"I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything."

Of all the tendencies of the religious, it is this one, this immunization against the duty to persuade or be persuaded on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented, that I find the most irritating. Sam Harris is spot on when he says faith is a conversation stopper. Of course we disagree; that's why we're having the debate in the first place. It's an enormous non sequitur to say from that that neither of us can be convinced, though.

I find it ironic that the faithful, while claiming to possess the Ultimate Truth about the nature of everything, simultaneously will act and speak as though "truth" was just something one arbitrarily chose as one might pick an entree off a menu, rather than something we achieve knowledge of by applying reason and looking at the evidence.

"How did you come to the conclusion that God only has these three qualities, or that these three are the ultimate?"

Again a non sequitur. The assumptions don't say those are the only attributes of God, merely that they are among them. If Mollie thinks other attributes of God "alter the equation," she should attempt a theodicy.

"I do not say this to be offensive, but is seems like you have built up 'your idea' of what God is or who He should be and then proved how he cannot be (rather than taking all he has revealed Himself to be in the Bible)."

The point of the argument from evil is to show that the existence of a given god--the concept for which is provided by billions of theists--doesn't quite square with the state of the world. Is Mollie's God not all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving? If not, then the argument (or at least this form) doesn't apply to her deity; but that doesn't lessen its effectiveness against the theisms of many, many other people. If, on the other hand, Mollie's God does have these three qualities, she should explain in a more thorough fashion why the argument fails to show that he probably does not exist, rather than alluding to some mysterious "other qualities."

Comment #2 by: OhioAtheist | June 9, 2007, 2:00 pm

My favorite part, and I did have a favorite part, is when they said that god might have perfect justice. For instance, a thousand generations ago a woman might be tricked into doing something, and it would be perfect justice to condemn all her children and all of their children, into perpetuity, to eternal suffering. That sounds fair, right? ;)

However, the real flaw in her argument is that while her god might be perfectly just or whatever it is also a common claim that the Xtian god is perfectly good and benevolent. So, no, it doesn't alter the proposition one whit if the Xtian god is also perfectly just (not to mention the broader questions of the relationship between, say, justice and mercy).

But it is true when a person is going to say that the Bible is the perfect word of god then discussion becomes impossible. Argument is rather easy, tho', hehe. But when either party in a discussion does not admit for the possibility of change, generally the discussion is pointless. We can only hope she doesn't take that too seriously. ;)

Comment #4 by: Chris Bradley | June 9, 2007, 2:25 pm

Argueing with a Christian is one of the things that give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Mainly because, in nearly every 'discussion, I've invited the near-crying person to smack me, because I could tell they wanted to. It runs deep, this 'faith'. It's hard to be told the apparent truth, when all they know is the 'fact' that God exists, and we're all going through a test.

To which I equate that 'test' to being a rat in a maze. EbonMusings was a good contributor to me arguement points, which have yet to be fudged by the faithful.

Mollie seems to be covering her ears and saying "Lalalala I can't hear you" when it comes to the point EB put up. Truth be told, I'm surprised we atheist 'blights on humanity' haven't been stamped out yet because of our views. Especially in the US, which is dominated by the Christian 'minority' which consists of 80% of the country.

Comment #6 by: Mobius 118 | June 9, 2007, 3:15 pm

Again- this is where the fundamental differences come into play. I believe that God HAS revealed himself in the Bible, so if you don't take the Bible at face value- as it says it is- the Word of God, then it will be hard for me to 'argue' anything with you. . . So again, I ask, since you don't believe in the Bible- where do you get your idea of what the 'perfect God' should be like?

There are many atheist arguments that take their initial ideas (such as that of a 'perfect God' as described) from the statements of believers themselves and go on to show that such beliefs are logically inconsistent. The "problem of evil" is an example, and shows that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God does not seem to be consistent with the world as we observe it. Similarly, catalogues of Biblical inconsistencies show that the Bible cannot be literally true in every word. Such arguments are of course only effective against the specific beliefs that they are aimed at; if you yourself think that God is not always benevolent, for example, then the problem of evil does not necessarily apply to you. On the other hand, if you think that God is just, other problems might apply instead!

Comment #8 by: Lynet | June 9, 2007, 4:06 pm

Mollie, your answer is a philosophical one. God must have the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence to be god. To be worthy of worship, hemust be qualitatively different from every other being in existence. It is not enough that he be quantitatively different, i.e. have more power, or he would just be "the great Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Sky" as I like to say, and you don't think you should worship someone because they are stronger than you, do you? That's were atheists get the qualities they ascribe to god, and the logic is pretty unassailable.

As for the god of the Bible, well he IS simply a human with magic powers, so honestly I don't find him too worthy of worship. Then again, I don't think he (or any god) exists, obviously.

Comment #10 by: Ric | June 9, 2007, 6:53 pm

I guess what is postulated is not who or what God is but what God must be to be considered God. I myself don't think God needs to be perfect. But here is my axioms of what a god must be.

1) Creator of the Universe (God made the world)
2) Eternal (God is still here)
3) Sentient (God is a self-aware being, not merely some force which all things flow from)
4) Personal (This isn't necessary, but is if we have any reason to care about God and God care about us)

That's what God must at a minimum be IMO. Is the God of the Bible atleast this, I would say so. The other stuff that is often included (all-knowing, all-powerful, fully just, etc) does seem to come along with the idea of God. From the omniscient idea of course the problem of evil is nearly impossible to combat. Although, that depends on what you consider evil. I think there are two general forms of evil. First, is evil perpetrated by man, with intent to do wrong. The other is suffering. Some consider suffering recieved, justice rather than evil. But this last point is one of the most contradictory parts of the Bible and most religions. Providing a reason for suffering when there really isn't a moral reason.

Comment #12 by: CalUWxBill | June 9, 2007, 7:20 pm

Hi mollie,

My husband thinks it's a bad idea to debate with you guys because we come from two totally different backgrounds of thought- I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything.

Coming here to "debate" has its merits and can be fun, but may I also recommend that just coming here to discuss is very mind-expanding and enlightening as well. I daresay I have learned more about God here than I have in many church services. Just remember that if God is real, nothing anyone here says can change that, and if God is not real, nothing anyone says in church will change it either. You just have to figure out what makes sense to you.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment #14 by: Matt R | June 9, 2007, 8:13 pm

PeterWr, Your suggestion that Mollie actually read the bible (and by extension, other Bible-based theists) is superb! The single biggest biggest factor in my successful release from christian indoctrination/brainwashing was for me to reread the bible without the requisite blinders (ask god for faith and he will reveal himself to you thru diligent bible study). Reading the bible with the presumptions that god is omni benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, while trying to reconcile that concept with what one finds written there allows one to see how totally absurd the whole thing is!

TheMightyThor (note to Ebonmuse: I've commented once before using my full actual name and noticed after submission that others used internet names--so in the future I will write as TheMightyThor)

Comment #16 by: TheMightyThor | June 9, 2007, 9:03 pm

CalUWxBill,

You list four characteristics for a god. They look fine, but you don't tackle the question of whether the god is worthy of worship. If the god is merely powerful and personal, why would we worship it? Do you not care whether this god is moral or just? You've talked about power sufficient to create the universe, but surely you would like the god to have some power and influence in this universe.

When you break it down, if the god is not omnipotent (or at least very powerful) then why worship it? If the god is not benevolent and allows or perpetuates suffering, then the god would be a monster. Would you worship such a thing?

Some consider suffering recieved, justice rather than evil.

Except innocent people and children suffer while guilty adults lead luxurious lives. Justice sounds like a nice justification, but it doesn't mesh with reality.

Comment #18 by: Adrian | June 9, 2007, 9:46 pm

Ebonmuse:

I would like to read more on what you think about good/evil and the standard you follow (i.e. how do you decide what is something good or something bad?). I think I've read that you do believe in morals. Do you have an essay or thread about it somewhere? Thanks.

Comment #20 by: Mollie | June 9, 2007, 10:22 pm

Mollie,

Ebonmuse's essay on morality is here. Enjoy.

As for whether God has to be omnipotent in order to worthy of worship, I'd say no -- moral perfection, for instance, is at the very least worthy of large amounts of respect and love. The trouble, for me, comes from ascertaining firstly that there is a God and secondly what exactly God might be like.

Comment #22 by: Lynet | June 9, 2007, 11:02 pm

I will be as courteous as possible. As a former southern pentacostal church of god member who had no qualms about condemning women who wore pants to hell for being of the world and not of god, I can honestly say that to take the bible literally is impossible for any rational person.

Evil exists in the world. A god who created a world in which evil exists is not a benevolent god. If he were benevolent, he would have chosen another way to lead us to wherever it is that we are supposed to be heading.

