Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 05-08-2002, 02:11 PM

God did not "need" to be glorified, but He was certainly PLEASED to have glory drawn to Him. God's creation is the result of the overflow of God's delight in Himself.

How could a "perfect", complete god be pleased by a bunch of little pissant humans he created to say "hallelujah," especially since he knew that was what they'd do when/before he created them? That's equivaltent to me sending a birthday card to myself. God needs to see a shrink.

Dave says: ABSOLUTELY God knew. He certainly could have made creatures incapable of falling. But it was God's plan that we would fall, and that God would, in the end, be glorified through the Fall. Although the sin itself is not glorifying to God, God is glorified when he pours out his wrath in response to sin, as well as when he redeems some men from sin.

Dave: it is glorious because it not only demonstrates God's power, but also His justice in condemning injustice, and in His goodness by doing away with evil.

So god knowingly created us to fall and knew that he would pour out his wrath on us, condemning billions to eternal suffering (I'm supposing you believe in hell)? And you can say he did this to demonstrate his justice and goodness?

Where's the justice and goodness in that? It would have been more just and good for him to not create us at all if he knew that most if not all of us were going to be subject to his wrath.

If a father treated his children this way, we'd lock him up. "I had six kids, knowing I would love two of them and beat the shit out of the rest." It's called child abuse.

daemon · 05-08-2002, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
Dave says: God did not "need" to be glorified, but He was certainly PLEASED to have glory drawn to Him. God's creation is the result of the overflow of God's delight in Himself.

So you're saying you believe in a God whose only reason for creating things was massive egotism? And that's good?

Quote:

Dave says: ABSOLUTELY God knew. He certainly could have made creatures incapable of falling. But it was God's plan that we would fall, and that God would, in the end, be glorified through the Fall. Although the sin itself is not glorifying to God, God is glorified when he pours out his wrath in response to sin, as well as when he redeems some men from sin.

Why should we take your opinion as fact on this? I find the idea of God "pouring out his wrath" to be horrific, not glorifying; the act of a monster. How is God demonstrating itself to be a vile and vicious beast glorifying?

Quote:

Dave: it is glorious because it not only demonstrates God's power, but also His justice in condemning injustice,...

...you mean like the injustice of creating a race of beings for the glory of torturing them?

Quote:

...and in His goodness by doing away with evil.[/QB]

Mm-hm, evil. Right.

Quote:

Dave says: of course, there IS no comparison. That is because you are trying to compare penal justice with vicarious, substitutionary atonement. It should be pointed out that the Son willingly paid the penalty. Jesus "bore the sins of many" as a substitute for Believers, so that the wrath that would have justly fallen on us, fell on the Blameless One. Thus, Christians have Christ's merits and righteousness credited to our accounts.

This all assumes there's a crime in the first place. What is this crime that I have committed?

Quote:

Dave: well, I would not necessarily "buy" your account of cosmological history, but God did indeed create a large universe, along with a very small mankind. He has indeed showed,

Nitpick: shown

Quote:

and will continue to show, his wrath on a disobedient people.

Really? When was that?

Quote:

And I am sure that your objections to the Bible are of the same nature as the others around here - they are of a presuppositional nature. That is, one has to asume, a priori, atheism, along with all of its epistemological baggage, in order to find fault.

Nope, sorry. I believed the Bible false before I decided I was an atheist, and have not changed my reasons for believing it false.

Quote:

Dave: well, that is pretty much what your argument comes down to. Very little beyond ridicule. But I suppose that's pretty common around here.

We try our best to give the responses deserved.

DaveJes1979 · 05-08-2002, 03:10 PM

Mageth: How could a "perfect", complete god be pleased by a bunch of little pissant humans he created to say "hallelujah," especially since he knew that was what they'd do when/before he created them? That's equivaltent to me sending a birthday card to myself. God needs to see a shrink.

Dave: its not "sending a birthday card" to oneself at all. You are failing to make a simple ontological distinction between God and his creation. And I would point out that God is certainly pleased by ALL of his works, as a master carpenter is pleased by his work. It demonstrates His perfections, and in so doing glorifies Him in Himself, and in His creation.

Mageth: So god knowingly created us to fall and knew that he would pour out his wrath on us, condemning billions to eternal suffering (I'm supposing you believe in hell)? And you can say he did this to demonstrate his justice and goodness?

Dave: yep.

Mageth: Where's the justice and goodness in that? It would have been more just and good for him to not create us at all if he knew that most if not all of us were going to be subject to his wrath.

