Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Evidence of what to accept what? Though I can guarantee you will have evidence God exists eventually.

I don't know. A being like God existing outside of time, creating the laws of reality, creating the universe, etc... I have a hard time buying any such being would ever go 'well you know I can understand that some folks might not think I exist...'.

I always felt it was because if evil does happen, God allows it as he knows or has arranged for it to lead to a greater good. He can certainly act in the physical world and has done so. That said should we want him to stop all evil? Because again, by God's standard we are all sinners. The murdering rapist is just as much a sinner as the guy who was rude. If God acts to punish and destroy evil then both of them are getting zapped. Could God stop the evil from happening? Possibly, but again we must conclude if the evil does happen, then no matter how horrible it is, it was the best alternative to something else or will ultimately work out into something better than what would have been. As to allowing sin in his presence. He can't allow sin in heaven as heaven is perfect, to allow sin in there would make it no longer heaven. the physical world is no longer perfect since the fall, so sin can exist there until the physical world is destroyed.

But as to why God would still allow evil, ultimately it seems because he is fond of us and would rather try and save as many of us as he can before he can before ultimatley ridding existence of evil once and for all.

Aren't you in for a surprise...

 

I'll be honest, my reaction to 100% of arguments about the problem of evil is as follows

up to and including a nigh-miraculous transformation into Larry David. This is a power bestowed by the dark arts of postmodernism - conservatives are right to fear it.

Let's kick off with a traditional note - Epicurus probably didn't make that argument, it appears to be a long-standing historical misattribution. I'm not exactly the best source of knowledge on classical philosophy, but Epicurus was a hardcore materialist and was of the opinion that if there were gods, they probably didn't give a **** about what people did 99% of the time. Records indicate he was down with traditional cults because, hey, gods just wanna have fun, and they probably get a kick out of those sweet, sweet sacrificial oxen. Because of that it doesn't seem in character for him to care about the PoE.

But let's talk about the problem of evil. Or rather, let's talk about why you shouldn't care about the problem of evil as a real argument, no matter what camp you fall in, because it's terrible.

The problem of evil relies on crappy underlying assumptions:

1. You know what omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence entail.


2. You know whatever god is it ought to have these properties.


3. You know what evil is.


4. You know that the triple-o isn't compatible with evil.


5. You know that this logical contradiction says something meaningful about the world.

So yeah, I hate all of these. There's a cornucopia of potential hangups lying in wait for the careful analyst to endlessly pick apart - for example, figuring out what evil is, let alone whether it can be said to exist, is a massive discussion all by itself, as I'm sure most of us are all becoming aware of after endless circles of arguing in these sorts of threads. Or to pick a pet favorite - whether or not logical conclusions say anything meaningful about reality is also a tremendous discussion in and of itself. Reality is a tremendous discussion in and of itself. And unlike some other debates, the PoE doesn't allow you to shrug your shoulders and truck along regardless, these questions have to be answered and dealt with before it becomes a formulation anyone should begin to care about.

But, as you've probably noticed, the majority of folks who discuss this issue don't care about those questions. Why is that? I would posit that it's because no one on any of the traditional two sides of debates about the problem of evil actually cares about the validity of the problem of evil as structural validity unto itself. They have a vested interest in the implications of its structural validity - those who purport it want it to show that their pre-existing atheism (Or intense theological skepticism for the weaker forms) is logically founded. Those who oppose it want to show that there is not actually a logical hole in their pre-existing theism. No one, and I mean no one, is betting the farm on this damn argument, but because of its potential potency, it's debated nastily and bitterly in certain corners.

tl;dr - We should all forget about the problem of evil, follow the example of the great and glorious Wittgenstein, and move to isolated Norwegian cabins to think about the meaning of logical propositions.

 

Let me preface this by saying I'm not going for gotcha moments out of the conversation, I'm just trying to explore the issue and whatnot. I recognise you are drawing on a feeling and intuition here, so I will do my Socratic best to respect that--

Could God stop the evil from happening? Possibly, but again we must conclude if the evil does happen, then no matter how horrible it is, it was the best alternative to something else or will ultimately work out into something better than what would have been.

Specifically here, where does one draw the imperative that we must arrive at this conclusion? Is it from a lack of other explanations, or is there a specific reasoning channel you're drawing on here you can elucidate?

That said should we want him to stop all evil? Because again, by God's standard we are all sinners. The murdering rapist is just as much a sinner as the guy who was rude.