Evil exists in the world. Evil that is completely explained by natural science and human psychology.

I don't see how you can deny these statements. I am just ashamed that I endorsed a backwards, patriarchal, and primitive religion with such zeal for most of my adolescence. I am glad that I can think clearly now, without feeling the need to blindly believe the words of ancient sheep farmers. Perhaps I believed because this was droned into my head week after week, day after day, tent revival after tent revival... but all that is over and I am truly free to see the falsehoods for what they are.

I hope that you will at least understand the insult that you just gave atheists by questioning if we believe in morals. Morality is not related to theism or atheism as current world conditions obviously demonstrate.

If faith and belief satisfy the needs for you and your life, then so be it. I am all for people finding the most happiness and joy that is possible in this life. For me, that is by accepting the truth and walking away from someone else's ancient fantasies. I don't endorse animal and blood sacrifice much less a human's. If that is the best that the creator of the universe can come up with... err... well...

Let's think about this for a second. This God who created all of the galaxies in the universe and all of the quarks that make up the ultra small nucleons in an atom---This God who understood particle/wave duality and the intricate calculations of string theory---This God wanted to be worshipped by someone thrusting a dagger into a baby sheep and having its entrails and blood flow over its altar. Did this God exist? or was this God fabricated by the men of that age who had no other knowledge than of knives and sheep? Which is more likely?

Comment #24 by: Jeff T. | June 10, 2007, 12:39 am

Mollie,

You say: "God HAS revealed himself in the Bible, so if you don't take the Bible at face value- as it says it is- the Word of God"

Not all Christians believe precisely that about the Bible. Some think that God inspired some men to write. Indeed, books of the Bible are titled with 'book of so-and-so' or 'according to so-and-so'. What you have is a combination of some quotes attributed to God and the writing of the human narrators. Most of it consists of the latter.

Re morality:

One of the most basic principles of morality is that a punishment should fit the crime. This requires a hierarchy of values whereby some things are more important than others, and some actions are considered more important, morally, than others. For example, murder is worse than verbal insult. In murder someone's life is taken from them for no justified reason. In verbal insult, the one who receives the insult may be temporarily annoyed, distraught, possibly even furious. Yet few people would say that mere insult is as bad or worse than murder.

Yet the Bible states that those who "blaspheme" against God must be put to death. Moreover, anyone or everyone in that "blasphemer's" community can take it in their own hands and, vigilante-style, put the blasphemer to death. This can be shown to be immoral, because an utterance that is interpreted by believers to be insulting to "God" is not a serious offence--indeed it is questionable whether it is an offence at all. For one thing, there is no evidence that God exists except as an idea in people's heads. How then can one be punished for insulting a mere idea? For another, insulting an idea--i.e., by criticizing it, mocking it, etc.--has proven benefits, e.g., see the disciplines of science, philosophy, and comedy for examples. In those disciplines, ideas are criticized as a matter of course, and better ideas tend to result from that process.

Comment #27 by: Archi Medez | June 10, 2007, 11:17 am

Hey Ric,

This first part is not a formal refutation, merely an amusing observation that a detached bystander may make. Here I am, a theist, being lectured by an atheist about the true meaning of worship. I think it is pretty funny.

So to deal with your comment, you perceive me as confusing love with worship. I think a more appropriate statement is not that I confuse love for God with worshipping God, but that I worship God because I love God.

God is no doubt qualitatively different from me. If he is not omnipotent, he is still qualitatively different from me. This is undeniable. however you must also realize that I believe that humans are made in God's image too, so I would expect some sort of similarity.

I am also not sure why you think that something must be qualitatively different for one to worship it. I am also not sure why you differentiate worship in the "religious" sense from any other sense. I do not see a large difference. Indeed that is a common theme among sermons delivered in church; that it is possible to worship other things in your life more than God.

I think the heart of the matter is that to determine if something is worthy of worship is a personal subjective matter. There is no objective standard by which we can measure whether something is worthy of worship. I think that it is possible that no matter what properties God could have, that some people would still not consider God worthy of worship, even if they became convinced of God's existence.

To put it another way, in order for your argument to work, you have to establish that there is an objective "one real way that religious worship is supposed to be", and that there are a set of qualities which are the absolute objective standard by which all worth of worship is measured by. I think you are trying to make a very "slippery" and non-concrete thing into an objective, empirical thing and that does not work very well with complex things like religious belief.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment #29 by: Matt R | June 10, 2007, 12:21 pm

Adrian,

I'm an atheist. Maybe I'm trying to frame my thoughts to much in the mind of somebody trying to determine if there is or isn't a god. That was sort of the point. I want Mollie or whoever is thinking about these questions to decide what they think God must atleast be, then analyze the world to see if those claims hold true. I guess you could also make the minimum characteristics necessary for one to consider worship of a god, which is different than mere existence. But, like I said, worship to me is hardly something God would need or want. If he's really sweating keeping everything in order (whatever that is), then maybe a humble bow of praise is in store, that is about as far as I can see worship being extended.

Anyway, so as not to confuse you guys. I'll reitirate I'm an atheist.

Comment #31 by: CalUWxBill | June 10, 2007, 1:44 pm

All-loving means God would do the highest good for the object being loved and in God's case, it would bring him the most glory.

Do you mean to imply that god being "all-loving" means that he loves himself above all?

Conclusion: Evil exists and must be dealt with justly.

Evil exists because god caused it. To assert otherwise would be to assert that it is not according to god's plan, but how can anything be against god's plan (since he's omnipotent and omniscient and all that)? So, god created evil knowing that he would have to eternally punish those who just don't get it (which brings up another sticky point in that god knows what it would take for me or anyone else to come to belief, but does not do it.) So, god created evil knowing that he would eternally punish people for that which he created. That's not the sort of god that most would deem all-loving, just, or worthy of worship.

Comment #33 by: OMGF | June 10, 2007, 6:23 pm

Hey Matt,

This first part is not a formal refutation, merely an amusing observation that a detached bystander may make. Here I am, a theist, being lectured by an atheist about the true meaning of worship. I think it is pretty funny.

It is funny, but remember that I'm speaking basically from theistic assumptions, for the sake of a hypothetical stance. Just saying to you "I don't believe it because it really makes no sense" wouldn't have any chance of convincing you. :)

snip...
I am also not sure why you think that something must be qualitatively different for one to worship it. I am also not sure why you differentiate worship in the "religious" sense from any other sense. I do not see a large difference. Indeed that is a common theme among sermons delivered in church; that it is possible to worship other things in your life more than God.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the religious exhortation to avoid false idols, etc. But I really find this to be simply the fallacy of equivocation. Religious worship is different from any other kind of worship.

Let me approach this problem from a different perspective. Let's try another hypothetical:

Imagine I am just like Job, a man "perfect and upright." And let's leave the question of original sin out of it. Imagine that I have committed no sin worthy of my being condemned to hell. But imagine also that I do not worship god. That fact alone would be enough to condemn me to hell.

Now if god is just, as you would certainly claim, it is right that I be condemned to hell for not worshiping him. If god is not just and still condemns me to hell for not worshiping, he is simply a tyrant and evil. So he's just, and I go to hell. Now is there anything else in the universe that would carry the penalty of damnation for failure to worship it? If I don't "worship" my wife, should I go to hell? If I don't worship some extremely powerful spirit, even though it tells me to, is it just that I be condemned to hell? I'm guessing your answer is no. So this demonstrates that worship of god is different from any other form of worship that exists. It's not so slippery as it seems.

Now, according to the theist, what makes it just that I be condemned to hell if I don't worship god? Only the fact that god is omni-everything. Otherwise I would have no call to complain if, theoretically, some very powerful (but imperfect) spirit (perhaps like Satan) punished me (read condemned me to a hell-like place) for the sole fault of not worshiping it. But I do have call to complain in all cases-- except one. Does that make anymore sense?

Comment #35 by: Ric | June 10, 2007, 7:29 pm

Matt,

Here are my thoughts based on my comment above, and based on your post above.

If the god of the Bible is not omni-etc., then he has no right to ask me to worship him, and if he condemns me to hell for not doing so, then the god of the Bible is a monster. Your god is apparently no better than a bully telling me to kiss his feet and then punching me in the face for not doing so.

Think about it.

Comment #37 by: Ric | June 10, 2007, 7:49 pm

Mollie,

**Thus, if God were to eradicate evil, he would have to eliminate all who are sinful (which is everyone!). ** Why couldn't God just eliminate the evil portions of people, and leave the good? Under this logic, if humans were completely and only evil, then when what exactly is being 'saved?' Else when the sin is washed away, the person completely vanishes.