Dave: but God's wrath demonstrates God's goodness and justice. In this, He is glorified.

Megath: If a father treated his children this way, we'd lock him up. "I had six kids, knowing I would love two of them and beat the shit out of the rest." It's called child abuse.

Dave: this analogy fails on SO many levels.

daemon: So you're saying you believe in a God whose only reason for creating things was massive egotism? And that's good?

Dave: we abhor "egotism" in men because men really are not worthy or deserving of the high praise that men heap upon themselves. The same cannot be said of God - who actually IS ALONE worthy!

daemon: Why should we take your opinion as fact on this? I find the idea of God "pouring out his wrath" to be horrific, not glorifying; the act of a monster. How is God demonstrating itself to be a vile and vicious beast glorifying?

Dave: you haven't given us any meaningful argument here, other than your own personal preference, and your own opinion of what you find "vile". You have simply assumed atheistic ethics (which holds that man's pleasure is the ultimate good) and imposed them on God! Of course, you have failed to take into account that, if God exists, He is actually worthy and just - reguardless of our taste or feelings on the matter.

daemon: ...you mean like the injustice of creating a race of beings for the glory of torturing them?

Dave: punishment for sin is neither torture nor an injustice. Sin is the injustice, and it is only just for God to meet sin with wrath.

daemon: This all assumes there's a crime in the first place. What is this crime that I have committed?

Dave: you have failed to give glory to God, and worship Him as God, and follow His commandments.

daemon: Really? When was that?

Dave: all of the suffering that exists in the world is a precursor of God's wrath, before it comes in its totality.

daemon: Nope, sorry. I believed the Bible false before I decided I was an atheist, and have not changed my reasons for believing it false.

Dave: well, if you didn't believe the Bible, you obviously couldn't have been Christian - and thus you were running on non-Christian presuppositions. There really are only two sets of presuppositions out there - Christian presuppositions, and idolatrous presuppositions.

Dave Gadbois

Mageth · 05-08-2002, 03:32 PM

...but God's wrath demonstrates God's goodness and justice. In this, He is glorified.

Keep repeating this to yourself. If you ever stop and actually think about it, your head will explode from the cognitive dissonance.

this analogy fails on SO many levels.

Name them.

You have simply assumed atheistic ethics (which holds that man's pleasure is the ultimate good) and imposed them on God! Of course, you have failed to take into account that, if God exists, He is actually worthy and just - reguardless of our taste or feelings on the matter.

Funny, I'm an atheist and I've never heard of "atheistic ethics," and don't hold that "man's pleasure is the ultimate good." You apparently get your information on atheists from the pulpit.

well, if you didn't believe the Bible, you obviously couldn't have been Christian - and thus you were running on non-Christian presuppositions. There really are only two sets of presuppositions out there - Christian presuppositions, and idolatrous presuppositions.

I believed the bible and was a christian. Then I started thinking, and the improbability and cruelty of the christian god contributed to me becoming an atheist.

And I don't idolize anything, so I have no "idolatrous presuppositions." You'd have to be religious to idolize something in the sense you're talking about, and I'm not religious. Once again, you're attributing your pulpit brainwashing to us.

braces_for_impact · 05-08-2002, 03:53 PM

People are imperfect beings. Ignoring the fact that a perfect being that creates imperfect creatures in his own image was never perfect in the first place, I fail to see god's motivation here.

People do things whether for good or for ill because they lack equilibrium. They have needs and wants. A perfect being would have no needs or wants, as he is perfect by definition.

As far as history glorifying god, an even half way attempt to look at history objectively clearly shows that history does anything but glorify this supposed creator.

Also of note is god's emotions, including his wrath. People have emotions based on stimuli of which they previously had no knowledge. For example, a wife whom finds out her husband is cheating on her goes through a variety of emotions upon revalation of that fact. A perfect, omniscient being could not be surprised, and thus I wonder where this emotion comes from.

Another issue I would like to address is this perfect god's "justice". In most enlightened countries, the punishment fits the crime for the offense commited. Since when is eternal torture and punishment fitting for clearly finite sins?

