Johnny Skeptic

Not about the nature of God. Empirical data deals with observation. A web definition for the word "empirical" is "relying upon or deriving from observation or experiment." One can observe good deeds, but not the motives for doing them. If God is evil and deceptive, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. Does your empirical data include God's God's murder of Ananias and Sapphira over money, which incredibly supposedly occurred in New Testament times, the Bubonic Plague, the recent tsunami in Asia, and Hurricane Katrina?

Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the uncaused first cause is good, there is no evidence that the God of the Bible is the uncaused first cause. Only self-interest could lead religious minded people to conclude otherwise, not logic and reason.

Why can't God be amoral? If he is, that would explain his erratic, inconsistent behavior. An amoral God would not necessarily be interested in sending anyone to heaven.

rhutchin

The writers of the NT claim that God took the form of a man called Jesus and this man was observed by many. It was this man who told us much about God and the nature of God. Regardless, what we know about God is that which we find in the Bible. The Bible does not support the idea that God is amoral.

rhutchin

I will go with my response in msg #1597.

I have no problem with a person rejecting the Bible in favor of the Koran or some other belief.

rhutchin

OK. The things I read in the Bible tell me that God is good. If you have a source of information that leads you to believe that God is evil, then you can think that God is evil. All I have asked is that you reveal your source of information. So far, you have refused suggesting that you have no information to that effect so that your hypothetical is unfounded.

It provides a test to see if God will do as He promises. If it turns out that God does as He promises, that would suggest that He has a nature that is giving. That would then point to God being good and not evil.

OK. So, what do we do with Christ?

Regarding people who starve or are homeless, we are told that God will provide food, clothing, and physical needs to those who seek first His kingdom. If a person chooses not to seek God’s kingdom and then starves to death, is it not consistent with his desire not to have God help him. If a person becomes a quadriplegic or develops a severe case of multiple sclerosis, is that necessarily God’s fault?

The Bible says that a person’s actions come out of the person’s heart so that actions do reflect a person’s motives. That sounds reasonable to me. It is true that a person can use deception to hide his motives, but in the case of God, what purpose does that serve?

OK. Then I see nothing to support the idea.

rhutchin

Since, you seem to know the point that Dlx2 sought to make, maybe you could pick up his argument and explain it.

JPD

Let's see - your claim that God is good will be subject to the same treatment as God is evil, ie. context and interpretation.

God is evil -

Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."

Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"


Have a look at the Evil Bible Home Page

Quote: " The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9)."

Now, whilst it may not be possible to conclude beyond question - given our good old friends context and interpretation - that God is evil, it is also not possible to conclude beyond question that God is good. That such a significant set of questions hangs over what is a very important question, however, is not good whichever way you look at it.

rhutchin

OK. You seem to be saying that there is no additional information for the JS' idea that God could be evil except for that information provided in the Bible.

The Isaiah reference refers to the peace/evil contrast and not good/evil. the evil in mind seems to be calamities such as tornadoes or earthquakes.

If you are going to define God to be evil by what He allows or does not allow, then those whom God will not save and not allow into heaven will conclude that God is evil. Those whom God allows into heaven will call Him good.

The Evil Bible page makes its arguments by ignoring context.

JPD

But these are not evil - if you hold the argument that this was the view at that time then you reduce the Bible to the limited comprehension of natual events at that time - quite the reverse of any claim that might be made for it having a divine origin. The word 'evil' quite clearly appears regardless of what you feel its application should be.

But you have zero evidence to base this on. Your entire argument is speculative in the extreme. Not only are you assuming that God exists, and that heaven and hell exist, but also that those who are sent to either mythical destination will conclude what you have suggested. Fantasy upon fantasy upon fantasy.

Good old context – so can you find a significant number of verses that do not suffer from a lack of universal application? The Bible – whether it be the word of God or just a record of people’s beliefs – incorrectly describes the earth as a circle. How can I trust someone who uses a child’s stencil set in his explanation of how believers should comprehend the universe? I suppose there is a chance – note chance rather than certainty – that a man with a large plant pot on his head guiding a moped along a tightrope is ideally equipped to distinguish between ‘Sunbeam’ yellow paint and it’s close cousin ‘Wild Honeysuckle’ but please forgive me for not wishing to sign my life over on the offchance that his capabilities are worthy of my attention.

Dlx2

Pascal's Wager is an attempt to get around the problem of the probability that God exists being unknown by throwing an infinite in his risk analysis, and assuming that this will cancel out the unknown probability. As soon as you acknowledge that there can be infinites on either side of the equation, this crumbles and you're stuck once again worrying about the probabilities or the relative values of suffering and freedom, which are personal preference. Accepting the infiniteness of life falsifies one of the initial premises of Pascal's Wager, invalidating the entire wager. It's not just bad philosophy; it's bad math. Pascal should have known better. Period. End of story.

Johnny Skeptic

Why do you assume that he told the truth? If God (Jesus) is evil, then lying and deception would be part of his modus operandi. Have you abandoned your argument regarding the empirical evidence? If so, that is understandable since I have adequately refuted that argument. Do you disagree with the web definition that I gave for the word “empirical�? If so, Merriam-Webster’s Online dictionary defines it as “1: originating in or based on observation or experience. 2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. 3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.� Do you know of any tangible experiments that we can conduct in our own lives that will reveal the nature of God?

Whether applying to a God or to a human, actions need not necessarily prove motives. The reason that you are having difficulties with my arguments is that unlike the other skeptics at this forum, I am not disputing the tangible acts that the Bible attributes to God. I am only disputing your irrational and unprovable claim that God’s actions reasonably prove his motives. You cannot possible win a debate regarding God’s motives.

An evil God could easily have accomplished that. As I said, “If God is evil and deceptive, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.�

But there is not any empirical (observable) evidence at all in the Bible regarding God’s true nature one way or the other. Actions do not necessarily reveal motives, whether applying to a God or to humans. This is quite simple, except of course for a religious minded person whose opinions are based solely upon self-interest, not logic and reason.

A web definition for the word “amoral� is “The term amoral is distinct from the terms moral and immoral, and simply refers to the state of lacking any moral characteristics. An amoral act is not morally good nor is it morally bad - it simply is. An amoral man is one who has no conception of morality or moral judgments. Babies, for example, are amoral.�

Whatever scriptures that you use regarding God’s goodness, you must still deal with the following scriptures:

Item 1 - Exo 4:11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?

Item 2 - Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man, [other than a slave] so that he die, shall be surely put to death. [Johnny: Now here is the double-standard] Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, [slave] or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. [not put to death]

Item 3 - Acts 5:1-11 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

[Johnny: Fear of what? Obviously, fear of not giving money to the church. It is much too much of an accident that Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God over money and not over something more serious. 1 Corinthians 5:1 says “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.� There is no evidence that any of those people were afraid that God would kill them, and surely their atrocities were as bad or worse than what Ananias and Saphirra did. Now mind you, rhutchin, this was in New Testament times. Hebrews 8:6 says “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.� What is new about God still killing people? The story of Ananias and Sapphira is embarrassing for Christians, and it is reminiscent of the “God’s gonna get you� attitude of the Old Testament writers.

Item 4 - Revelation 9:1-6 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Item 5 - Revelation 14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
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.

Johnny: According to modern standards of love, decency, and civilized behavior, the aforementioned scriptures depict a being who is either 1) amoral, 2) mentally incompetent, or 3) a barbarian.

As I said previously, “Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the uncaused first cause is good, there is no evidence that the God of the Bible is the uncaused first cause. Only self-interest could lead religious minded people to conclude otherwise, not logic and reason.� Why didn’t you reply to that argument?