** If you don’t believe that sin is as heinous to God as He describes it (being worthy of eternal punishment- Matthew 25:46), ** The problem with using Matthew 25:46 as justification is that faith played no part in determining the eternal punishment here. What got someone eternally punished was his/her actions towards the unfortunate. If the Synoptic Gospels are combined with much of the prophets, God overall seems more concerned with treatment towards the poor/oppressed than anything else.

**The other option is to accept the payment that someone else (Jesus Christ) has made on our behalf (John 3:16; Colossians 2:14)- and thus receive forgiveness from those sins and eternal life.** I would also disagree that either of those verses speak of the payment Jesus made on our behalf. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus into the world so that the world may have etneral life and not perish (and use of the word perish calls into question 'eternal punishment,' since stuff that perishes ceases to exist). It says nothing about payment. That seems to be something read back into the text. With Colossians 2:14, that says nothing about payment, either. The context speaks more towards the fact that the cross was used to make captive all opposing powers and authority. It does say that the sin was cancelled, but that easily plays into the Ransom Theory of the cross.

**So, one option is to pay the debt created by sin ourselves- eternal punishment. The other option is to accept the payment that someone else (Jesus Christ) has made on our behalf (John 3:16; Colossians 2:14)- and thus receive forgiveness from those sins and eternal life.** If the punishment is eternal suffering, then how exactly did Jesus pay it? Jesus didn't suffer eternally. The other thing is that you seem to be arguing the ATonement theory, correct? And my understanding is that the atonement theory wasn't developed until the 11th century or so. I believe the Ransom theory was used until then, and the Eastern Orthodox hold to a 'Christus Victor' theory.

The other problem with the eternal punishment/life concept is that there is very little mention of either concept in the Old Testament until the Book of Daniel. It doesn't really play a role in Jewish theology. It seems odd that something so important wouldn't be developed until late in the Bible.

Matt R,

I agree with you. In the early Old Testament, God comes across as a human with superpowers, and then the concept of God evolves during the later writings.

Comment #39 by: Heather | June 10, 2007, 7:56 pm

I'm not sure I can gather my words properly to address Mollie.

Ebonmuse you did a fantastic job.

I'd like to add a couple of things.

- I'm not sure how we can sin against God. Reading the Bible it's hard to determine a clear reason for divine justice, but one such reason that seems obvious is God must avenge those who have been wronged. God was created, possibly for many reasons, but one is to allow the righteous to live righteously without fear and to penalize those who have sinned.

- God works, because he is both infinite and unknowable. In other words, a person's understanding can't compare to that of God. Unfortunately this characteristic is God's biggest vulnerability. Because God pretty much goes unquestioned beyond our own intellect, anything accorded to God and written in stone pretty much stands. Basically, Joe Schmoses comes along and says "this is what God wants, this is what God said". And once such an idea becomes established it's nearly impossible for an imperfect intellect to shake the foundation of the infinite God.

We atheists get squawked at for being arrogant, pretending we are better than God. But, please accord some humility to your own beliefs, but at the same time don't be afraid to use the brain (God gave you) to analyze the claims of your religion. If you can't do this, then you are at the whim of a belief system, held captive to it's decrees without any reason of your own. Each person must atleast have some way in determining whether he/she is right or wrong. How do you expect someone on the wrong path to change his/her ways? It makes more sense to me that God or atleast the God of most religions is just a figment of the imagination. But, I don't believe I am captive to my beliefs. However, I must also be shown how I'm wrong, if it's beyond me reach and can't be shown to me, then my belief won't be changed, and I see no reason it should.

Comment #42 by: CalUWxBill | June 10, 2007, 10:36 pm

I just had another discussion with my wife this weekend about the chosen "people thing." How much sense does it make for a being who created innumerable galaxies filled with millions of stars spread across light-years of space to foucs all its attention on Earth.

I'm not done yet.

On this littled turquois and brown planet, this god created millions of species of birds, plants, and animals. Then he creates humans and spreads them over the entire globe. At some point in time, god picks one man out of the entire world and says to him,

"you're the one I choose to know me. Everyone else gets to burn in hell because I didn't reveal myself to them. But your descendants get to have a special relationship with me. And because I chose you, you get to exterminate the peoples living in Canaan; they aren't chosen. Oh BTW, I need you to slit the throats of your cattle on occassion and wring the necks of a few of those birds I made - details to follow."

"Yes, I, God, who created the vast universe and all life on Earth, can only extend my love and mercy to one single tribe of sheepherders. The rest of the human race can go to Hell."

Which is more likely? The scanrio mentioned above? Or, that the Israelites, LIKE ALL PEOPLES throught history, made up a mythology that favors themselves over their neighbors and places them at the center of the universe?

The very idea of being "chosen" rather than letting us CHOOSE, is contrary to justice. Justice mandates that we are responsible for ourselves. But, how can that be if we are incapable on our own? The entire Biblical notion of justice is self-refuting. You're punished because you can't help pissing God off!

Comment #44 by: Polly | June 11, 2007, 10:37 am

Ric,

We got a little cross-threaded back there, so I will respond to two threads at once to try and get us back on track.

If the god of the Bible is not omni-etc., then he has no right to ask me to worship him, and if he condemns me to hell for not doing so, then the god of the Bible is a monster. Your god is apparently no better than a bully telling me to kiss his feet and then punching me in the face for not doing so.

I disagree with you on that basis that I do not necessarily think that the triumvarate of omni's is necessary for a being to have the "right" to expect worship. I think it is reasonable for the creator to have special rights to the creation even if that creator lacks the omni's.

Regarding condemning people to hell for not worshipping God. I am not sure that this is what God actually *does*. Your assumption is valid that most Christians believe that God would send some one to hell simply for not worshipping him, but I think the matter of divine reward/punishment is most likely far more involved, considering how complicated life and humans are.

You may be surprised that I have a similar gut reaction to the scenario you described, that it is somewhat bully-ish to demand worship "or else".

Also to prevent confusion, I recognize that the Bible depicts punishments for those who do not worship God. As I said before, there are parts of the Bible which I think do not make sense.

Sort of. Here's how I'd state it, though.

1) It is agreed that god is just to punish me (condemn me to hell) for not worshiping him.

2) It is agreed that it would be unjust for any other being in existence to punish me for not worshiping him.

3) The difference between god and other beings is god's omni-nesses.

4) Thus the only being worthy of worship is one that is omni-etc.

Which, of course, leads us to the problem of evil.

You probably could make a good argument against many Christians here, but I think a little differently. I am not hung up on the omni's. I think that the thing which makes God different is that God is the originator of the reality which we experience, otherwise known as our universe. I think it is possible that God could have created our universe without being omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.

It is also possible that God is alot more harsh than we think. If one believes that nature reflects the nature of the creator, it is possible that God can be quite harsh at times, assuming the nature we experience is the one he intended for us. Understand that I am not as assertive or confident in the specific attributes of God as your average Christian who sees the Bible as a direct communication from God.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment #46 by: Matt R | June 11, 2007, 11:06 am

Matt,

You probably could make a good argument against many Christians here, but I think a little differently. I am not hung up on the omni's. I think that the thing which makes God different is that God is the originator of the reality which we experience, otherwise known as our universe. I think it is possible that God could have created our universe without being omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.

It is also possible that God is alot more harsh than we think. If one believes that nature reflects the nature of the creator, it is possible that God can be quite harsh at times, assuming the nature we experience is the one he intended for us. Understand that I am not as assertive or confident in the specific attributes of God as your average Christian who sees the Bible as a direct communication from God.

Thanks for admitting the validity of my points concerning the average Christian.

I see that your concept of god is a bit different than traditional theology's, which, as various commentators like Dawkins have noted, makes arguing with theists difficult, because the ground is constantly shifting (this is not a criticism of you, BTW).

I guess what I would say to your concept of god is still the same, then: your god has no right to demand worship of me, then, just because he created me, anymore than my parents have a right to demand I worship them. You see this point yourself, as you've noted. It makes god into a monster.

Comment #48 by: Ric | June 11, 2007, 11:29 am

**God DIDN’T create imperfect humans, He created perfect ones. ** The problem I would have with this reasoning is that if something is created with the ability to choose to sin, then it's created imperfectly. If God did in fact create man to be perfect, why were Adam/Even tempted to sin, period? In order to want to sin, there must be a desire there. It was earlier stated that it wasn't a choice unless the potential for evil is there. But if man carries the potential to be evil, then man is not created perfectly. In order for something to be a choice, both options must be equally attractive and that can only happen if it is something to be desired.

**I can assert God’s goodness just the same way I can assert his omniscience and omnipotence. The only way I know is that He has revealed his qualities to us in His Word. ** Is this known, or taken on faith? Because we can't 'prove' that God is good or just or perfect. The only validation for the statement that God is any of those characteristics is that it's stated so in the Bible. But then that leads to using the BIble to prove what the Bible says about God.