A final note. I am tired of hearing the free will apology. It literally makes no sense, it is irrational. Free will cannot coexist with an omniscient deity, only the illusion of such, simply because before an individual is created god knows the outcome. How many chances given an individual is irrelevant, as god knows that the majority of earth's population will reject his "grace" any number of times and end up in this eternal punishment before they are even created. So please, don't tell me he gives us all a chance, because obviously our choice was known before we were created, yet we were supposedly created nonetheless. If it is your opinion that god is omniscient and omnipotent, then you must agree that free will is NOT neccessary for us to know love, nor is it required for us to be able to choose evil in order for us to have this free will. Remember, god can do anything. He makes the rules according to most theistic doctrine. If god can make the universe and all the laws that govern it, then he could give free will without the ability to choose evil, yet he did not. Look through history, look at the present, and look at what may happen in the future. There is no "divine plan". The Yahweh god of the bible has demonstrated his imperfection time and again with all of his attempts to unsuccessfully obliterate evil, such as destruction of cities, worlwide floods, angelic rebellions, etc.

We live in a cold universe indifferent to our suffering. There is no divine plan. The only way humanity will ever recieve heaven is if it takes the divine plan out of any deities' hands, takes responsibility, and creates it's own plan of action.

daemon · 05-08-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
Dave: we abhor "egotism" in men because men really are not worthy or deserving of the high praise that men heap upon themselves. The same cannot be said of God - who actually IS ALONE worthy!

Perhaps that is why you abhor egotism, but I abhor it because it is usually the act of a self-aggrandizing idiot with low self-esteem. Hence, this is what I associate with the image of God you have provided.

Quote:

Dave: you haven't given us any meaningful argument here, other than your own personal preference, and your own opinion of what you find "vile". You have simply assumed atheistic ethics (which holds that man's pleasure is the ultimate good) and imposed them on God! Of course, you have failed to take into account that, if God exists, He is actually worthy and just - reguardless of our taste or feelings on the matter.

I was pointing out that you haven't given us a good definition of what "glorifying" means, nor of why we should assume that you are correct, even if "God" does exist.

Quote:

Dave: punishment for sin is neither torture nor an injustice. Sin is the injustice, and it is only just for God to meet sin with wrath.

Given this statement, I'm going to have to say that we have dramatically different ideas of justice. I find yours to be ridiculous.

Quote:

Dave: you have failed to give glory to God, and worship Him as God, and follow His commandments.

And this is a crime because...?

Quote:

Dave: all of the suffering that exists in the world is a precursor of God's wrath, before it comes in its totality.

You still haven't bothered to answer the question: when did he show his wrath, as you earlier claimed he did?

Quote:

Dave: well, if you didn't believe the Bible, you obviously couldn't have been Christian - and thus you were running on non-Christian presuppositions. There really are only two sets of presuppositions out there - Christian presuppositions, and idolatrous presuppositions.

This assumes that all non-Christian presuppositions are the same. Given that you haven't proven such, and that I know that my own assumptions have changed in the interim, I'd say that you gave a good demonstration of an equivocation fallacy. Try to be a little more precise in the future, please.

DaveJes1979 · 05-08-2002, 05:43 PM

Mageth: Keep repeating this to yourself. If you ever stop and actually think about it, your head will explode from the cognitive dissonance.

Dave: is this supposed to be a meaningful response?

Mageth: Name them.

Dave: I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out. Child abuse cannot be compared to a punishment God doles out due to the crimes of men. Child abuse is against an innocent. God's wrath is not.

Mageth: Funny, I'm an atheist and I've never heard of "atheistic ethics," and don't hold that "man's pleasure is the ultimate good." You apparently get your information on atheists from the pulpit.

Dave: well, utilitarian ethics certainly holds to just that. You end up embracing a construct like this -or a similar one -when you deny to God the rights He has to rule over His creatures. In other words - your objections stem from your own atheistic presuppositions.

Megath: I believed the bible and was a christian. Then I started thinking, and the improbability and cruelty of the christian god contributed to me becoming an atheist.

Dave: it seems to me, then, that you were really an atheist the whole time. Only atheistic presuppositions could possibly lead to that conclusion.

Megath: And I don't idolize anything, so I have no "idolatrous presuppositions." You'd have to be religious to idolize something in the sense you're talking about, and I'm not religious. Once again, you're attributing your pulpit brainwashing to us.

Dave: you DO idolize things. God demands both service and praise from His creatures. Failure to do so constitutes idolatry - as you place your "faith" away from Him to an idol you have constructed. Usually, the idol is YOU, or a philosophy, or something.

braces: People are imperfect beings. Ignoring the fact that a perfect being that creates imperfect creatures in his own image was never perfect in the first place, I fail to see god's motivation here.
People do things whether for good or for ill because they lack equilibrium. They have needs and wants. A perfect being would have no needs or wants, as he is perfect by definition.

