Johnny Skeptic

Ok, you made five claims. Let's discuss them one at a time.

1 - To reveal himself

2 - To reveal his deeds

3 - To reveal his nature

4 - To give profitable instruction on how to live

5 - To give profitable instruction on what to avoid

Regarding item 1, that is a virtual impossibility. Any God who wanted to reveal himself to people would provide tangible, firsthand evidence of his existence to everyone in all generations. He would make himself available to talk with people, answer their questions, and demonstrate his powers. The God of the Bible has not done that, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else.

Regarding item 2, since some of God's deeds are indiscriminately injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else, refusing to protect women from rapists, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else, and refusing to provide evidence to some people who would accept it if they were aware of it, with no apparent benefits for himself or for those people, there are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that such odd, inexplicable, and barbaric character traits are complemented by good character traits. You would surely question such actions if anyone other than God acted like that, but why? Why should God get the benefit of the doubt? If the God of the Bible exists, at best, he is amoral or mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun did not kill people who loved him along with his enemies. If God exists, and has justifiable reasons for what he does and allows, he could easily show and state his reasons. Why hasn't he done that? What could he possibly have to lose by doing so?

Regarding item 3, I refer back to my comments regarding item 2.

Regarding item 4, there is not any credible evidence that God has ever personally given profitable instruction on how to live. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Now why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that? Since God refused to give food to hundreds of thousands of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, he could not possibly have inspired James to write that because he wanted people to have enough food to eat.

5 - Regarding item 5, if God really wanted to tell people what to avoid, he would have told ancient man about the existence of microorganisms, both helpful microorganisms, and harmful microorganisms. In addition, he would have told people where hurricanes would go so that they could escape injury and death. Further, he would have personally told Christians to avoid conquering the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

No loving, rational being ever does anything that he does not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or at some time in the future. If you have any evidence that creating hurricanes and injuring and killing people with them provides benefits for God and/or for anyone else, I will consider it.

lee_merrill

He could write a book? Or appear in person, as was evidently the case in the earliest years, at least according to the account.

You may then want to ask your questions--talk with him, ask him to demonstrate to you if he is real.

Because of a cross...

But see Matthew 25:35.

Certainly--so the cross speaks of value, of the possibility of reward even in suffering. If there was nothing to overcome, for instance, what would there be to reward?

Johnny Skeptic

Since you agreed with me that "No loving, rational being ever does anything that he does not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or at some time in the future," please tell us how it benefitted God and/or anyone else for him to create parasites and kill more people with them than all of the wars in history, and why he empowered a vicious Devil to help him terrorize mankind. What moral purpose was served by God forcing animals to kill each other in order to survive?

In my opinion, the two worst things about God are that he endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, and that he withholds evidence from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

It is my position that if a God exists, there are not any good reasons to exclude the possibilities that he is amoral or mentally incompetent. God indiscrimately kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Indiscriminate killing is good evidence of amorality or mental incompetence. Even Attila the Hun did not kill people who loved him along with his enemies.

The best conclusion is that it is not likely that a loving God would be willing to sacrifice his own son in order that people could become saved, only to frequently turn right around and injure or kill the same people that he just saved. It is not likely that God inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, only to refuse to give food to hundreds of millions of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine. Why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that?

The simple truth is that no Christian can ask God for a specific tangible benefit in this life and be assured that he will receive it, which is exactly what would be the case if the universe is naturalistic. I am not saying that the universe is naturalisitic, only that if it is, the world would be exactly like it is today. In other words, if the universe is naturalistic, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. What evidence do you have that that is not the case? In the past you have claimed that you have experienced miracle healings. When you were questioned about them, you were evasive. Why was that? Would you like to discuss your miracle healings at the General Religious Discussions Forum? No?, I didn't think that you would. In case you would, there is a thread at the GRD Forum that I started several wees ago that is titled "What evidence is there that God performs miracles healings today?" The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=213251. Based upon your past evasiveness, which was obviously the result of past failures trying to convince people that God has healed you of illnesses, it is a virtual given that you will not participate in that thread.

It is obvious that God did not inspire the writing of the Bible. If he did, he would have given everyone a copy of it. Otherwise, why would he have inspired it? The writing of a book quite naturally indicates a desire to distribute it. No one would be better able to distribute a book than God is. As it was, the Gospel message was distributed entirely by human effort, namely according to the prevailing methods of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. In the first century, God made sure that no one who lived far away from Palestine got to hear the Gospel message, which is quite odd, or, he does not exist.

Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." The authors provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that it the U.S., the primary factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I will add a given historical time period. Those are all entirely secular factors. A much higher percentage of women become Christians than men, which means that God discriminates against men. A much lower percentage of elderly skeptics become Christians than younger people, which means that God discriminates against elderly skeptics. A much lower percentage of children who are raised by skeptics become Christians than children who are raised by Christians, which means that God discriminates against children who are raised by skeptics. Of course, a much better explanation would be that no loving, rational God would mimic a naturalistic universe, because he would know that that would invite dissent instead of encouraging acceptance. Rather, he would leave no doubt that there is at least one being in the universe is able to do things that humans cannot do. If you are trying to convince people to believe that you exist, and to know what you want them to do with their lives, it is counterproductive to require faith for anything except for your identity. As far as I know, it is impossible for any being to prove who he is. Logically, there is no doubt whatsoever that the very best kinds of evidence, and the fairest kinds of evidence, are spiritual/emotional evidence AND tangible, firsthand evidence. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Those skeptics were not convinced by Jesus' words alone, so Jesus was willing to perform miracles for them in order help convince them to accept him. Today, a loving God would provide that kind of evidence to all skeptics. In case you mention the Holy Spirit, I wish to tell you that in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says that even AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church, the disciples went about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles.