**So He has mercy on some and condemns others. You may think it seems unfair that God condemns only some- the ones He does not show mercy. The fact is, it is the granting of mercy that is unfair. We all deserve the punishment (having sinned), but those who have faith in Jesus Christ (because of His payment for sins) are given mercy. He did this to bring Himself the most glory.** This doesn't seem like it answered Ebonmuse's point -- if you create something and it doesn't meet up to your standards, then is the thing you created at fault? Or are you, for creating it flawed? The fault would lie with you, and it would be unjust to expect the creation to follow a perfect standard when the creation has inherent flaws.

Comment #50 by: Heather | June 11, 2007, 3:49 pm

On a tangent --

Ebonmuse, I've been reading your essays listed on the 'The Atheism Pages' and I think one of your best arguments on the existence of hell went along the lines of imagining how much I'd have to hate someone to hold their hand to a hot stove, and then keep it there, even as the person was screaming. That really brings some concepts of God into perspective. Well done.

Comment #52 by: Heather | June 11, 2007, 3:53 pm

Molly,
Even though you come from a completely different belief system, it sure was gutsy of you to leave a comment. I know you're probably going to get jumped all over, however, all people and all views are welcome at Daylight Atheism. Ebonmuse is one of gentlest, kindest, most compassionate people in the world. I would suggest you don't get turned off and please stick around. Please visit the site frequently; try to read some of the archived essays. Keep an open mind, and even at the end of the day it sure is interesting to have people with different viewpoints post their comments here. As a matter of fact, I would hope that you turn many of your Christian friends on to this site. Understanding the viewpoints of others who hold completely opposite points of view is intellectually stimulating and sure does make for some great debates, not arguments. We're all in this together.

Comment #54 by: Javaman | June 11, 2007, 6:53 pm

Javaman,
Thank-you for your kind remarks. I have certainly felt 'jumped over' as you stated. I guess that's to be expected with fresh meat- especially a Christian. To keep from being discouraged, I prefer to converse mostly with Ebonmuse who, thus far, has treated me quite respectfully. It's nice to know that there are more of you who are respectful. So, again, thanks to you (and Lynet on another thread who apologized for her first comments) for being kind. It goes a long way in wanting to stay a little longer and chat.

Comment #56 by: Mollie | June 11, 2007, 8:01 pm

Mollie,

Consider the following from Ebonmuse,

People's conversion stories.
I'm not interested in the testimonials of people who converted to a religion, not even if they used to be atheists. Everyone has moments of weakness in which emotion overrides logic. Instead of telling me how fast a religion is growing, how much of a difference it's made in people's lives, or how devoted its converts are, let those converts explain what logic and evidence persuaded them to join in the first place. If they can't do this, their stories will not affect me. After all, for obvious reasons, atheists are almost never the sort of people who go along with the crowd.

Any subjective experience.
Saying "I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart" or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

Comment #58 by: dye | June 11, 2007, 8:28 pm

@corsair,

...and why Serenity was cancelled so quickly.

Is there any more proof necessary that god doesn't exist?

@Mollie,

He did create them with the ability to never sin. However, they DID choose to sin (swayed by Satan’s temptations). They definitely could have chosen not to.

Could they have really chosen that? The fruit they ate was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They had no knowledge of what good and evil were before they ate the fruit, so how could they tell their choice was an evil choice until after it was made?

And yes, He still condemned them for that sin (Again- just because He knew it would happen didn’t change the fact that He still wanted them to CHOOSE to obey).

Except that when god created them he did so with full knowledge that they would choose to disobey (even though they had not the faculties to know the gravity of the situation.) It seems a bit pointless for a perfect being to secretly hope that he will be wrong about whether his creations will disobey him or not when he fully knows they will.

He did this to bring Himself the most glory.

This statement makes him sound like a petulant sports star that only cares about himself. I'm reminded of how Latrell Spreewell wanted to re-negotiate his contract because he had a family to feed, and apparently the millions of dollars he was currently making wasn't enough.

Comment #61 by: OMGF | June 11, 2007, 9:53 pm

Again, I'm not trying to prove that what the Bible says is true or that God exists. I know that you don't believe that. I'm merely showing that the God of the Bible does not lead to an irresolvable conflict.

And you used Bible quotes several times in your attempts to do this. This lead Ebon and others to then show that the Bible itself is inconsistent or call it into question so as to undermine your assumption.

But now you seem to be saying something pretty interesting. You seem to be saying that the God of the Bible never tried to meet the standards of being all-loving, all-knowing, and/or all-powerful. That's fine. But I and most atheists would then say that a being that does not meet those three criteria, while it might well exist, is not worth worshiping. This is why people spent so much time opposing the idea of infinite punishment for finite transgression. An evil King, for example, might have the power to uphold his corrupt laws, but that does not make the laws worth following. Any being upholding that standard of justice could definitely exist because it is not self contradictory given the nature of evil in the world, but is not really worthy of worship/obedience/whathaveyou.

While you seem to think the Bible offers a reconciliation of the infinite punishment/finite sin issue. . .

First, if God is our Creator, then we are accountable to Him (similar to how a child is accountable to his parents). Second, God has given us His perfect Law and anything we do contrary to that is sin (1 John 3:4). Again, sin is any defection from God's standard that does not conform to His nature/qualities. So, if God is the one in authority, He sets the standards. And since God is just (possessing moral equity), then He decides what is fair punishment for sins.

. . . I still find the idea morally repugnant.

I imagine that this all seems pretty systematic and dry to you, and you probably fail to see how it is important. But philosophical discourse on God has a long a and rich history. You should go to your local community college and take a course or two in either philosophy or theology. You'll learn where a lot of ideas about God come from and the ways in which both sides of the argument present their case (both believers and non-believers).

Comment #63 by: ex machina | June 12, 2007, 9:39 am

Hi Polly,
I'm not quite sure I understand your question. From what I understand, I don't think that all philosophies are built on the same principles. One of my basic presuppositions is that God does exist. This isn't a presupposition of an atheist (from what I read here). Again, I'm not sure if this is answering your question or not.

Comment #65 by: Mollie | June 12, 2007, 1:41 pm

So, I guess your answer is "no." It's a school of Christian apologist thought. If you want to know more about it, you can find an entry for it on Wikipedia under "presuppositionalism." As a Christian you might be interested in it as trivia, but I would say it's a step backward in terms of dealing with unbelievers.

There are different ideas about how we can gain knowledge of the world and I think some of those ideas are better than others. Generally, I think science is superior to mysticism and faith as a means of gaining knowledge outside of ourselves/ and often even within ourselves. (Observe and measure and record and then analyze some aspect of your lifestyle and you'll probably find something or some insight about you that you never knew!)
As for me, I go wherever evidence takes me. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I believe that the "physical" world, that operates according to the laws of physics, is all there is. And, my bias is occam's razor. I will look for natural explanations for a phenomenon before looking for a supernatural one. Only when those are exhausted will I turn to a supernatural explanation. Hasn't happened, yet. :)

I hope that answered your question.

Comment #67 by: Polly | June 12, 2007, 2:44 pm

Mollie,
I am an atheist. I totally reject God, the Bible and all other theisms. I am very kind, compassionate and caring, and I do all this in the absence of God. I don't need religion. I don't need God to be a good person. Morality does not stem from your Christian god. He kills millions of people, inlcuding children and old people in the Old Testament. Are you a God-fearing person? How can you have a relationship with a deity whom you fear? How can you love and fear someone at the same time? This is what an abusive relationship is all about. I am totally at peace with my atheism, but if I do have it totally wrong and God exists exactly as you envision him to be, I believe I will be one of the first people let into heaven. Many of my atheist brethren are trying to free your mind. I would like to know more about you; in particular, what brand of Christianity you follow. I'm assuming when you go to church nobody is allowed to dissent in public with the Bible and its doctrines. You are experiencing group conformity. I would refer you to a famous psychological study performed by Solomon Asch, which describes how easily humans, because we are herd animals, conform to the need to belong to a group that protects them and will do and believe whatever they are told. Most people at this site are appealing to your intellect, which is something religion has disconnected. I, on the other hand, prefer the emotional landscape. A Freudian concept of religion is a return to childhood and is very infantile. This is not a put-down. When you were very small and you were frightened, perhaps you ran to your father for protection and to make the world safe. We all must face death, old age and disease. This is the existential crisis we all must go through. Many people can't take the truth, but I believe that when you die you blink out of consciousness; game over. Psychologically, it's impossible to envision a world in which you are not a part. Ancient humans needed to make sense of death and envisioned an afterworld where all would be reunited. This is normal; it's how the biology of the brain works. It's very scary to be a human and to be alive. You're frightened, and you need something to cling to. If religion gets you through the night, so be it, but the historical record of Christians is barbaric, cruel and inhumane, and in my opinion is detrimental to the human race. My remark about being jumped on is that you are being intellectually challenged to defend the logic of your thoughts. Please stick around. Please continue to post. I know it's hard to let go of God. I suggest you get the Julia Sweeney CD, "Letting Go of God". Once again, it's great hearing a different viewpoint, and I would be sad if you left.