Dave: man was not created "perfect" in this sense. Man has always been dependent upon God, a contingent and finite creature. God DID create man, however, "perfect", in the sense that man had the ability both to do good and to do evil.

braces: As far as history glorifying god, an even half way attempt to look at history objectively clearly shows that history does anything but glorify this supposed creator.

Dave: indeed. Sin, in the "shortrun", does not glorify God. It does in the longrun, however, as God will one day judge the quick and the dead, and put and end to sin, and punish forever those who do not turn to Him.

braces: Also of note is god's emotions, including his wrath. People have emotions based on stimuli of which they previously had no knowledge. For example, a wife whom finds out her husband is cheating on her goes through a variety of emotions upon revalation of that fact. A perfect, omniscient being could not be surprised, and thus I wonder where this emotion comes from.

Dave: God is indeed not "surprised" at these things. But surprised or not, He is still outraged by the violation of His Holy nature.

braces: Another issue I would like to address is this perfect god's "justice". In most enlightened countries, the punishment fits the crime for the offense commited. Since when is eternal torture and punishment fitting for clearly finite sins?

Dave: I am not sure what you mean by "finite sins", but sin is an offense against an infinite God. God is Holy, and cannot stand the presence of sin. As such, He cannot fellowship (in heaven) with those who have sin on their heads.

braces:A final note. I am tired of hearing the free will apology.

Dave: I do not appeal to "free will" at all. I believe in compatibalist free agency (we act freely according to our natures), but not free will.

braces: Look through history, look at the present, and look at what may happen in the future. There is no "divine plan". The Yahweh god of the bible has demonstrated his imperfection time and again with all of his attempts to unsuccessfully obliterate evil, such as destruction of cities, worlwide floods, angelic rebellions, etc.

Dave: huh??? This is a most bizarre interpretation of the biblical record. God has not destroyed the entire earth, and all of its evil, because 1. God is preserving a remnant by His grace and 2. using the present time as an opportunity for man to repent. God will indeed put a final end to all evil in the Last Day.

brace: We live in a cold universe indifferent to our suffering. There is no divine plan. The only way humanity will ever recieve heaven is if it takes the divine plan out of any deities' hands, takes responsibility, and creates it's own plan of action.

Dave: and you thereby gut human existence from any vestige of meaning of hope.

daemon: Perhaps that is why you abhor egotism, but I abhor it because it is usually the act of a self-aggrandizing idiot with low self-esteem. Hence, this is what I associate with the image of God you have provided.

Dave: and precisely, why do you have such a problem with self-aggrandizement? Is it because, perhaps, such self-aggrandizement is simply not justified praise to give a mere creature? Why, then? In CREATURES, it shows a low self-esteem, but why assume the same for God? Again, this sort of emotional outburst does little to establish your case.

daemon: I was pointing out that you haven't given us a good definition of what "glorifying" means, nor of why we should assume that you are correct, even if "God" does exist.

Dave: to glorify God is simply to know and make known God's own perfections. In these, are grandeur, beauty, goodness, justice, and holiness.

This understanding of history and of God's glory is simply part and parcel to the Christian worldview, as God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. To deny this, one must make nonsense of history and gut it of any meaning whatsoever. Not only atheists - but deists have tried to do this, but they are left empty-handed, with more questions than answers.

daemon: Given this statement, I'm going to have to say that we have dramatically different ideas of justice. I find yours to be ridiculous.

Dave: of course you do, because you have already assumed atheistic presuppositions and an atheistic value and ethical system.

daemon: And this is a crime because...?

Dave: well, if God actually exists...perhaps He is worthy of your obedience? Think it through, a little.

daemon: You still haven't bothered to answer the question: when did he show his wrath, as you earlier claimed he did?

Dave: ALL SUFFERING is a manifestation of his wrath. I thought that was clear from my last post.

daemon: This assumes that all non-Christian presuppositions are the same. Given that you haven't proven such, and that I know that my own assumptions have changed in the interim, I'd say that you gave a good demonstration of an equivocation fallacy. Try to be a little more precise in the future, please.

Dave: I never claimed that all non-Christian presuppositions "are the same." My claim was that all non-Christian presuppositions were REDUCIBLE to that category. Either you serve the one true God with all of your heart and mind, or you serve a pale imitation. Those are the epistemological starting points.

