For Christians:If god exists why must you prove it?

[James Brown]

...I think deep down, you already know why you spend so much effort avoiding this.

The most intellectually dishonest and laziest form of argument on earth.

"Secretly, you know I'm right."
"Deep down you agree with me but can't admit it"

Technically, he was saying, "deep down you know you don't have a valid argument," Because we know you don't agree with him. He knows it. He knows that you know it. You just won't admit WHY you don't agree with him.

And you're right this argument "Deep down you agree with me but can't admit it" is the inherently dishonest one most Christians use on atheists.

True. But I've heard atheists use it too.

 

[Angry Floof]

Technically, he was saying, "deep down you know you don't have a valid argument," Because we know you don't agree with him. He knows it. He knows that you know it. You just won't admit WHY you don't agree with him.

And you're right this argument "Deep down you agree with me but can't admit it" is the inherently dishonest one most Christians use on atheists.

True. But I've heard atheists use it too.

I do, but that's because I believe most Christians are believers in belief and that's about it. Belief comes from experience, not from being told what to believe. Yet very few Christians talk much about any such experience, and the ones who claim a "personal relationship with God" do not behave in any way that I would expect of someone who has been personally touched by an almighty supernatural presence. They do, however, act every bit like ordinary humans with an us vs. them social dominance ideological identity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yet very few Christians talk much about any such experience, and the ones who claim a "personal relationship with God" do not behave in any way that I would expect of someone who has been personally touched by an almighty supernatural presence. They do, however, act every bit like ordinary humans with an us vs. them social dominance ideological identity.

It works so long as you are able to get away with killing and marginalizing those who don't want to join your club, which historically has been religion's behavior. And this is not a distinguishing behavior among human groups.

Insofar as speech is behavior, believers in magic aliens certainly act differently than those who don't, but if all behavior is quantified it is not statistically significant so the two groups are identical with one possessing some quirky behaviors.

I watch the people getting into their cars and driving away at hyperspeed every sunday morning from my front porch. It seems like they're satisfied they've acquired their good luck for the week and are good for six more days. If I seriously believed I had a personal relationship with a magic alien I don't think I'd be so casual about it. If "proof" of that conviction amounted to 45 minutes out of every week of my life I'd have to honestly question the sincerity and actual importance of my proclaimed conviction.

In all honesty, why take time attempting to prove something that is already so visibly and quantifiably unimportant?

 

[atrib]

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

God and its existence are largely irrelevant to our lives. The idea of God only matters because some people are so adamant that this thing exists, and want us all to behave in a way that it apparently wants to behave. God exists only in our imaginations. When that belief goes away, the Christian God will become just as irrelevant as Thor and Toutatis.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

God and its existence are largely irrelevant to our lives. The idea of God only matters because some people are so adamant that this thing exists, and want us all to behave in a way that it apparently wants to behave. God exists only in our imaginations. When that belief goes away, the Christian God will become just as irrelevant as Thor and Toutatis.

Thor is still monumentally relevant until at least next April. Then, we'll see.

 

[Lion IRC]

It certainly is an either/or thing. Harris wouldn't agree with me on what IS moral.
He would point to bible morals and label them immoral.

If his complaint is simply that some/many Christians dont follow good Christian morals there's no argument from me - I sin plenty of times.

But that humans sin, is nowhere near being an argument against the existence of the God who arbitrates moral law.

The Bible God is rather immoral.

I said Sam Harris would (special plead) that God is immoral.
You've done exactly the same thing.
That doesn't get you anywhere because you're merely gainsaying people who say God is morally good.

And that is the problem. The old Euthyphro problem.

There's no dilemma. God is wise. He acts wisely. It is wise to act wisely. Acting immorally is stupid (because of the detrimental long and short term consequences) so God doesn't act immorally. Where is the dilemma?

If God loves what is good because of some outside standard beyond God, the amoral Bible God does not follow that standard or that meta-standard is very low and not very good.
But if what is good is good because God commands it, the murders, massacres and genocides of the Bible demonstrate God is not good.