Surely the answer to the question proposed here is "Yes". I would have thought a world deprived of all evil must be the highest aspiration of humanity. The other thing I might pose is that a God of infinite potency and knowledge surely must have infinite discernment, that is to say, infinite justice. Certainly when as humans we squash ants we are exerting our capability and physical superiority over them and may (to justify it to ourselves) assert ourselves as vastly superior and smarter than an ant thus giving us the reason/power/motive to crush such a living creature, but an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable being would not sit in the same position. Such a God would know every detail, every emotion (if they have them) and every desire of the ant's existence in fullest detail. How then could such a God crush a murdering rapist with as much cause and as little hesitation as he would the guy who took your place on the bus this morning?

EDIT: You know what, just forget all this stuff and read Ramza's post instead, it's more fun.

 

only if i get to threaten saintheart with a firepoker

 

What did I do? I mean, I know that was the only copy of Das Kapital you brought up here to the cabin, Rogue, but you can still see the text through the urine stains.

 

GenAntilles, your threats are tiresome and empty. There is no god, no afterlife. And the only thing that sucks about that is I won't get to say "I told you so."

I require evidence in order to believe. If your god does exist, then he knows what I require but has not provided it. That is proof that god either does not exist, or does not care if I believe or not.

As for the afterlife, I can guarantee there isn't one. Everything we are, every thought, every emotion, every action we do is because we have a working brain. Upon death, the brain ceases to function. Your consciousness ends, period. So how then could our consciousness continue on afterwards? How could we meet a god when the brain that makes us "us" has rotted away to nothing?

 

Eh, I'm mostly working off the Romans passage about God working all things for good. Also just off my own reasoning and theories in general for why evil is allowed. It works for me, don't expect it'd work for everyone's reasoning. And I don't think I'll end up in heaven and God will say 'yeah you were 100% right on the money there.' just the best explanation for me so far.

Hmm... I'd still say that if someone is a sinner and thus 'evil' God has only the option of offering forgivness and paying the penalty himself, or enforcing the penalty on the sinners. So either offer forgivness ad wait, or destroy the sinner now. So God would allow sin and evil because he loves the sinner and would rather forgive them than destroy them. He loves the murdering rapist as much as the rude guy on the bus. But he also hates their sin equally.
Eradicating all evil isn't God's highest aspiration, his is to live in communion with his creation, thus he allows evil to exist as he has to tolerate it for a time to give his creation a chance to repent and come back to him. Now assuming he knows the future he'll know the exact moment he'll reach the maximum ammount of humans he can and then he'll begin the end times and destroy evil once and for all. That's how I justify and rationalize it all at any rate.

Threats? Not threats. I'm just saying you demand evidence and you will get your evidence when you stand before him. In what manner you stand before him is entirely up to you.
You see if you win this debate neither of us will know, if I win we'll both know.

And I can guarantee otherwise because the soul. As for evidence for it, you'll get that eventually too.

If you want evidence I have none to give you so nothing I say should convince you. Likewise nothing you can say can convince me otherwise as evidence is only a secondary reason for me to believe anything. Why if I only beleived in things I could prove or had evidence for I couldn't believe in half the things I take for granted.

 

Exactly. There is no such thing as a soul. If you think otherwise, you would need to provide evidence. The most rational stance is to not believe in a thing until it has been demonstrably proven to exist. Without that healthy dose of skepticism, you could find yourself convinced of all sorts of nonsense!

Religion is the greatest con game that mankind has ever invented. Billions of people have been convinced by the Bible's lies, and not one shred of credible evidence has ever been presented to support the book's outrageous claims. It's a shame that so many people are so terrified of death that they will cling to a fairy tale rather than embracing reality.

You WILL die, your life WILL end, and there is NOTHING more afterwards.

 

Nah.

 

Close-mindedness, another symptom of religious indoctrination. So sad.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

I am completely open-minded. I will not accept unsupported claims, but I will believe in anything once credible evidence is presented. Not one person has ever managed to do so. I'd say I am justified in my disbelief.

 

Given how I allow for belief in things without evidence while you do not... am I not therefore inherently more open minded than you?

I mean if we're going into the evidence debate you know I'm just going to go down the 'well ultimatley we have to take everything on faith and have faith our senses and perception of reality are true' argument and then you'll hate that and go 'no it's not!' and I'll go 'yeah huh!' and we'll do that for a while and pick at each other's points in ridiculous ways.

 

So would you believe me if I told you there is a new ice cream shop in my town that is run by leprechauns, and instead of milk, the ice cream is made up of unicorn poop? I'm just trying to establish a baseline for what sort of ridiculous claims you believe in.

I allow for all possible scenarios, but I only believe in the ones that are supported by real tangible evidence. That is the only way that one can arrive at the truth without being distracted by falsehoods.