Dave Gadbois

daemon · 05-08-2002, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
Dave: and precisely, why do you have such a problem with self-aggrandizement? Is it because, perhaps, such self-aggrandizement is simply not justified praise to give a mere creature? Why, then? In CREATURES, it shows a low self-esteem, but why assume the same for God? Again, this sort of emotional outburst does little to establish your case.

What emotional outburst? Are you attempting to build another strawman?

I am simply pointing out that the behavior you are attributing to God is juvenile and offensive in people. Surely it should be moreso in a being that is allegedly perfect!

Quote:

Dave: to glorify God is simply to know and make known God's own perfections. In these, are grandeur, beauty, goodness, justice, and holiness.

I find that unconvincing; as far as I am concerned, those are all simply subjective terms, and as such perfection is an arbitrary assignment.

Quote:

This understanding of history...

What?

Quote:

...and of God's glory is simply part and parcel to the Christian worldview, as God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. To deny this, one must make nonsense of history and gut it of any meaning whatsoever. Not only atheists - but deists have tried to do this, but they are left empty-handed, with more questions than answers.

That's one of the most impressive non sequiturs I've ever seen. Congratulations.

Now, perhaps you'd like to try to explain how denying the "perfection" of God makes nonsense of history... ?

Quote:

Dave: of course you do, because you have already assumed atheistic presuppositions and an atheistic value and ethical system.

Actually, I have no atheistic presuppositions, though it is certainly arguable that my values and ethics are atheistic. However, I see no relevance to this fact.

Quote:

Dave: well, if God actually exists...perhaps He is worthy of your obedience? Think it through, a little.

Well, that's a big if right there. If he were to inform me, I might be inclined to believe him and do something about it. He has yet to do so, however.

Quote:

Dave: ALL SUFFERING is a manifestation of his wrath. I thought that was clear from my last post.

No, it wasn't. So, if I understand you correctly, people suffer because they are disobedient, and therefore deserve it. Correct?

Quote:

Dave: I never claimed that all non-Christian presuppositions "are the same." My claim was that all non-Christian presuppositions were REDUCIBLE to that category. Either you serve the one true God with all of your heart and mind, or you serve a pale imitation. Those are the epistemological starting points.

You implied that they were equivalent by stating that my objections to the Bible were based on atheistic assumptions, then backed that off to non-Christian. They are not necessarily the same. I should note that further thought has made me realize, however, that none of my assumptions are inherently atheistic, per se. Rationalistic, yes, but not atheistic.

David Gould · 05-08-2002, 10:18 PM

Presuppositionalism is a wonderful thing.

It actually makes me wonder how a presupossitionalist believes the conversion process works: if I have to adopt a Christian worldview in order to become a Christian, isn't that kind of circular?

Neutrality is impossible - even knowledge of bias is insufficient.

If we start with the presupposition that the Bible is false, then of course we can never reach the position that it is true.

I think the fact that people do convert to Christianity negates the presup view.

What do others think?

Thor Q. Mada · 05-08-2002, 11:03 PM

ome-on guys, DaveJes1979
and Bender are religious fanatics, capable of flying planes into buildings. Reasoning with them is a usefull as talking to a wall. Ignore them. They are not worth the effort, because they have lost the ability to learn. They are stuck in ideas and dogmas of a long bygone time. They are medical case studies.
If you could change them it would be a miracle. Since we don't believe in miracles , the picture is pretty static. This is thegreatest problem of our planet. "Stagnation in a belief from the past with values from the past".
Give-up!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-08-2002, 02:11 PM	#21
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	God did not "need" to be glorified, but He was certainly PLEASED to have glory drawn to Him. God's creation is the result of the overflow of God's delight in Himself. How could a "perfect", complete god be pleased by a bunch of little pissant humans he created to say "hallelujah," especially since he knew that was what they'd do when/before he created them? That's equivaltent to me sending a birthday card to myself. God needs to see a shrink. Dave says: ABSOLUTELY God knew. He certainly could have made creatures incapable of falling. But it was God's plan that we would fall, and that God would, in the end, be glorified through the Fall. Although the sin itself is not glorifying to God, God is glorified when he pours out his wrath in response to sin, as well as when he redeems some men from sin. Dave: it is glorious because it not only demonstrates God's power, but also His justice in condemning injustice, and in His goodness by doing away with evil. So god knowingly created us to fall and knew that he would pour out his wrath on us, condemning billions to eternal suffering (I'm supposing you believe in hell)? And you can say he did this to demonstrate his justice and goodness? Where's the justice and goodness in that? It would have been more just and good for him to not create us at all if he knew that most if not all of us were going to be subject to his wrath. If a father treated his children this way, we'd lock him up. "I had six kids, knowing I would love two of them and beat the shit out of the rest." It's called child abuse.

