wrote:

2) The technical definition of a logical contradiction is this: "It is the case that A, and it is not the case that A, at the same time and in the same sense." Keep this definition in mind whenever you are trying to show a contradiction. To simply state "it is the case that A, and it is not the case that A" is not good enough. I can say "the pepper is hot, and it is not the case that the pepper is hot" without necessarily stating a contradiction.

How can the pepper be hot and not hot at the same time and not contradicting with its definition of what the state of the pepper is? - If you believe this, it means that you don't understand reasoning, and therefore, my arguments will be misunderstood.

Implicator wrote:

3) The person making the assertion (i.e. "God does not exist") bears the burden of proof. As you are the one making this assertion, it is up to you to provide the premises of your argument, and provide support for them. This includes providing the definition of terms you are using when requested to do so (e.g. the definition of "good"). Simply telling me to look it up in the dictionary, or asking me what my definition is does not fulfill your burden of proof. My definition of good is irrelevant until such time as I choose to disagree with yours (which I haven't done as of yet.) Additionally, when you claim something is in the Bible but can't show me where it can be found, then I am under no obligation to believe you. And if what you say is in the Bible is crucial to your argument (i.e. "all children are innocent"), then your lack of ability or desire to show me exactly where this can be found in the Bible only hurts your ability to support your assertions.

Well, you are truly right about that. If I don't show evidence to my arguments, they would most likely fail to make a point. I tirelessly have said that it is futile to assume something, because when something is assumed it'd lose it credibility. And you are making assumptions by feeling alone.
Since I thought that you knew about the Bible claims about children being innocent, it wasn't necessary for me to provide examples. But now that you are eager for me to do so, here they are. Here are two examples:

Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3).

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:4)

(and the is an issue with these statement. But I won't go into them yet)

Implicator wrote:

4) Hume's problem of evil starts with three premises: God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, evil exists. It then concludes that no such God could exist with these attributes, because evil exists. If you want to use this argument to show God does not exist, then you must show why it is that God could not allow (or even use) evil while still being all-loving. Why does "all loving" require that there be no evil?

Why do you need more evidence than the one I have presented so far? Since God is all good, how can He use evil? It seems that you have misinterpreted what the definition of "good"is. Doesn't God want to get rid of evil? He knows that evil exist, and does nothing about it to eliminate it (and he is all powerful).

Implicator wrote:

5) Your comments on Job don't add up. You claim that it is contradictory for God to make use of the Devil's painful infliction upon Job in order to teach him about his supremacy, but you do not explain why this is the case. Please refer to the technical definition of what a contradiction is above, and show me how God's actions here present a contradiction.

Implicator, I don't know God (if He exists). I don't know why He acted in such way with Job. The contradictions I speak about are : God is defined as something, and His actions reveal something else contrary to His nature. Do I have to write the definition of what a contradiction is again? You're killing me, man. Can you just go a couple of pages down and find it?

Implicator wrote:

6) In general, you rail against God and attempt to hold him accountable before some objective standard of right and wrong, just and unjust. If you want me to take this as anything other than personal distaste for God, you need to 1) show that there is an objective standard of right and wrong, and 2) show that God should/can be held accountable according to it.

If God is the way, and God is the one looking after us, then He allows the Devil to inflict pain upon Job, then God should be held accountable for His actions against Job (can't you find logic here. If not, I'm doomed). God did what He did probably to teach Job a lesson he knew? But God knew Job would be faithful. And why did He continue with the wager? Job never cursed the name of God; he passed the test. God knew this in advance. Doesn't this tell you what kind of God He is? Why not tell the Devil "Go screw with yourself. I know Job wouldn't be unfaithful to me." It seems that He wasn't sure about Job's faithfulness (see the contradiction?).

Implicator wrote:

On a side note - the reason I don't have time to (currently) look up your other arguments is specifically because I am spending so much time on this one. Once we are done with this, I will be happy to hear what you have to say about these other arguments. I

I apologize. I didn't know you were spending so much time here.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Hey Jason, I saw another post of yours and felt the need to reply. So here goes ...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But why do we need to pay the price because "we're not perfect"? Well, this argument has to be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve, since God did not succeed in granting them perfection.

Why do you think it was God's "plan" to grant them perfection? Specifically (which I think you imply) why do you think that God's plan was for them to stay perfect? Many people would say that this was not God's plan at all, and they would say this based on other parts of the Bible."

Give me proof of your claims. But why wasn't "perfection" in God's plan? He wanted us to be perfect, didn't He?

Um, I didn't make any claims, Jason. I asked you to support your contention that it was God's plan to make man perfect. This seems very much to me like an attempt by you to shift the burden of proof to me, which isn't going to happen. You claimed it was God's plan to make man perfect, and I am asking you to support that claim. So have at it …

No, it isn't any "attempt to shift the burnden of proof" to you. I just wanted to see if you gave me a concrete example of this argument.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (Gen 6:7).
Can you tell me what this possibly means? Mind you, this is one example. Why is He sorry for creating man? HMMM, interesting.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But why God condemned them to a life of misery and denied them paradise?