The Commander in Chief orders the execution of Usama bin Laden. Is that immoral?
God - who can see whether or not the end justifies the means - faces no dilemma wondering whether His commands are wise because God is God, or whether they are good because His decisions are always the wisest choice.
Asking God why He is wise reminds us that many 'why' questions are often misplaced.

We have the deeper problems of God, why God did not immediately by fiat eliminate original sin (so important to centuries of theologians) so as the eliminate the many evils that would result from that.

God is not automatically or obviously or necessarily doing the better thing by depriving us of free will.
You can claim that it would be better but that's merely your opinion. And I strongly disagree.
There is no morality AT ALL in a universe where everything is pre-programmed.

Why does God arbitrarily make some elect and some not? God the Great Potter of Romans 9.

Have you resolved the centuries old question of what 'election' actually means?
If so; maybe you can help me out with the doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstatiation and OSAS.
Whatever 'election' means there is nothing immoral about God choosing to make Himself more manifest an 'elect' Moses servant than to a non-Moses.
And if what you really want to do is argue about supposed predestination to heaven or hell, I don't hold that doctrine to be either logical or scriptural.

The Bible claims God is just, fair, merciful and compassionate but the theology of the bible demonstrates God is not any such things.

So you keep saying. Start a new thread. A formal debate? I told Angry Floof I would happily defend bible/Christian morality against Sam Harris' problem of pain video accusations.

Morality and God are deeply incoherent ideas when one examines all of this carefully and dispassionately, letting the logical pathway lead us to a final conclusion.

So you say. I disagree.
A nil-all-draw?

Trying to hang morality on this is not a really convincing idea.

Show me objective morality in the absence of an objective (all knowing) umpire.
Convince me.

View attachment 15491

 

[Angry Floof]

I knew you wouldn't listen to it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Lion IRC

"So you keep saying. Start a new thread. A formal debate? I told Angry Floof I would happily defend bible/Christian morality against Sam Harris' problem of pain video accusations."

I see no reason to do a formal debate. If it is a matter on convincing you, that ain't gonna happen. And you are not going to convince me. The atheists here will probably say that God is indeed, not a good or moral being on many levels if we take the Bible as meaningful, or the claims of theologians. I laid out my claims why the idea of a God that is perfectly good, and all powerful is incoherent. Maybe the best thing to do is to start a new thread. and lay it out in all it's glory. I am not the only one who agrees it is hard to claim God is indeed good and all powerful. There are plenty of claims from some theologians that "God is not a moral agent" and that "God owes us no moral obligations". Which is where one ends up if one tries to argue the unarguable.

 

[Lion IRC]

See I actually DO think that God has a self-imposed obligation to comport Himself according to the same "moral agent" parameters as He deems applicable to us.

We are, He says, made in His likeness and it's not unreasonable or illogical for us to expect consistency.

Opposition to hypocrisy or, (we should call it by it's proper name,) dishonesty, is one of Jesus' hallmarks, so if we saw a double-standard from a purportedly moral God it would give rise to a justifiable WTF??? moment.

I will defend my biblical pov against each and any assertions arising in the Sam Harris video accordingly.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

See I actually DO think that God has a self-imposed obligation to comport Himself according to the same "moral agent" parameters as He deems applicable to us.

We are, He says, made in His likeness and it's not unreasonable or illogical for us to expect consistency.

So, if we think a group of people is evil, we're good to commit genocide against them? This is the way God comported himself and if those moral parameters are applicable to us because we're made in his likeness, it makes sense that would be consistent for us to do the same thing.

 

[Underseer]

I said Sam Harris would (special plead) that God is immoral.
You've done exactly the same thing.
That doesn't get you anywhere because you're merely gainsaying people who say God is morally good.

I don't think you understand what a special pleading fallacy is. Perhaps you should refrain from using phrases until you learn what they mean.

And pointing out that your arguments failed is not gainsaying. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of that word either.

And that is the problem. The old Euthyphro problem.

There's no dilemma. God is wise. He acts wisely. It is wise to act wisely. Acting immorally is stupid (because of the detrimental long and short-term consequences) so God doesn't act immorally. Where is the dilemma?