05-08-2002, 03:10 PM	#23
DaveJes1979 Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camarillo, CA, U.S.A. Posts: 72	Mageth: How could a "perfect", complete god be pleased by a bunch of little pissant humans he created to say "hallelujah," especially since he knew that was what they'd do when/before he created them? That's equivaltent to me sending a birthday card to myself. God needs to see a shrink. Dave: its not "sending a birthday card" to oneself at all. You are failing to make a simple ontological distinction between God and his creation. And I would point out that God is certainly pleased by ALL of his works, as a master carpenter is pleased by his work. It demonstrates His perfections, and in so doing glorifies Him in Himself, and in His creation. Mageth: So god knowingly created us to fall and knew that he would pour out his wrath on us, condemning billions to eternal suffering (I'm supposing you believe in hell)? And you can say he did this to demonstrate his justice and goodness? Dave: yep. Mageth: Where's the justice and goodness in that? It would have been more just and good for him to not create us at all if he knew that most if not all of us were going to be subject to his wrath. Dave: but God's wrath demonstrates God's goodness and justice. In this, He is glorified. Megath: If a father treated his children this way, we'd lock him up. "I had six kids, knowing I would love two of them and beat the shit out of the rest." It's called child abuse. Dave: this analogy fails on SO many levels. daemon: So you're saying you believe in a God whose only reason for creating things was massive egotism? And that's good? Dave: we abhor "egotism" in men because men really are not worthy or deserving of the high praise that men heap upon themselves. The same cannot be said of God - who actually IS ALONE worthy! daemon: Why should we take your opinion as fact on this? I find the idea of God "pouring out his wrath" to be horrific, not glorifying; the act of a monster. How is God demonstrating itself to be a vile and vicious beast glorifying? Dave: you haven't given us any meaningful argument here, other than your own personal preference, and your own opinion of what you find "vile". You have simply assumed atheistic ethics (which holds that man's pleasure is the ultimate good) and imposed them on God! Of course, you have failed to take into account that, if God exists, He is actually worthy and just - reguardless of our taste or feelings on the matter. daemon: ...you mean like the injustice of creating a race of beings for the glory of torturing them? Dave: punishment for sin is neither torture nor an injustice. Sin is the injustice, and it is only just for God to meet sin with wrath. daemon: This all assumes there's a crime in the first place. What is this crime that I have committed? Dave: you have failed to give glory to God, and worship Him as God, and follow His commandments. daemon: Really? When was that? Dave: all of the suffering that exists in the world is a precursor of God's wrath, before it comes in its totality. daemon: Nope, sorry. I believed the Bible false before I decided I was an atheist, and have not changed my reasons for believing it false. Dave: well, if you didn't believe the Bible, you obviously couldn't have been Christian - and thus you were running on non-Christian presuppositions. There really are only two sets of presuppositions out there - Christian presuppositions, and idolatrous presuppositions. Dave Gadbois

05-08-2002, 03:32 PM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	...but God's wrath demonstrates God's goodness and justice. In this, He is glorified. Keep repeating this to yourself. If you ever stop and actually think about it, your head will explode from the cognitive dissonance. this analogy fails on SO many levels. Name them. You have simply assumed atheistic ethics (which holds that man's pleasure is the ultimate good) and imposed them on God! Of course, you have failed to take into account that, if God exists, He is actually worthy and just - reguardless of our taste or feelings on the matter. Funny, I'm an atheist and I've never heard of "atheistic ethics," and don't hold that "man's pleasure is the ultimate good." You apparently get your information on atheists from the pulpit. well, if you didn't believe the Bible, you obviously couldn't have been Christian - and thus you were running on non-Christian presuppositions. There really are only two sets of presuppositions out there - Christian presuppositions, and idolatrous presuppositions. I believed the bible and was a christian. Then I started thinking, and the improbability and cruelty of the christian god contributed to me becoming an atheist. And I don't idolize anything, so I have no "idolatrous presuppositions." You'd have to be religious to idolize something in the sense you're talking about, and I'm not religious. Once again, you're attributing your pulpit brainwashing to us.