Comment #69 by: Javaman | June 12, 2007, 5:06 pm

Mollie,
Let me try and take a stab at rephrasing what Ebonmuse states in his essay.

I'm sure you would agree that a perfectly loving God, would/cannot allow unnecessary suffering to occur.

Now, your argument seems to be that He allows this suffering to take place because it's necessary to achieve some 'noble' end.

However, an omnipotent being would be able to achieve any goal he desires without having innocent people suffer (unless of course his goal is to have innocent people suffer).

So either you are saying:

1. God has this 'noble' goal he is trying to achieve which he cannot do without letting innocent people suffer. This of course would directly contradict Assumption (1b)

2. You hold that Assumption (1b) is true, which means that God can in fact achieve said goal without having innocent people suffer yet chooses to do so. This of course would directly contradict Assumption (1c)

Comment #71 by: Dave W. | June 13, 2007, 1:42 pm

I think Descarte attempted to start without presuppositions in trying to prove God. I don't buy his conclusion, but at least he made the attempt. But, that was philosophical thinking, not religious thinking.

Science does indeed start with a few assumptions. First and foremost is that there is order in the universe and that we can discover it. Cause and effect is an assumption. Even Occam's razor has a metaphysical bias toward materialism. The philosophy of science itself has undergone evolution. Falsification (Popperism?) is a good but relatively recent invention (XX C.). Other ideas have been brought up that are downright anarchic but have some merit. The direction science can take can be limited or broadened depending on the paradigm. Do we look for answers in the current model? Do we try something "stupid" and hope to find something new? Where's the big money? What's the big money theory?

Science as an institution is subject to some of the same inertial forces of human society, which is that people tend to maintain the status quo. Research generally investigates WITHIN the current popular paradigm. I wouldn't characterize science as a blank slate. I see nothing wrong with any of this, of course. We have to start somewhere.
I think the advantage that science has over religion is in what we do to mitigate the possibility that we'll be blinded by our blinders. That's crucial! Science needs to be vigilant about this risk, too, if there's to be any hope for innovation, i.e. for truly new discoveries as opposed to merely cataloging the confirming instances of an old idea. (Also important, but not as exciting.)

The problem with religion is that it doesn't seek to take off the blinders and, instead, actively, AGRESSIVELY discourages thinking outside the box by calling any opposing idea "heresy." Opposing facts are ignored. The framework is established and is not even allowed to be tested for confirmation (that's already presupposed) let alone tried for falsifiability (that's "testing" god).

To the extent religion makes claims about the physical world, it has been put to the test and is generally wrong - probably because so much religion was invented by ancient peoples. When religion asserts "truths" about the supernatural, well, none of it is really testable. When religion asserts that human beings are X, no contradiction is tolerated even if human experience is not X but...Y.

Comment #73 by: Polly | June 13, 2007, 5:23 pm

Hello All,

I have enjoyed reading many of the issues and questions that Mollie, Ebonmuse, and Polly have brought up thus far. I like the conversation that has been going on but I feel that "the problem of Evil" has been thoroughly dealt with (after 75 posts!). I was wondering if we could start a new thread that deals with the more recent questions concerning presuppositions from both a Christian and Atheist stand point. Myself being a Bible believing Christian would propose that Atheist's do have to start with the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist and then I would like to propose a logical proof that the supernatural does exist.

Comment #75 by: MK | June 13, 2007, 6:38 pm

Ebonmuse:
I wasn’t sure if you were waiting for me to finish answering your questions, or if you would just comment on my last post- I’ll go ahead and respond.

Does God himself have free will? Does he have the potential for evil?

If by free will you mean that God has a choice to make between good and evil- then no. By definition, God is good and everything He does is good. He does not have the potential for evil.

According to Christian theology, the first humans were imperfect. If they were perfect, they wouldn't have chosen to sin - that's pretty much the definition of "perfect".

According to the Genesis account, what God created was good- very good. When I say God created them perfect, it means that they were without sin. This might not be a good analogy, but let’s say I have a perfect driving record (actually, I do!). I have never received any tickets or violations. However, if I were to speed down the interstate and get pulled over and receive my very first ticket, I would cease to have a perfect record. The record up until that time was perfect, but it still had the potential to become imperfect.

Comment #77 by: Mollie | June 13, 2007, 10:17 pm

If by free will you mean that God has a choice to make between good and evil- then no. By definition, God is good and everything He does is good. He does not have the potential for evil.

Then god is not omnipotent.

So, while God certainly allows them to go on, they are the result of our direct disobedience to Him.

That god facilitated. He knew what would happen and allowed it to happen anyway. He could have moved the fruit out of their reach, but he didn't. He could have made them not want the fruit, but he didn't. He could have given them knowledge of good and evil so that they could make an informed choice, but he didn't (remember, the fruit they ate is what gave them the knowledge that they had done evil.) If you knew a murder were going to be committed and it was within your power to stop it, would you allow it to happen just so you could punish the murderer? That is what god is doing, plus some. He not only allowed it, he caused it by setting up a universe where he knew it would happen. So, he caused us to be sinful and then punishes us for it. Where is the justice in that?

Third- God perfectly loves Himself more than humans. If you disagree, who SHOULD He love and honor more than Himself? No one else is worthy. He desires to bring Himself the most glory possible- and He will. His desire is not to make our lives the most pleasant they could possibly be (in fact, He told Christians to EXPECT suffering- especially brought on by others), but to do whatever it takes to honor Himself above all else. He can do this because He is God and deserves it as such.

I pity you, for you seem to have no grasp of the concept of love. As it has been pointed out, people don't love others in order to glorify themselves. You are describing a god that is nothing more than a narcisist that is using you and every other creature on this planet for his own selfish, narcisistic edification. This is a god that is not worthy of our respect, let alone our worship.

Comment #80 by: OMGF | June 14, 2007, 4:56 pm

Ebonmuse: No problem :)

OMGF:

Then god is not omnipotent.

What is your definition of omnipotent? That God has the power to do ANYTHING? I disagree. God has the power to do anything- within his nature. His holiness does not allow Him to do evil.

He could have moved the fruit out of their reach, but he didn't. He could have made them not want the fruit, but he didn't. He could have given them knowledge of good and evil so that they could make an informed choice, but he didn't (remember, the fruit they ate is what gave them the knowledge that they had done evil.)

Each of these things would have prevented the choice He wanted humans to make themselves- to obey Him or not. About them having an informed choice- He did tell them not to eat it. What more information would they have needed? Additionally, the fact that He told them NOT to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would tell me that He DIDN'T want them to know about evil.

If you knew a murder were going to be committed and it was within your power to stop it, would you allow it to happen just so you could punish the murderer?

Do you really believe God is that malicious? That he is just sitting around waiting for us to mess up so he can smack us? What happened to Him being all-loving? Sure- He does make us accountable for our actions, but I'd hardly say He allows it JUST so He could punish us.

Allow me to give an example of what I think more closely illustrates this point. You are a parent of a teenager. This teenager wants to attend a party where you know there will be alcohol (maybe because some college-aged kids are there- so it's legal). You allow your child to go to the party with explicit instructions not to drink anything alcoholic. There will be consequences. You know that your teen has a choice to make- he can either obey you or disobey. There is temptation from an older guy to drink, so, he disobeys you. Would you say it was the parent's fault that he drank? The parent allowed the teen to go to the party with full knowledge of what would be there. The teen had clear instructions on what he was not to do and the consequences. Maybe you would say the parent was unwise to put his child in that situation (which is an opinion), but there was NO doubt about what was to be done. The idea that God should have done something (move the fruit, make them not want it, etc) would be like the parent only allowing the teen to go to 'dry' parties where they serve punch and still telling him that he cannot drink alcohol; then telling all their (the parent's) colleagues how great it is that their teen obeys them. There is no choice for obedience involved.

If you disagree, who SHOULD He love and honor more than Himself?

OMGF- you did not answer my question!

Heather:

and that would include sinful inclinations, such as Eve being tempted by the serpent.

How is being tempted an inclination?

Why isn't the same definition applied to perfect in terms of people?