What evidence do you have that God is perfect? Even if God showed up in person and declared that he is perfect, that would only be his own arbitrary opinion.

May I ask by what means you have judged that God is perfect? How can imperfection judge perfection? Even if God was perfect, it would be impossible for you to accurately judge that one way or the other.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, there is no way that you would accept it and promote it. You would hope that it is false, even though you now hope that it is true. It is illogical for you to accept and promote evidence that promises you a comfortable eternal life, and be unwilling to accept and promote evidence of equal quality if it said that everyone will go to hell. Your beliefs are based upon emotional self-interest, not upon logic and reason. As long as you get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life, you don’t really care who provides it for you. If you had cancer, would you care who gave you a cure as long as you got the cure? Of course you wouldn’t. Truly, as far as fundies are concerned, the God of the Bible is replaceable, but a comfortable eternal life is definitely not replaceable.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: You do not believe that the Bible contains any contradictions. If the Bible did contain contradictions, in your opinion, what would a hypothetical example be? I predict that you will not answer the question except in an evasive way.

Wouldn't a loving God inspire a book that did not appear to billions of people to contain contradictions? Of what benefit would it be to anyone to inspire a book that needlessly appeared to billions of people to contain contradictions?

lee_merrill

Johnny, please, all these questions are important, but they are not the subject of this thread. But an example of a contradiction would be saying both God is just, and is unjust, that he has all wisdom, and can be charged with foolishness.

Johnny Skeptic

But your reply has to do with words, not with actions. Actions are a much better judge of a being's character than words. In my opinion, some of God's actions contradict numerous Biblical claims that he has good character. There is no doubt whatsoever that God is corrupt as judged by his own standards. It is not likely that a loving God would sacrifice his only begotten son so that people could become saved, and then turn right around and injure or kill the very same people who he just saved. There could not possibly be anything moral about such needless, odd, and barbaric behavior.

Fundamentalist Christians have never been able to come with sensible reasons why God sometimes does what he does. It is certainly reasonable for skeptics to question the motives of any being who sometimes acts like God acts. It all gets down to which is more likely, that a loving being would indiscriminately kill humans and innocent animals, including humans who love him, and not offer any explanations why, tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in the world, or that the authors of all religious books have made up their versions of God(s) in order to satisfy their own emotional needs.

Of course, you lose no matter what because even if a God exists, he might be amoral or mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun did not kill people who loved him along with his enemies. So, as usual, even if you win the battle, you lose the war.

God's character is the most important debate topic. You just don't know it yet, or if you do, you are aware that you are not properly prepared to debate that topic. If by chance you believe that you are prepared to debate that topic, by all means, please go to the GRD Forum and start a new thread, or you can participate in an existing thread that is titled "God is corrupt." You have proven in the past that you are quite inept at debating philosophical issues.

I do not have any idea why you are interested in debating the book of Genesis since there is not any credible evidence that any of it is true.

lee_merrill

Well, I presented my case: I listed several observations, clear ones, there was a beginning, next we may note the appearance of light (these are not subtle points in the text) and the arrangement of land and sea, all these correspond with observations, then birds after fishes, simple to more complex life, and lately, man.

If you would like to discuss these points, great, otherwise please desist from all these claims and other questions and arguing by mere possibilities, please and thanks...

Johnny Skeptic

What case, a case for general theism, or a case for Bibilical theism? If an intelligent being created the universe, what is anyone supposed to do with that knowledge since we do not know who he is, and how he wants people to live their lives? What does the Biblical creation story contribute to reasonably determining who created the universe? 93% of the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) do not believe in a personal God. They are certainly not impressed with your "there was a beginning, next we may note the appearance of light (these are not subtle points in the text) and the arrangement of land and sea, all these correspond with observations, then birds after fishes, simple to more complex life, and lately, man."

It is interesting to note that of the 7% of the members of the NAS who are Christians, the most underrepresented group is, you guessed it, biologists. Whoever said that an inerrantist ever pays any attention to what scientists say when they disagree with the Bible?

If you were actually interested in following the evidence wherever it leads, you would be willing to follow it if it led to God sending everyone to hell. It is a given that you would not do that. If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would hope that it was false, even though you now hope that it is true, and you most certainly would not promote it even though you now promote it. This proves that your beliefs are based not upon credible evidence, but upon emotional self-interest.

Sauron

You listed no observations, lee. You merely repeated claims already found in genesis. Can you really be so confused as to not understand the difference between:

a. making an observation
b. repeating a line from a creation fable?

Moreover, the available science overwhelmingly indicates that the universe was not formed in the fashion that genesis claims.

Posts like this one from you are precisely why creationists get tagged as denialists.

In point of fact:

1. this is not even what the genesis text says - it is your creative attempt to subtely re-word genesis so as to remove the known scientific mistakes;

2. even your re-wording of the genesis claims is contradicted by science.

People have been trying to discuss these points with you for weeks. You are apparently not interested. Instead, all you do is repeat the claims in genesis. That is not a discussion.

Arguing from mere possibilities? You might want to avoid accusing others of such an act.You have several threads that are hundreds of posts long, where you did precisely that.

lee_merrill

I'm not at all sure I understand what you are saying my view is, I certainly don't hope God sends any person to hell.

But this thread has wound down, and I stand by said observations--speaking of credible evidence...