05-08-2002, 03:53 PM	#25
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	People are imperfect beings. Ignoring the fact that a perfect being that creates imperfect creatures in his own image was never perfect in the first place, I fail to see god's motivation here. People do things whether for good or for ill because they lack equilibrium. They have needs and wants. A perfect being would have no needs or wants, as he is perfect by definition. As far as history glorifying god, an even half way attempt to look at history objectively clearly shows that history does anything but glorify this supposed creator. Also of note is god's emotions, including his wrath. People have emotions based on stimuli of which they previously had no knowledge. For example, a wife whom finds out her husband is cheating on her goes through a variety of emotions upon revalation of that fact. A perfect, omniscient being could not be surprised, and thus I wonder where this emotion comes from. Another issue I would like to address is this perfect god's "justice". In most enlightened countries, the punishment fits the crime for the offense commited. Since when is eternal torture and punishment fitting for clearly finite sins? A final note. I am tired of hearing the free will apology. It literally makes no sense, it is irrational. Free will cannot coexist with an omniscient deity, only the illusion of such, simply because before an individual is created god knows the outcome. How many chances given an individual is irrelevant, as god knows that the majority of earth's population will reject his "grace" any number of times and end up in this eternal punishment before they are even created. So please, don't tell me he gives us all a chance, because obviously our choice was known before we were created, yet we were supposedly created nonetheless. If it is your opinion that god is omniscient and omnipotent, then you must agree that free will is NOT neccessary for us to know love, nor is it required for us to be able to choose evil in order for us to have this free will. Remember, god can do anything. He makes the rules according to most theistic doctrine. If god can make the universe and all the laws that govern it, then he could give free will without the ability to choose evil, yet he did not. Look through history, look at the present, and look at what may happen in the future. There is no "divine plan". The Yahweh god of the bible has demonstrated his imperfection time and again with all of his attempts to unsuccessfully obliterate evil, such as destruction of cities, worlwide floods, angelic rebellions, etc. We live in a cold universe indifferent to our suffering. There is no divine plan. The only way humanity will ever recieve heaven is if it takes the divine plan out of any deities' hands, takes responsibility, and creates it's own plan of action.