 

You're forgetting something, Saintheart. The time period in which Josephus lived was also the time when the early Church began to flourish, so its not inconceivable that Josephus, Jew though he was, could have heard of Jesus being declared the Christ by the Christians and reported that in his work. The second passage from Josephus mentions (James) "the brother of Jesus the so called Christ." While it could be possible that the "Christ" references were added later, I seriously doubt it.

The point behind my providing these links is that they DO provide proof - not direct eyewitness proof, but still proof - that Jesus did exist even though there are people across the world who say He did not.

One more thing I want to mention regarding Christianity. After the crucifixion, His followers continued in their discipleship. They did not falter or give up, but continued in what He had taught them. From Tacitus: "and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome." This is from a man who was NOT a Christian. Christianity spread not just in Judea, but even in ROME - the capital of the Empire, where the Emperor was seen as a god himself! If there had not been a whit of truth to Jesus' claims to be the Son of God, then I very seriously doubt that Christianity would have gained adherents in Rome, of all places.

"For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Act 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:"

 

The very difference between the two titles demonstrates one of the two references is most likely a Christian scholar's interpolation. One says "He was the Christ". The other says "the so called Christ". Of the two, Josephus, a Jew, is a hell of a lot more likely to have written the second than the first. I've already said one would be an idiot to disregard all of that material as supporting the existence of Jesus. Anything more than that, though, is a lot tougher.

The attractiveness, persistence, or existence of a belief system in a particular place and time is not evidence for it being anointed by God as the One True Faith, which seems to be what you're driving at here. Buddhism's managed to flourish in cultures as disparate as India, China and even insular Japan for the better part of a thousand years or so; does its continuing existence in theocratic blood-bowls like Pakistan mark it as the product of God? Scientology has been recognised as a brainwashing cult more or less since its foundation fifty-odd years ago, across the entire Western world. It has a great power base in Hollywood in particular and shows no signs of abating. Did God tap L. Ron Hubbard on the head? Islam, by standards of sheer numbers of believers, has been an enormously successful religion in any number of shades from the most brutal to the most moderate (I specifically exclude the Baha'i here, Jedi Merkurian -- all due respect but your religion is not nutty enough to be sitting in the same tent as that which ISIS practices.) in a variety of cultures from Indonesia through to subsaharan Africa. The Australian Aboriginal religion/culture has been in existence for tens of thousands of years if archaeology has it right. And as a counterexample, the one time the Egyptians tried out the idea of a monotheistic religion, they quietly cut out the one Pharaoh who supported it from their histories. Christianity was adaptable to local cultures and religions, certainly. That's evidence of adaptability, not divinity.

Well, if we're going to play duelling quotes, here's one I'd like you to ponder over:

Lawrence of Arabia might've been something of a liar and a hell of a modernist windbag without James Joyce's talent (this quote came from page 22 of Seven Pillars of Wisdom and I struggled on to roughly page 100 before being airlifted out of the dryness of Arabia and text alike) but he knew the Arab and more generally Semitic culture pretty damn well.

 

Well you had be up until the unicorn poop.

How thoroughly boring.

Oh I am skeptical, of 'evidence only' trains of thought given how historically they are almost always wrong. 10 million years ago the both of you would discount everything modern science has told us as both of you would lack the instruments to gather the evidence necessary to make those observations. The minute someone says something is 'impossible' or 'is not' or the like I know to stop listening to them as a rational person and just nod my head politely. In my book you can only make those judgements if you know 100% of all the evidence, until you do anything is possible.

 

I think that qualifies as pushing back the goal post. Until every atom in the Universe is explored you believe in a god. I never engaged you in any details of your belief. Is it a magic man in the sky? Do you think prayer is answered? Explain Job's story.

 

I don't know, maybe.

Ehhh... yeah sure... go with that...

No, if every atom in the universe is explored I'll still believe in God, because other universes and planes of existence and what not. God is God, a supreme being. Every prayer is answered with a yes, no, or not yet. Satan says Job follows God only because he's been blessed. Satan tries to prove it by taking away all of his blessings. Job doesn't turn away from God. God responds that he can do those things to Job because he's God.

 

Yep, the story of Job shows just what a capricious ***hole that your god is. No redeeming qualities other than the fact that he doesn't exist.

 

Why? You act as though he should treat us as equals. He should not. We are no more than paint or clay, he can destroy us or remake us as much as he wishes. He is infinitely our greater and to even suggest he is wrong for what he chooses to do to us is lunacy.

You and him are going to have quite the chat one day.