Good question. Usually when we talk about attributes of God they are in the most absolute form of the word. For instance, all-knowing means that God knows everything. All-loving means that God would do the highest good for the object being loved (all the time). Perfect, or holy, means separate from all that is unclean and evil and He is positively pure and distinct from all others. God has given us some of these attributes, but not in the fullest sense in which He has them. If He had done that, we'd all be God. So, we can know things, but not everything. We can love, but not everyone, all the time, every time. In the same way, God created the first humans in a state where they could fellowship with Him (and He does not allow anything less than holiness). However (I looked this up in my theology book), since they were ABLE to sin, theologians prefer the term: unconfirmed (because he had neither passed nor failed the test) creature (because his holiness was not the same as the Creator's) holiness (because he was more than 'innocent'). So, if you will allow me, I would change the word describing their state from 'perfect' to 'unconfirmed creature holiness'. It still describes what I said before.

If a mother constantly used drugs while the child was in the womb, would we hold the child accountable for desiring drugs? No.

But we'd certainly hold him accountable if he started USING drugs!

If you described a person along these lines, would you find that person appealing?

Fortunately, we're not describing people- we're describing God. I ask you the same thing I asked OMGF: who SHOULD He love and honor more than Himself?

----
I'll be gone this weekend, so no posts for a while. Hope everyone has a great Father's Day!

Comment #83 by: Mollie | June 14, 2007, 10:37 pm

One of the problems I see a lot of in philosophical discussions is that of circular definitions/reasoning and the avoidance of dealing with the nature of language and personality attributes. I see both in this discussion. (Personally, because philosophy, to me, seems to be a discipline that shuns raw experience in favor of the supposed superiority of the mind and abstract concepts, I currently see this problem as irresolvable. However, I will yet endeavor to attempt resolution.)

Ultimately, all concepts are based on our sensory perceptions, how our brain responds to them, and how our species uses language between individuals. Therefore, before even approaching terms such as "holy", "good", "evil", and "deserving", I think we should dig deeper and take a look at what those truly mean for human beings and other organisms, without utilizing any presupposition other than that what we directly experience, with nothing read into it, is real. After all, we use language to convey ideas, and if those ideas are not understood or transmitted very accurately, then building up discussion is futile.

At this point, to explain what I mean, I recommend reading the book "Evolution for Everyone", by David Sloan Wilson, which is a book about the evolutionary thought process being applied to any area of life, and not just the biological. The concepts of evolution are not even in opposition to theism, even if the biological theory of evolution may be. The concepts of variance and adaptation, for example, may be applied to anything whatsoever. It is within the book that Wilson speaks of group interaction and selection, and I believe this topic to be supremely important to the words we use in philosophical discussions. For example, what is justice? What does it mean for someone to deserve something? Though most of us define these subjectively for ourselves, their meanings may be most apparent when we look at group interactions and how people within these groups use and apply these terms. As an instance of what I mean, consider how we arrive at the conclusion that, for example, infinite punishment for finite sins is right/wrong/good/evil. It is something we may only solve when we know what we mean by the latter four terms, and the meanings of these terms I think are most clear when we consider group interaction.

For these reasons, I believe that using terms such as I listed above, without making clear exactly where they come from and what they designate in practice, will only result in irresolution.

Mollie, it is likely I won't get to addressing your points in much detail. Everyone else has done a great job of doing so, especially EbonMuse. My suggestions above are my contribution to this discussion, and I believe them to weigh heavily upon it logically.

Comment #86 by: Mark | June 15, 2007, 12:13 am

Mollie,

I think we could use some terminological simplification. I'm not quite up to sifting through the last eighty-something posts to gather definitions, and I think it would serve the discussion well if you listed your definitions of the following, with reference to God:

good
evil
holy

When you've answered this (concisely yet comprehensibly, please), I will comment on your last post.

Comment #88 by: Mark | June 15, 2007, 12:38 am

'Mollie,

**How is being tempted an inclination?** In Eve/Adam\'s case, this temptation responded to something that was in them -- the desire to sin. Even if it is only a desire, Christian theology holds that the desire is a sin. So Eve/Adam were created with the ability to sin. I see no way around this. They were created with the potential to go against God, which is a sin. God created them less than perfect, and then blamed them for doing exactly what he created them to do.

**I ask you the same thing I asked OMGF: who SHOULD He love and honor more than Himself?** If God is all-powerful and such, God is certainly free to do this. But even if saying that God is not a person, all we have to go on is how we see people behave when they love and honor themselves the most. It\'s not a matter of answer the question of who God should love/honor more than himself. It\'s a matter of we have no reason to believe that anything that behaves in such a way is to be trusted. People like that are egotistical and only think of themselves. We would not find a person like this worthy of following, or find a person worthy of being loved/worshiped. Saying that God is not a person doesn\'t work, because the concept of what God is is that God isn\'t understandable, and works in mysterious ways. So if we\'re told that God loves/honors himself the most, and that God is all-loving and all-just, we\'re going to find the two contradictory. It seems that all you are basing the whole God acting justly and morally while still honoring/loving himself the most as a conceivable thing is faith -- but not as something that can be rationally demonstrated or prove that it can happen as we know it?

**But we\'d certainly hold him accountable if he started USING drugs!** But we\'d take the circumstances into account, in that he was \'created\' that way. We don\'t necessarily say to the child, \"It\'s completely your fault for using the drugs.\"

** In the same way, God created the first humans in a state where they could fellowship with Him (and He does not allow anything less than holiness). However (I looked this up in my theology book), since they were ABLE to sin, theologians prefer the term: unconfirmed (because he had neither passed nor failed the test) creature (because his holiness was not the same as the Creator\'s) holiness (because he was more than \'innocent\'). **So, if you will allow me, I would change the word describing their state from \'perfect\' to \'unconfirmed creature holiness\'. It still describes what I said before.** You say that God does not allowe anything less than holiness. All right. But is there only one standard of holiness? Because now we have two different \'holiness\' occuring here. There is God\'s and there are people, and it sounds like you are arguing that God would only accept perfect holiness. But in this scenario, people don\'t have perfect holiness, if there are made with the ability to sin. Holy was defined as \"separate from all that is unclean and evil,\" but Adam and Eve weren\'t created to be seperate from that. If Adam/Eve were creaetd able to sin, then they were not created perfect (which you seem to be agreeing with?). So then they\'re blamed for not living up to a perfect standard when they weren\'t created to be perfect? If they were created able to sin, then I don\'t see how they could have fellowship with God, because the people were created less than 100% good.'

Comment #90 by: Heather | June 15, 2007, 4:34 am

James,

It is true that it may lead to an infinite regression. I am only asking Mollie to define her terms, however, so that we may get rid of excess baggage. Heather stated that Mollie defined "holy" as "separate from all that is unclean and evil". However, this would be circular and pointless as a definition if "unlean and evil" is synonymous with "everything but God". If "unclean" means "not God" and "evil" means "not good", which is synonymous with "not God", then we may as well throw out "unclean", "holy", "good", and "evil", and instead just use "like God / according to God's will" and "unlike God / not according to God's will". That seems to be the underlying issue in this for me, alongside the suspicion that all Mollie is basing her faith off of is authority worship, albeit worship of an authority she would not believe real (due to lack of empirical evidence) if she were not, presumably, indoctrinated as a youth.

Furthermore, when we use analogies to show Mollie that we don't believe the depiction of God in the Bible to be good, we are apparently forgetting that she has an entirely different definition of "good", unalterable by our current line of reasoning, which makes use of said analogies pointless except to show that God is unlike humans, which Mollie already acknowledges and holds sensical (even if the Old Testament God is very much like a human; but even this may not be a problem, since we were created in his image, according to the Bible).

But because we are dealing with language and can not sense God directly/empirically, I suggested that we search for what "good" actually means within the human sphere and then see if God is good according to that description/definition. If he is not, we should use, and Mollie should adopt, a new term in place of "good", or at the very least add a modifying term in front of "good" to differentiate the concept from the one applicable to human groups. We may also find, when doing this, that my suspicion of bizarre authority worship mentioned above is indeed the case (I already thoroughly believe it is, but I am speaking in terms of the progression of this group's adventure in this search for sense), and that instead of crafting a new term for God's alleged goodness, we may indeed identify his personality and acts as akin or identical to those of an evil person, with this latter term defined in terms of human groups, of course, and not theologically based.

So while I am conscious of the fact that what I have suggested may run us in circles [if not gone about properly] (because it has happenese numerous times in my discussions with others already--however, they did not quite understand what I meant, I believe), I am not attempting to derail us as such, but to get at what I mentioned in my last paragraph above.

I really am convinced that the best way, by far, to get at many a philosophical solution is to go back to the senses and the simplest of language (i.e. names of directly perceivable objects and simple verbs), and to incorporate what we know to be the case from disciplines such as sociology. All it would take would be an agreement among all parties that what we sense directly and can describe simply is real.