Because they sinned, no?

But why a just God condemned Adam and Eve to a life of despair for one mistake? Why didn't He give them a second chance? Isn't God forgiving? This seems to be another contradiction of His nature.

Why did a just God condemn Adam and Even? Because he is a just God, that's why. Consider this … if this one mistake (that maybe seems minor to you) was in fact the worst thing that Adam and Eve could do (disobedience of a holy and righteous God), then would it not be remiss if God were to just let it slide? Remember, God (the creator and sustainer of the universe) is not only forgiving, he is also just. How he chooses to dole out punishment would be entirely up to him, no? In fact, that's just what the Bible says about him … he has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy on.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

What kind of God would do this to His children?

Wouldn't a "just" God exact judgment when someone did something wrong?

Define Just (I will come to this definition later. Just hold on).

- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.
- Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
- Properly due or merited: just deserts.
- Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
- Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
- Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.

I can see the word "reason," "law," "proper in nature". Well, I have explained this by stating that God nature doesn't fit into all this because of the contradictions I have mentioned previously.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Adam and Eve were given the choice of free will.

This is a far reaching statement, depending on what you mean by the phrase "free will". I will assume you are using the most commonly used definition, and because of that I will ask you why you think God granted Adam and Eve (or any of us) free will?"

What other "commonly used definition" of the concept of "free will" is out there?

I will clarify what I said to read "I will assume you are using the commonly used definition." Now, please answer my question - why do you think God granted Adam and Eve (or any of us) free will?


I have no idea why God granted them free will. Do you know?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

They were given each other a partner, abundance of food and beauty, but they were also given a limitation or a rule. God asked them to eat from the fruits of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they should die. They ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and they were banned from Paradise and were punished, even the serpent that seduced them into eating the fruit was punished. For the first time Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. But don't you think small children do that? Don't you think small children disobey their parents? The whole Adam and Eve story seems like a metaphor, children who disobey their parents and get punished about it.

Some people perceive it as an analogy, others perceive it to be descriptive of literal events that provide the reason as to why small children (and big adults for that matter) do the wrong thing.

But why does God talk in riddles? Why not deliver His message plane and simple? Don't you think He has the power over logic? Isn't He the God who can do it all?

I believe God has made his message plain and simple, yet man has the ability to muck up even the simplest of messages. God is a rational being by nature, and so is bound by his nature to be logical.

"PLAIN AND SIMPLE"? What is "plain and simple" to you. God is logical when you fit it into your definition of "logic." When you say that God is rational, I must be missing something else here, because I don't see how can something ilogical can become something logical. And "bound by His nature"?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Nevertheless, why did God lie to them about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, telling them that they would die if they ate from it? Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't die, but they were thrown out of Paradise.

Are you telling me Adam and Eve are still alive today, Jason?

But more to the point, isn't there more than one way to perceive the term "die"? Do you realize many believe this refers to a spiritual death, and not an (immediate) physical one? And if this *is* what it refers to, then you have not shown that God lied?

God specifically said that they (Adam and Eve) "should die if they ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree; He never said anything about taking away their immortality. Don't you think if He meant that He would take away their immortality, He should've said it and not "you should die"? That's a lie, to me.

Genesis 2:17 does not state that God said that if they ate of the tree, then they "should" die. It states that they "will" (or "shall") die. Furthermore, the account does not explicitly state in what sense the term "die" is being used (remember the importance of "sense" from our earlier discussion as it relates to contradictions?) One needs to look outside of the immediate account to see what sense God was using the term "die" in - it wasn't physical. So no, God didn't lie.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. But it seems clear to me that shalt means will..."will die." How if you eat a fruit and God told you that you "will die" means that your inmortality will be taken? How is that the same as "I will take away your inmortality"? Tell me, please. And He said "in the day that thou eatest therereof"you will die. What does this mean to you?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The story depicts God as a selfish parent who didn't want to see His children grow up; He wanted them to remain children forever, innocent. It seems like they were part of some sort of celestial experimentation, in which God failed to obtain a much desired result.

Once again, realize that though the Bible "seems" to present something a certain way to you, it won't seem the same to someone else.

But the experimentation observation seems logical if you know what the definition of experimentation is.

It may seem logical to you, but like I said, it does not seem that way to others. This does not serve to make logic subjective, rather it accounts for the fact that conclusions (e.g. God was experimenting) are reached based not only on the use of logic, but on interpretation of evidence used to arrive at that conclusion. If your interpretation differs from someone else's, then don't be surprised that you come to different conclusions.

It will seem logical to me if I follow the definiton of "logic" that is applied to explain the misteries of the universe, the one that makes sense to humanity. yes, tt would make sense to me. But if I deverge from that, then I will most likely create confusions and contradictions. You seem to apply your own logic to every word in the Bible without any actual proof of its validity.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But you might say that we shouldn't take the words of the Bible literally. But how should we interpret the words of the bible if not literally?