There is a dilemma. You can't declare your authority moral by fiat. That's the problem with authority-based moral systems. I get that you think we should decdide something is moral on your say-so, but that is the problem with authority-based moral systems in the first place. We can't figure out what is moral and immoral based on the declaration of an authority, and if we use a definition of morality that is independent of the authority, then the definition is the source of our morals, not the authority.

Although it's highly amusing that you tried to resolve the dilemma by declaring yourself the authority who declares what's right and wrong. That's honestly a new tactic for me. I can't say I've seen that one before.

If God loves what is good because of some outside standard beyond God, the amoral Bible God does not follow that standard or that meta-standard is very low and not very good.
But if what is good is good because God commands it, the murders, massacres and genocides of the Bible demonstrate God is not good.

The Commander in Chief orders the execution of Usama bin Laden. Is that immoral?
God - who can see whether or not the end justifies the means - faces no dilemma wondering whether His commands are wise because God is God, or whether they are good because His decisions are always the wisest choice.
Asking God why He is wise reminds us that many 'why' questions are often misplaced.


Then you don't understand what the dilemma is. The dilemma is that you can't establish that your authority is moral at all, and every attempt by theodicy to resolve this just involves a dishonest shell game in which they keep changing what they claim to be the ultimate authority responsible for morality.

We have the deeper problems of God, why God did not immediately by fiat eliminate original sin (so important to centuries of theologians) so as the eliminate the many evils that would result from that.

God is not automatically or obviously or necessarily doing the better thing by depriving us of free will.
You can claim that it would be better but that's merely your opinion. And I strongly disagree.
There is no morality AT ALL in a universe where everything is pre-programmed.

The free will excuse is an attempt to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma by claiming god is not all-powerful.

Really, it's an idiotic argument.

Let us imagine that I stumble upon a man raping a child. According to my understanding of morals, I should immediately act to stop the act of rape in progress, and then take further steps to ensure the man does not rape any other children in the future. According to the free will excuse, we must not stop the man from raping the child because that would violate the man's free will.

If you make an argument that we can stop the man from raping the child without violating his free will, then you have just argued that you can do something that god can't, because you just argued that god cannot stop the rapist without violating the rapist's free will, but you and I can stop the rapist without violating the rapist's free will. If you and I can do something that god cannot do, then god is very far from omnipotent. Indeed, he's not even potent as he cannot even do as much as a mortal.

[ent]hellip[/ent]

I'll be honest, I'm not interested in the discussion about "the elect."

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

God acts wisely? So predestining who will be elect and who will not is wise and merciful, compassionate and fair? God the Great Potter who purposefully creates some as vessels of dishonor is wise? God allowing original sin to exist and cause people to do evil and not by fiat eliminating that on day one is wise? Commanding mass murder and genocide is wise?

The utter lack of anything we can call wisdom from this Bible God is that God's most obvious attribute.

 

[Rhea]

We have the deeper problems of God, why God did not immediately by fiat eliminate original sin (so important to centuries of theologians) so as the eliminate the many evils that would result from that.

God is not automatically or obviously or necessarily doing the better thing by depriving us of free will.
You can claim that it would be better but that's merely your opinion. And I strongly disagree.
There is no morality AT ALL in a universe where everything is pre-programmed.

So
Heaven has no morality.
Also, Your god does not know how things will turn out, since h/she/it won’t “pre-programme” the situation.

...

Also, why do you think that doing something about evil = pre-programmed?
Why are you unable to picture “free will” with “consequences that alter behavior”

For example, God made immutable consequences for humans who try to violate gravity. If you jump off a cliff, sans equipment that is designed to affect your fall rate, Yahweh has decreed that you will die. This is one of the consequences that keeps the vast number of humans from deciding, in their free will, to jump unequipped by human devices from cliffs.

Likewise, Yahweh has decreed that humans may not breathe water. And he has similarly dire and immediate consequences for attemptiing it already in place.

Indeed, he gave Lot’s wife the free will to look back, then he immediately showed her who’s boss by turning her to a pillar of salt, thereby affecting the free will choices of the rest of the gang.

But your god couldn’t muster an equally immediate consequence for rape. Or murder, or child sex trafficking.

What a stupid description of “free will” and “morality” you have put forth for your god story.