Comment #92 by: Mark | June 15, 2007, 10:42 am

I've been following this discussion through all the posts and I agree with Mark: similar terminology is clouding some real fundamental differences.

The xian god is, for xians, a special case not easily lending itself/himself to analogy using human characterstics.

The atheist basis for justice and goodness is human centric and pragmatic. The xian concepts of justice and goodness are god-centered. What happens to humans is, in the grand scheme of things, almost irrelevant except when judging human actions against other humans. Remember, there was an infinity of time before humans even existed, but god was always there. You can argue until you are blue in the face about why you don't like it, but the response is..."tough !@#%, take it up with God." The bedrock principles are different and derive from different sources. Mark, again, makes a good point, it's authority for the Xian, it's reason for the atheist.

"Omnipotence" means something completely different to xians than it does to atheists. Atheists take that term in an absolute sense. Xians don't. A xian would argue that god is all powerful, but not in the sense that he can (I hate this example) make 1+1=3 or create married bachelors or do other illogical things. Just that he can handle any human problems within the framework he created and even defy the laws of physics. **** Mollie feel free to correct me.

"Perfect" means something different to a xian - the absence of guilt resulting from already-committed sin. This is contrasted with the potential-to-sin/defective-design concept, from an atheist standpoint.

Anyway, I hope this helps the discussion rather than merely adding yet, another post!

Comment #94 by: Polly | June 15, 2007, 11:31 am

Mark,

I accept in specific areas that clearing up what we mean may be helpful. If God is by definition good, then by what means do we decide that he is good except that he "said" so?

We may also find, when doing this, that my suspicion of bizarre authority worship mentioned above is indeed the case (I already thoroughly believe it is, but I am speaking in terms of the progression of this group's adventure in this search for sense), and that instead of crafting a new term for God's alleged goodness, we may indeed identify his personality and acts as akin or identical to those of an evil person, with this latter term defined in terms of human groups, of course, and not theologically based.

Maybe it's just me. I think I know what you mean, but I find your writing very hard to follow. Could you please use shorter sentences?

Comment #96 by: James Bradbury | June 15, 2007, 1:31 pm

Mark,

I was not exactly arguing what method of teaching a small child is correct, so let me elaborate on some of those points again.

Punishments may be effective, but God doesn't punish us and then let us try again, we keep going until the end, then once there is no chance to correct one's mistakes, God punishes us - for all eternity. I don't see how God's punishment applies in the same way our conventional punishments do.

Additionally, with Adam and Eve, their act caused all of humanity through all of time to be punished. You certainly don't punish that toddler's future descendants for its actions, do you? Adam and Eve didn't even understand what was right and wrong and this out-of-proportion punishment still occurred.

Regardless of the exact effectiveness of various methodologies used by people to teach young ones, none of it is used by God.

I hope I clarified the message I was trying to get across. If you still feel my observations are wrong, I would like to hear why you think so.

Comment #98 by: Andrew A. | June 15, 2007, 2:36 pm

James,

Sorry, my response to your bullet point was off-topic. I do have something to say about it, though.

You said: "Would you hold a toddler accountable for its actions should it try to hit someone with a toy? They have very little comprehension of the world, and would be taught what's wrong and what's right, rather than being punished."

My point is that from Mollie's perspective, I believe, objections like this don't matter one bit, since we are judged from God's point of view, and not he from ours. Looking at it this way, what a person would do in your hypothetical is a deviation from God's way, rather than his way being a deviation from ours.

I see this authority worship as undermining any attempt at argument that doesn't contest the authority of God or his existence (discussing his existence may be futile, too, since it could also be claimed--and often is--that God or Satan hides evidence... or that everything is evidence). Discussion of the morality of his actions becomes moot when he is the standard of morality.

Comment #100 by: Mark | June 15, 2007, 2:56 pm

@Heather:

it almost seems like a word other than 'perfect' should be used to describe God,

Exactly. The terms of the discussion were getting in the way and needed clarification. Mollie herself seemed to recognize it and switched to "unconfirmed" when describing Adam & Eve pre-fall.

More or less, that's the way I understood god. Any argument anyone proposed to me (that I presented to myself) about the injustice of infinite punishment for finite crimes, the entrapment in the Garden of Eden, or any other sound objections were waved away with a:
"God is just. His thoughts and ehtics are above ours. We're all sinners, so we're getting less punishment than we deserve" blah...blah....blah....
That's why I think this tack is destined for failure. Showing the Bible to be the historically flawed and self-contradictory book that it is, is really the only hope for literalists.

Looking back, it makes me a little ill. :|

Comment #102 by: Polly | June 15, 2007, 3:42 pm

Heather,

but if the Ten Commandments are what God uses to determine the sin of humans, don't they lose validity if the creator of the Ten Commandments doesn't follow all ten?

Easy to wiggle out of this one. (1)God created people and has the right to do whatever he wants to them, plus (2)it all comes out alright in the next life, when the "real" justice is administered which is tempered with mercy because (3)we all really deserve hell anyway so anything less than that means we're just getting off easy. :)

Plus, most of the 10 aren't an issue for God. He's obviously not going to violate #1,#2, and #3. He doesn't live on Earth to recognize a calendar week for #4. He has no parents for #5, no genitalia for #7, and #8 and #10 are moot because everything belongs to him already. That just leaves:
#6 - don't kill and
#9 - don't bear false witness (technically this does NOT necessarily refer to "everyday" lying).

Xians argue that it's only wrong for humans to kill each other because we all belong to god-so only HE gets to kill people and we can't "play god." It has nothing to do with sanctity of life; it's all about god's property rights over us. God claims that he does not lie(Numbers 23:19).

(I'm an atheist and am only answering based on OLD beliefs)

Comment #104 by: Polly | June 15, 2007, 5:50 pm

. And yet God does violate the 'thou shalt not kill/murder' one a lot. Now, I know it's argued that God's ways are higher than ours, and God is still just … but if the Ten Commandments are what God uses to determine the sin of humans, don't they lose validity if the creator of the Ten Commandments doesn't follow all ten?

Most of the 10 don't actually apply to god:
God obviously wouldn't violate #1-#3, he doesn't live on Earth to recognize a calendar week for #4, he has no parents for #5, no genitalia for #7, and #8 and #10 are moot because he owns everything. That just leaves:
#6 - Don't kill
#9 - Don't bear false witness

God claims to obey #9 (Numbers 23:19)

God doesn't have to obey #6 because he has the right to take life because he gave life. Anyway, commandment #6 has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life; it's all about god's property rights over humans. Like I said earlier, xian morality is definitely NOT human-centered and seems to have very little regard for humans even when it seems to be an advocate for such. That's why xians and the Bible don't attribute any value to the good works of infidels - they aren't giving glory to GOD which is, in essence, the ONLY moral precept.

(I'm an atheist. I'm responding based on OLD beliefs)

Comment #106 by: Polly | June 15, 2007, 6:01 pm

Polly,

Thank you again for the explanation. :)

**Xians argue that it's only wrong for humans to kill each other because we all belong to god-so only HE gets to kill people and we can't "play god." It has nothing to do with sanctity of life; it's all about god's property rights over us. ** This I would just find a chilling position, though. About as chilling as I find that God desires to glorify himself above all else, because what is one basing trust of God upon, then? It makes God look like ... an entity with a very large toy chest or something.

I can understand the perspective of the Ten Commandments only applying to humans, since God is 'other.' It just seems that the more I watch debates on this topic, and see the answer, the more I'm left with how does anyone know that God is good? Because this leads me to one must have an agreed-upon standard for the word 'good.' To me, I can't go based on a literal reading of the Bible, because many non-good things happen in the OT. I remember reading one of Ebonmuse's essays, where he (she? Ebonmuse, I apologize, I know your gender was stated somewhere, it's just been a long week) described the effects of a global flood, and I was picturing the terror those people would have in realizing that there was no more higher ground, there was nowhere to escape. And drowning is a horrible death. It would also involve watching a child drown, or a spouse, or a parent. And then the Ark would be floating through all those carcasses, and it is an *awful* picture.

Now I think the answer to this is, as Mark said, humans ability to judge is 'impaired' compared to God. But then how do we determine that God is good or holy or just or any of that without our ability to determine between good and non-good, or justice and injustice?

It's like two different languages almost.

Comment #108 by: Heather | June 15, 2007, 8:06 pm

Weird, I thought my first post was eaten. Now I see that it made it through after all. That's why there's a duplicate.
@Mark: I think I see your point, but I still would bet Mollie would answer pretty much like that.
@Heather: I think it's chilling, too.