How does one go about determining whether to take any book literally? Or better yet, what parts of any book should be taken literally? Do we not look at the claims in the book, the context provided, the history of the writers, who it was written to, etc? Don't you think we can use these same tools in evaluating the Bible?"

Don't you think laws are supposed to be taken literally? If the Bible is the book of all the laws that we must follow in order to live our lives in total rejoice (in accordance to God), then these laws are not clearly written.

I think that many statements of law are to be take literally, if they are worded such. I think laws can be expressed in non-literal ways, however (e.g. stories that have a "moral" to them, parables, etc.) Why do you say that the laws are not clearly written?

I have explained this. Have you been reading what I posted here previously?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Wasn't Jesus son to Mary? Didn't Moses free his people? Didn't Satan betray God? Didn't Kane kill Abel?

The Bible certainly seems to say all of these things, yes.

Do you give me credit here? These ideas are literally articulated.

I agree with your statements, Jason - that's all. I agree that your statements are true, based on my reading of the Bible. However, the fact that you can find some examples of truths in scripture that are presented in a literal manner does not necessitate that all truths in scripture are presented that way.

How are "all truths in the scripture are presented"?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But don't you think that if God had the ability to create good in this world also created evil, since He created every thing in the physical world?

I think the Bible presents a God who is ultimately responsible (not necessarily morally, but certainly creatively) for everything that exists. So yes, it is fair to say that evil only exists because God (in some sense) desires that it exist.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

About the example I gave previously about the little girl who died in the fire, if she is an innocent girl and is free of sin (she's is innocent because the Bible says that a child under seven years of age is innocent. It's at seven when he or she begins to know what's good and evil) why God allowed her to die such a brutal death?

Where does the Bible say this again - the part about being seven, that is?

I thought you knew this all alone.

What? Please answer the question with a quote from the Bible, Jason. Don't dismiss such an important question by claiming that I supposedly know this to be true. I am directly challenging your statement - calling your bluff. You claimed the Bible says children under the age of seven are innocent, so prove to me that your claim is true!

I did; look up.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God lives outside time, differently than we live here in the physical world, then He would be wise enough to make us understand what he truly wants- articulate his purpose which includes us, without any contradictions:

Wise enough, or certainly powerful enough, no? So if we posit a God that is powerful enough to make us understand what he wants, and yet we do not all understand what he wants, then maybe this God's ultimate desire is not that everyone truly understand (i.e. and accept) what he wants.

"Wise enough," since the word of the Bible (His words) contradict the premises which they all stand for, of His objectives toward humanity.

Could you please be kind enough to support at least some of your claims about what the Bible says by sharing verses from the Bible? What part of the Bible contradicts "the premises which they all stand for"? Be specific.

Haven't I given you enough examples already? You have agreed with me about many of them in the past. But why do you need verses from the Bible? Is this a defense mechanism from you to defend yourself against my arguments?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

More to the point ... therefore, it is logically contradictory for a God to exist who fits your definition and understanding of the attributes being discussed. Don't sell other definitions/understandings short.

Again, this isn't my definition; it's logic. How am I supposed to determine the existence of God and understand it? Just by feeling Him in me?

It is indeed your definition, by nature of the fact that it is a definition proceeding from you. What "logic" leads you to say that if God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil? What possible logical argument do you have to support this assumption of yours?

Don't you think that it is Hume's argument and those who have followed it. It isn't my opinion; it has been studied logically for long, long years. What is "morally" according to God? Is it an ecception when God does something inmoral to call it something else? Because that's a way into confusing the heck out of me. And it does'nothing to you. Concerning God's contradiction about being perfectly moral: Well, I have the example of Job, the example of Adam and Eve, the Example of suffering in this world, the existence of evil (should I keep going? I guess not.)

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

About the Ten Commandments, how can it be that if a man lusted for a woman (thought about having her) is the same as raping her, which leads to burning in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think that's too extreme? Just by thinking about wanting a woman carnally, the punishment is the same as if he raped her.

My perception is that the Bible is saying that such an act as this makes one "worthy" of spending an eternity in Hell, but that it doesn't necessitate that you do.

"Your perception"? Why does it have to be your perception? Weren't the Ten Commandments intended for all humanity?

The intended audience has nothing to do with the fact that my personal reading of the Bible leads me to come to this conclusion, and that your personal reading leads you to a different conclusion. Can you show me objectively that your conclusion is correct?
I

Jason and Implicator should be married. Even if its a gay marriage. I agree with Edgar and that's revealed by the fact that I simply could not force myself to read their theological ravings. Reality simply IS. Getting "with it" is one's highest spiritual accompllishment, not believing this or that about its is-ness.
I do not believe in a No-God and I'm quite satisfied that one cannot prove a negative, or in the case of a God, a positive.