 

[Kharakov]

Also, why do you think that doing something about evil = pre-programmed?
Why are you unable to picture “free will” with “consequences that alter behavior”

For example, God made immutable consequences for humans who try to violate gravity. If you jump off a cliff, sans equipment that is designed to affect your fall rate, Yahweh has decreed that you will die. This is one of the consequences that keeps the vast number of humans from deciding, in their free will, to jump unequipped by human devices from cliffs.

Likewise, Yahweh has decreed that humans may not breathe water. And he has similarly dire and immediate consequences for attemptiing it already in place.

The idea is that God does not want to police all of nature and micromanage every decision we make into perpetuity. As we learn things like "jumping off high cliff= bad shit" we are supposed to take this decision off of "God's" plate.

Of course, this means we have to learn all natural interactions to avoid. Like, should I do a couple grams of ecstasy or meth with that slutty girl? Probably. Almost definitely. Of course, this means that the consequences (which I am aware of) are my fault, because nature always wins, even though it's not playing.

Reminds me of this comic I saw earlier today:

 

[Rhea]

God allowing original sin to exist and cause people to do evil

To be accurate, the story doesn't say God allowed evil. It says he CREATED it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We have the deeper problems of God, why God did not immediately by fiat eliminate original sin (so important to centuries of theologians) so as the eliminate the many evils that would result from that.

God is not automatically or obviously or necessarily doing the better thing by depriving us of free will.
You can claim that it would be better but that's merely your opinion. And I strongly disagree.
There is no morality AT ALL in a universe where everything is pre-programmed.

Sighhhhhhhhh. If God allows original sin to damage our free will and cause evil, how is eliminating original sin on day one by fiat, "depriving us of free will"? A good and wise and omnipotent God would eliminate original sin to restore our free will.
And of course, since Adam and Eve had no sense of good and evil, not having been given those attributes by God, doesn't that mean their free will was damaged by not having the information to freely choose to do good and avoid doing evil?

Genesis 3
²² And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:....

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

God allowing original sin to exist and cause people to do evil

To be accurate, the story doesn't say God allowed evil. It says he CREATED it.

Not in Genesis. There is no original sin in Genesis. And thus no way for man to eliminate original sin. Not for another 4,000 years.
God is a procrastinator and a lazy slob.

 

[Learner]

God allowing original sin to exist and cause people to do evil

To be accurate, the story doesn't say God allowed evil. It says he CREATED it.

Not in Genesis. There is no original sin in Genesis. And thus no way for man to eliminate original sin. Not for another 4,000 years.
God is a procrastinator and a lazy slob.

At least you understand (in your own way) the biblical theme i.e. God sorts it out in the END.

 

[Angry Floof]

Not in Genesis. There is no original sin in Genesis. And thus no way for man to eliminate original sin. Not for another 4,000 years.
God is a procrastinator and a lazy slob.

At least you understand (in your own way) the biblical theme i.e. God sorts it out in the END.

If only more christians actually believed that and had faith in that instead of following a social dominance ideological identity that seeks to judge and control everyone but themselves.

 

[Kharakov]

Not in Genesis. There is no original sin in Genesis. And thus no way for man to eliminate original sin. Not for another 4,000 years.
God is a procrastinator and a lazy slob.

At least you understand (in your own way) the biblical theme i.e. God sorts it out in the END.

If only more christians actually believed that and had faith in that instead of following a social dominance ideological identity that seeks to judge and control everyone but themselves.

In their "defense", they believe in evolution, not God, which is why they say they believe in God, while doing things to ensure they have all the benefits of power and control conferred by science.

Their "belief" is primarily a political tool, designed to obfuscate their corruption enough that they don't have uprisings among the truly (not just financially) poor. The "poor christians" on the front lines proselytize, knowingly lying so that in the future they can have their share of corruption. It's a permanent corrupt culture designed to keep them enjoying the fruits of other's labor.

No guilt to- if they hadn't done it to others, others would have done it to them. That's what makes them feel so good.... they ripped off you before you got them. Well, unless you're one of them.

Don't ask Christians for the truth, even ones you like. "They will only tell the truth when they are so far ahead that it can't bring them down. " DJ Trump.