Johnny Skeptic

If God is deceptive and evil, and wanted to conceal his true intentions, it would be impossible for anyone to determine what his true intentions are. One of the perks of being a God is that you can accomplish anything that you want to accomplish.

So, do you have any evidence that God is who the Bible says he is or not? I don't, I am just wondering if you do.

buckshot23

I agree but this isn't telling me what kind of evidence that would establish God being honest with His record.

Gamera

You exist, and your existence is meaningful. By any standard that's a good result. Thus, if one attibrutes existence to God's activity, then God is good, or at least, he is a God of good results for us. Which is much the same thing.

Gamera

Res ipse loquitur. Genesis 2 reference to one flesh is observationally inaccurate, hence we are invited to understand it figurative.

Similarly Genesis 1 reference to creation is observationally inaccurate, so we are again invited to to understand it figurative.

There is no difference.

Sven

You still don't get it. I do not claim that the verse is literal. But you said the following in post #11:

If the bible is making factual claims, then it is subject to empirical verification or rebuttal.

If the bible is making spiritual claims, using metaphor to discuss the human condition, then it is not subject to empirical scrutiny.

You left only two choices: Either "factual claim" or "metaphor to discuss the human condition".

I simply ask what exactly this verse does tell us about the human condition. Since you argue (and I don't dispute it) that the verse is not a factual claim, this is the only choice you've left - according to your own words.

Would you please now finally answer the question?

And please stop the refernce to Genesis 1+2 now. I have no argument about this with you.

Sven

I just want to point out something interesting: This was your answer to buckshot23 - who is someone who believes in 6 day creation. For some strange reason, he never addressed this...

Johnny Skeptic

I already told you that if God is evil, no evidence could possibly establish what his true intentions are if he wished to conceal them. I am not trying to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God has or has not revealed his true intentions, but you are, so it is up to you to produce evidence, not me.

What kind of evidence would establish a defendant at a court trial as being honest with his record? Well, sometimes such evidence is available, but many times it is not available. Many defendants who are guilty go free due to a lack of evidence.

You asked me what evidence would establish for me that God is honest. It is certainly fair that I ask you what evidence would establish for you that God is honest. Obligations in debates are not one-sided. Both sides must produce evidence. It seems that you do not want to present any evidence at all. Is this how to talk to people who are undecided about which worldview to choose, ask them what evidence would convince them that God is honest and never offer any evidence of your own. You ought to be aware that your chances of convincing me of anything are virtually zero. I do not expect to convince you of anything. In religious debates, just like in presidential elections, it is mainly the undecided crowd that both sides are hoping to influence. If all that you have to offer the undecided crowd is to ask them what evidence would convince them that God is honest, I doubt that you would be able to convince very many of them with a ridiculous argument like that. So, by all means, please continue your current approach and refuse to offer any evidence at all. That way, most of the undecided crowd will probably stay undecided, and some of them will reject Christianity. Would you recommend that Christian seminaries abandon their current approach and teach students to go out into world and simply ask non-Christians what evidence would convince them that God is honest?

Johnny Skeptic

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "meaningful" as follows:

1 a : having a meaning or purpose b : full of meaning : SIGNIFICANT <a meaningful life>

2 : having an assigned function in a language system <meaningful propositions>

The definitions do not provide you with evidence that the being who supposedly inspired the writing of the Bible has revealed his true intentions.

The Bible itself disputes this. Matthew 26:24 says "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." If the God of the Bible exists, no one knows how he will punish skeptics. There is much dispute in the Christian church about this issue. This is understandable, and not just because of Matthew 26:24. Revelation 14:10-11 say "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Matthew 23:14 says "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Some atheists who are terminally ill and have not found adequate medical care that will help them believe that they would be better off dead than alive. In Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, end of life choice with the government's help is mercifully legal. Is it your position that when those atheists die, they will be relieved to be in hell? It seems so since you said "By any standard that's a good result."

An evil God would be able to produce good things as a deception if he wished to do so.

Even if I believed that the God of the Bible has revealed his true intentions, I would not be able to will myself to accept him. God endorses eternal punishment without parole, reference Revelation 14:10-11. Mercy is forgoing eternal punishment without parole even when justice, in this case God's justice requires it. I would never send anyone to hell without offering them parole. If God wishes to send me to hell for being more merciful than he is, I can't do anything about it. My moral standards are not negotiable, but it seems that yours are. Anything that God does is acceptable to you, even killing babies and causing innocent animals to suffer. Any being who has sufficient power is able to enforce rules of his own choosing, but that does not mean that he is good. I am not able to sacrifice my morals based upon promised rewards and punishments.

Science has reasonably established that other dimensions or universes exist. I am an agnostic. Just like you, I have faith. By faith, I believe that if the God of the Bible exists, he is bi-polar, mentally incompetent, or evil, and that one day, a truly good God from another dimension or universe will overthrow the God of the Bible, in which case I would agree with you that existence is good after all.

buckshot23

There is no reason to believe your scenerio. You admit that there is no way to determine if God is lying to us or not. I don't see the problem with this. The God of the bible is good and it is up to you to provide evidence that this is not the case.

Which you have not shared with us.
I suppose but it was you who proposed that an evil God could exist. Which you have failed to support.
You made a claim that God being evil is just as likely as God being good. I can provide evidence that the God of the bible is good. Why should I take your hypothesis seriously?
Why should I even entertain your hypothesis, let alone provide evidence against it?
I am talking to you, which I assume, are not unconvinced.
I know.
Good.
Which is true.
Again why would I need to provide evidence against your hypothesis? I can provide evidence that the God of the bible is honest. If you want to tell me why "God is a liar" is more plausible than "God is honest" then I may provide counter evidence. As it stands you have made a baseless assertion and you expect me to counter it by providing evidence against it.
Look in the mirror.
This is the first time I have encountered this hypothesis. I hardly think that it is a very widespread question. If one asked me and I believed I thought they were sincere in believing that an answer was possible (unlike you) I may approach it in a different way.

So let's review. You asked me to provide evidence against your hypothesis that God is a liar. I see no reason to even accept the premise because you have not provided any evidence in it's support.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3729545]I didn't claim it did. I said that existence seems to be good, and meaningful. So IF God is responsible for your existence, it suggests that he is good, or at least a God of good results. You're moving between two issues: evidence of God's "character" and evidence of God. The two are separate, to the extent they are intelligible at all. But you're the one arguing that God's character is discernable. Why are quarreling now with me if I assume your premise?

I don't see your point here, but let's stick with mine first. Is your existence "good." If it's good, it's evidence of God's character, assuming God is responsible for your existence. Why don't you address that first.

That's not the choice. The choice is existence vs. nonexistence, not existence vs ending existence. Are you saying anybody would prefer to have never existed at all? That's a contradiction in terms, since the fact that somebody is considering the issue means their existence is meaningful and hence valuable to them.

So why would he be evil then? What do you mean by an evil God?

Nobody is suggesting you "will" yourself to accept him. That's not what the gospel is about. It's about accepting God's love. Since you're assuming God is hateful and not loving, we have your answer. You reject the terms of the gospel.

To translate: that means you reject the gospel and its keryma that God loves us unconditionally and wants us to be loving person. You're not the first to do so.