JERDOG

This is the common cop out response given by theist when cornered by questions like...
"Why did god let that little boy get eaten by the gator?"
(as some of you may know a little 10 year old boy was killed by a gator in Florida a few days ago) A sad story. I can't find a news link to it perhaps someone can help.
But I digress.
What is the best way to respond to such a cop out?

Cutter

So do psychopaths like Dahmer, etc. (And a quick browse of the OT only helps reinforce the psychopath analogy ).

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Hmm, I really don't know. I usually make the theist objectively support this claim. How do they know that God's ways are beyond our comprehension? Wouldn't this require them to be able to comprehend at least a little of God's nature? It's a weak counter-argument, but it's the best I can come up with.

-Nick

Carbuncle

Oh, but we do at least partly understand some of God's nature. Otherwise, we couldn't really believe in God. (Romans 10:14)

While I don't think it's the absolute best answer, the whole "we don't fully comprehend God" statement is quite true.

How do we comprehend the infinite when we are but finite?

How do we comprehend what is holy when we are sinful?

How does the creation attain the understanding of the creator?

If we really did comprehend God, then we ourselves would be gods. And that is just wrong.

Tacking onto the "we don't fully comprehend" statement, I'd like to add that all things are under God's control, according to His divine plan. (Romans 8:28) As humans, we cannot even understand the consequences of our actions. How much less could we understand the consequences of that which is not under our control?

Thank you for your time.

JERDOG

Ah ha so we don't realy have free will because he has a plan and all things are under his control. I see.

Of topic but I couldn't resist.

JERDOG

I answered my own question. I dusted off my copy of "Atheism The case Against God" by George H. Smith.

If you will turn to page 48 you will see that the author draws the parallel that links Christianity and agnosticism together. They both claim that total knowledge of god is forever unknowable.
He also points out that Christains will list characteristics about god such as he is most kind, holy, immortal,almighty, etc ,ect ...and then go on to say that he is ineffable.
How is it possible to say that god is incomprehensible yet simultaniously state attributes about him?

Carbuncle

Oh, I'm so glad you brought up the topic of free will. I almost forgot. ^_^

Free will is not technically free, in that it is governed by our nature. For example, you could argue that a dog has free will to choose to eat either dog food or grass. What do you think the dog will eat? Well now, it's the dog's nature to prefer dog food to grass, so the dog would choose the dog food.

Similarily, you could argue that we have the choices of either being sinful or holy. But humans have a sinful nature (yet another basic Christian belief). So what do you think the human would do?

Your will is dictated by your nature. So you can't really have "free" will, although you could call it that. But God has a divine plan, and knows all that will occur.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day! ^_^

Carbuncle

Oh, and for your other post:

We cannot FULLY comprehend God. We can still understand what attributes he has, though. But can we really comprehend those attributes? How would you comprehend attributes such as being infinite, or eternal, or almighty, etc.

Think of it this way. Let's say I don't understand how a CD player works. But I can describe its attributes, such as being made of plastic, and hard, and can release sounds. Even if you don't understand something, you could still name some attributes of it.

And I hardly think we know all of God's attributes.

Thank you for your time. Enjoy your day! ^_^

reddhedd

If we don't really have free will, then we are judged and sentenced falsely. If I make someone do something, then punish them for doing that very thing, how just and merciful is that?
As far as a dog choosing his dinner, I have a dog. Sometimes he prefers pasta, othertimes, he eats grass. He doesn't always choose dogfood, it depends on his mood and what's available. His nature is to choose something that suits him that day.
Since God knows all that will occur, he knew that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit if he put it within reach. He just did it for laughs, I guess.
He knew that the earth would become full of sin and need to be cleansed, and killed all those folks in the flood, just because he was bored.
He knew people would torture and murder his son, and sent him here anyway, 'cause he wouldn't feel good about us until his kid was dead.
His divine plan includes forcing folks to do the wrong thing, then playing "gotcha" when they are caught. His divine plan involves killing lots of people, just because they didn't acknowledge his glory and power.
What an sociopathic egomaniac!
You are welcome to him.
K.

Carbuncle

And I suppose, according to your logic, that God shouldn't be angry at you for saying that.

Ah! Time to go a bit more into theology!

You say that God made Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree. Well, how did He? Did He send the serpent to tempt them? Nope. In fact, he explicitly commanded them not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Now, did He then force them to do so? Wow . . . how illogical. If God does exist, I doubt He'd be so illogical.

In fact, it is God's will that that would happen. However, you couldn't say that God caused it to happen. Now, I could say that it is my will that it will rain tomorrow, and let's say it did. Did I really cause that to happen then? But actually, God does have control over all things. But why shouldn't He? Didn't He create Adam and Eve? Could the creator not do what He pleases?

Okay, I'm digressing a bit, so let me get back on track. Theologically speaking, Adam and Eve did not yet have a spirit of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit). They were still very much capable of sin, even though they have yet to eat of the fruit. For eating the fruit itself is already a sin (sin = disobedience to God). Now, what would be the point of sending Christ to earth to die for our sins if we didn't have sin to start with? And how could we recieve the Holy Spirit without knowing Christ? Sure, you could argue that God could have started by giving them the Holy Spirit, but they would still not be able to comprehend WHY they recieved it, since they have yet to sin. And we can only recognize God's holiness and mercy through first seeing how sinful we are.

All things happen to His will. You could say that He forces us to commit sin, but that's not accurate. If we already have a sin nature, then we'd sin anyway. It's not a matter of Him making us; it's a matter of Him stopping us. And there really is no reason for Him to do so. I mean, why should God even care about finite, sinful beings in the first place?

Sure, you could argue that He caused Adam and Eve to sin, but they were capable if sin long before that. Sure, you could have argued that they could have been made perfect and incapable of sin, but then they would not recongize the holiness and majesty of God. Sure, you could even go so far as to say they should have been created with the ability to recognize that, but God decided not to. He wants actual thinking beings, not mindless robots.

You think of God and see that He is unjust. I think of God and see that He is compassionate. We're just that different.

"'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'" - Romans 9:15

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" - Romans 9:19-20

Keep in mind that God didn't really have to send Jesus to die for our sins . . .

Thank you for reading this. Have a nice day! ^_^