05-08-2002, 05:43 PM	#27
DaveJes1979 Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camarillo, CA, U.S.A. Posts: 72	Mageth: Keep repeating this to yourself. If you ever stop and actually think about it, your head will explode from the cognitive dissonance. Dave: is this supposed to be a meaningful response? Mageth: Name them. Dave: I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out. Child abuse cannot be compared to a punishment God doles out due to the crimes of men. Child abuse is against an innocent. God's wrath is not. Mageth: Funny, I'm an atheist and I've never heard of "atheistic ethics," and don't hold that "man's pleasure is the ultimate good." You apparently get your information on atheists from the pulpit. Dave: well, utilitarian ethics certainly holds to just that. You end up embracing a construct like this -or a similar one -when you deny to God the rights He has to rule over His creatures. In other words - your objections stem from your own atheistic presuppositions. Megath: I believed the bible and was a christian. Then I started thinking, and the improbability and cruelty of the christian god contributed to me becoming an atheist. Dave: it seems to me, then, that you were really an atheist the whole time. Only atheistic presuppositions could possibly lead to that conclusion. Megath: And I don't idolize anything, so I have no "idolatrous presuppositions." You'd have to be religious to idolize something in the sense you're talking about, and I'm not religious. Once again, you're attributing your pulpit brainwashing to us. Dave: you DO idolize things. God demands both service and praise from His creatures. Failure to do so constitutes idolatry - as you place your "faith" away from Him to an idol you have constructed. Usually, the idol is YOU, or a philosophy, or something. braces: People are imperfect beings. Ignoring the fact that a perfect being that creates imperfect creatures in his own image was never perfect in the first place, I fail to see god's motivation here. People do things whether for good or for ill because they lack equilibrium. They have needs and wants. A perfect being would have no needs or wants, as he is perfect by definition. Dave: man was not created "perfect" in this sense. Man has always been dependent upon God, a contingent and finite creature. God DID create man, however, "perfect", in the sense that man had the ability both to do good and to do evil. braces: As far as history glorifying god, an even half way attempt to look at history objectively clearly shows that history does anything but glorify this supposed creator. Dave: indeed. Sin, in the "shortrun", does not glorify God. It does in the longrun, however, as God will one day judge the quick and the dead, and put and end to sin, and punish forever those who do not turn to Him. braces: Also of note is god's emotions, including his wrath. People have emotions based on stimuli of which they previously had no knowledge. For example, a wife whom finds out her husband is cheating on her goes through a variety of emotions upon revalation of that fact. A perfect, omniscient being could not be surprised, and thus I wonder where this emotion comes from. Dave: God is indeed not "surprised" at these things. But surprised or not, He is still outraged by the violation of His Holy nature. braces: Another issue I would like to address is this perfect god's "justice". In most enlightened countries, the punishment fits the crime for the offense commited. Since when is eternal torture and punishment fitting for clearly finite sins? Dave: I am not sure what you mean by "finite sins", but sin is an offense against an infinite God. God is Holy, and cannot stand the presence of sin. As such, He cannot fellowship (in heaven) with those who have sin on their heads. braces:A final note. I am tired of hearing the free will apology. Dave: I do not appeal to "free will" at all. I believe in compatibalist free agency (we act freely according to our natures), but not free will. braces: Look through history, look at the present, and look at what may happen in the future. There is no "divine plan". The Yahweh god of the bible has demonstrated his imperfection time and again with all of his attempts to unsuccessfully obliterate evil, such as destruction of cities, worlwide floods, angelic rebellions, etc. Dave: huh??? This is a most bizarre interpretation of the biblical record. God has not destroyed the entire earth, and all of its evil, because 1. God is preserving a remnant by His grace and 2. using the present time as an opportunity for man to repent. God will indeed put a final end to all evil in the Last Day. brace: We live in a cold universe indifferent to our suffering. There is no divine plan. The only way humanity will ever recieve heaven is if it takes the divine plan out of any deities' hands, takes responsibility, and creates it's own plan of action. Dave: and you thereby gut human existence from any vestige of meaning of hope. daemon: Perhaps that is why you abhor egotism, but I abhor it because it is usually the act of a self-aggrandizing idiot with low self-esteem. Hence, this is what I associate with the image of God you have provided. Dave: and precisely, why do you have such a problem with self-aggrandizement? Is it because, perhaps, such self-aggrandizement is simply not justified praise to give a mere creature? Why, then? In CREATURES, it shows a low self-esteem, but why assume the same for God? Again, this sort of emotional outburst does little to establish your case. daemon: I was pointing out that you haven't given us a good definition of what "glorifying" means, nor of why we should assume that you are correct, even if "God" does exist. Dave: to glorify God is simply to know and make known God's own perfections. In these, are grandeur, beauty, goodness, justice, and holiness. This understanding of history and of God's glory is simply part and parcel to the Christian worldview, as God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. To deny this, one must make nonsense of history and gut it of any meaning whatsoever. Not only atheists - but deists have tried to do this, but they are left empty-handed, with more questions than answers. daemon: Given this statement, I'm going to have to say that we have dramatically different ideas of justice. I find yours to be ridiculous. Dave: of course you do, because you have already assumed atheistic presuppositions and an atheistic value and ethical system. daemon: And this is a crime because...? Dave: well, if God actually exists...perhaps He is worthy of your obedience? Think it through, a little. daemon: You still haven't bothered to answer the question: when did he show his wrath, as you earlier claimed he did? Dave: ALL SUFFERING is a manifestation of his wrath. I thought that was clear from my last post. daemon: This assumes that all non-Christian presuppositions are the same. Given that you haven't proven such, and that I know that my own assumptions have changed in the interim, I'd say that you gave a good demonstration of an equivocation fallacy. Try to be a little more precise in the future, please. Dave: I never claimed that all non-Christian presuppositions "are the same." My claim was that all non-Christian presuppositions were REDUCIBLE to that category. Either you serve the one true God with all of your heart and mind, or you serve a pale imitation. Those are the epistemological starting points. Dave Gadbois

05-08-2002, 10:18 PM	#29
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Presuppositionalism is a wonderful thing. It actually makes me wonder how a presupossitionalist believes the conversion process works: if I have to adopt a Christian worldview in order to become a Christian, isn't that kind of circular? Neutrality is impossible - even knowledge of bias is insufficient. If we start with the presupposition that the Bible is false, then of course we can never reach the position that it is true. I think the fact that people do convert to Christianity negates the presup view. What do others think?

05-08-2002, 11:03 PM	#30
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	ome-on guys, DaveJes1979 and Bender are religious fanatics, capable of flying planes into buildings. Reasoning with them is a usefull as talking to a wall. Ignore them. They are not worth the effort, because they have lost the ability to learn. They are stuck in ideas and dogmas of a long bygone time. They are medical case studies. If you could change them it would be a miracle. Since we don't believe in miracles , the picture is pretty static. This is thegreatest problem of our planet. "Stagnation in a belief from the past with values from the past". Give-up!!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.