Comment #110 by: Polly | June 15, 2007, 11:20 pm

OMFG,

Then where did evil come from? God created the universe and everything in it. That must include evil.

I think you're absolutely right about that and I'm not the only one.

Comment #112 by: James Bradbury | June 16, 2007, 6:21 pm

As a counterexample to Harvard's, I heard about 6 months ago a news story of an amateur sailor (I wish I remembered his name, some rich guy probably) who was sailing around the world on his own yacht or something. His boat sank. He was rescued after spending some time floating in the middle of the ocean.

He was asked if he believed he was saved by the big G. His response was something to the effect of: "I think god has a lot of other things to tend to, I don't think he was paying attention to me."

Comment #114 by: Polly | June 18, 2007, 9:42 am

"Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything."

You certainly seemed right about that point, at least so far.

Ok then. So god knew people would disobey, but they had a choice? (i.e. we have free will but since God already knows what will happen before you exist, you don't). This isn't making any rational sense. So I'm going to try something else; let me know how it goes. I'm going to work off your "I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true" point. If you believe the bible is totally true, then you should surely be able to answer for all the contradictions in it

(for more info, check out the home site; first one that pops up when you google "bible contradictions") http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all

Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

1. God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

2.War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

3. Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

4. Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

5. Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Please feel free to start by explaining those 5. Feel free to explain the other few hundred.

Comment #116 by: Mrnaglfar | June 18, 2007, 10:42 pm

And just to totally beat this point to death, the Penn and Teller episode on the bible.
Comes in three parts

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Hftbu34X08
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JnDzI-Qncdc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M497lpW5N9k

Comment #118 by: Mrnaglfar | June 18, 2007, 11:20 pm

Heather:

They were created with the potential to go against God, which is a sin.

How is the ‘potential’ a sin? Allow me to make a silly analogy. I have the potential to get hit by a truck. I may or may not get hit by a truck. If I do not get hit by a truck, I am not punished. However, if I do get hit by a truck, I am punished (i.e. get squashed!). The fact that I have that potential is not worthy of punishment. However, if I were warned that if I got in front of a moving truck I would be hit, and I did it anyway because I did not trust that the person who told me this was right, I would be held responsible for my actions- not the person who told me.

If God is all-powerful and such, God is certainly free to do this. But even if saying that God is not a person, all we have to go on is how we see people behave when they love and honor themselves the most.

And since the people who we see as examples are sinful, they should not be taken as examples of what God looks like when He does so.

Comment #120 by: Mollie | June 21, 2007, 3:34 pm

Mollie,

Again- this goes back to the- you think you have a better way.

No, it goes to the fact that your god is omniscient. God knew what they would "choose" when he created the world. There was no guesswork in it. He had to want them to choose to disobey, else he would have created the world differently. It's not about me having a better way (which I think I do) but about the claims that are made about god's powers.

“Laid out for you” sounds like predetermination, not just knowing. These are two different terms.

So, do you deny that god could write such a book? Don't you think god could write that book before he even created the universe? If he had chosen you to make different choices, he would have created the universe differently. The inescapable conclusion is that god wants some people to burn in hell.

I know this was addressed to Ebonmuse, but I like to butt in sometimes...

I know that the idea of faith isn’t a popular one amongst atheists, but God wanted them to trust that He was telling them the truth and that obeying Him was the right thing to do.

That's the whole point. Without being able to differentiate between good and evil (since they had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit) they had no way of determining what was the "right thing to do."

It is only because of a gracious and merciful act that ANY humans are saved.

I truly feel sorry for you to have such a negative outlook on life.

Idea #1- God could make people not want to do evil or make it so they couldn’t have had the opportunity to do evil (being automatons) = this doesn’t allow them to CHOOSE to love and serve Him.

He could give us the ability to choose to love and serve him or not without us wanting to commit evil acts.

Idea #2- God could get rid of all evil by looking the other way and allowing everyone to avoid punishment = this doesn’t take into account His holiness or justice.

All evil he created? Why should we be punished for that which he created. This is neither loving nor just.

Idea #3- God could only punish people to the extent that they have sinned against Him...

Isn't that what justice means?

Even if you could have a better plan (which I don’t think is possible given our finiteness), it’s not the plan God chose.

What a closed-minded thing to say. Even if I presented you with a better plan, god's would still be considered better...for what reason?

Comment #122 by: OMGF | June 21, 2007, 4:11 pm

I´m a Christian.

I would really hae to say that God´s Holiness and Justice DOES change the outcome. Why, if God weren´t holy, and just, many people wouldn´t have to make the question "where´s God when bad things happend to me?" "WHY?" oh simply because God wouldn´t care people sin, He would just give everything people asked, and not careing if people live according to his precepts, he would simply ignore that people ignore him and seek him only when they are in trouble. God would be injust to punish righteous people, BUT HE WOULD ALSO BE INJUST TO NOT PUNISH SINNERS, especially after he warned them He would. That´s why God´s Love does not make him ignore sin, because his Justice can´t ignore it. But of course His love isn´t invalid before His justice, That´s why he prepared a Way to not ignore sin, and at the same time, forgive it. So both his characteristics act at the same time. Christ paid for our sines, so his justice is satisfied, and he did this because of love.

Of course, you have to accpet a gift to be able to have it. You have to accept Jesus´ Sacrifice in order to enjoy his forgiveness.

Comment #124 by: Marco | June 21, 2007, 7:06 pm

I´m a Christian.

I think we've all figured that out by now, what with you posting it at the beginning of every comment you leave on every single post on this site.

God would be injust to punish righteous people, BUT HE WOULD ALSO BE INJUST TO NOT PUNISH SINNERS, especially after he warned them He would.

What does god following through on a threat have to do with justice?

Either way, what is unjust is punishing sinners for being the way that god made us. God made us sinful, and then punishes us for it. If it is in my nature to sin, then I have no choice in the matter. God made humans this way, he gave us no choice but to sin, and then punishes us for being exactly how he made us. That is not justice.

That´s why God´s Love does not make him ignore sin, because his Justice can´t ignore it. But of course His love isn´t invalid before His justice, That´s why he prepared a Way to not ignore sin, and at the same time, forgive it. So both his characteristics act at the same time. Christ paid for our sines, so his justice is satisfied, and he did this because of love.

Was it love that made him decide to hold a gun to our heads and force us to choose belief or eternal torture? That he supposedly gave a way out doesn't prove love or justice. For example of why not the latter, a serial killer shall go to heaven if he/she believes and repents, but an atheist who leads a moral life shall not. Where is the justice in that? How does Jesus, a living god, dying somehow absolve us of our sins, especially if they are judged to be so heinous that they merit infinite torture?

A true loving action would be to simply forgive our tresspasses against god as the Bible quote talks about us doing. If I love someone, I could never condemn them to an eternity of hell. Come to think of it, I would never condemn even my worst enemy to an eternity in hell. Your "moral" god does just that, however, and on a daily basis.

Comment #126 by: OMGF | June 21, 2007, 7:30 pm

How does Jesus, a living god, dying somehow absolve us of our sins,

Yes, and isn't the brutal slaying of a perfect person the greatest injustice in history? How does doing the worst thing in the world make everything OK?
Sins are not like actual debts of money. Real justice means that they are non-transferable.

Comment #128 by: Polly | June 21, 2007, 7:42 pm

Three different versions of the last words of Jesus in four gospels!
Matthew 27:46 and 50: 46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' ... 50 But Jesus, again crying out in a loud voice, yielded up his spirit. (New Jerusalem Bible).
Mark 15:34 and 37: At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice "Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani", which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me.?" ... 37 With a loud cry Jesus died. (Good News Bible).
Luke 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Authorised Version = King James).
John 19:30: Jesus, therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said : It is consumated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost. (Douay-Rheims RC Bible).

Comment #131 by: John M of Western Australia | June 22, 2007, 2:13 am

As a disclaimer before I begin (I am anticipating several people to rant and rave about how they don’t believe in the Bible), I would like to state (AGAIN) that the whole premise of this argument on the Existence of Evil is that God exists and the ideas we get about Him come from the Bible. I’m not trying to prove God exists OR that the Bible is true. Thanks!

He could have given them [the first humans] all the evidence of it [God’s goodness] they could possibly expect and all the understanding necessary to grasp that evidence.

Could you give me some examples of ‘evidence’ he should have given them to make a more ‘informed’ decision? Are you thinking like- a projector and video screen showing the saga of human life- how death and destruction would occur if they should choose to eat the fruit, but goodness (which was what they were currently experiencing) would continue on if they obeyed? Remember- they did not have the knowledge of evil until they ate, so this would not be possible. What kind of evidence are you thinking of?

I want a reason, not just an assertion that God's ways are higher than ours and so I shouldn't even question them.

Well, I thought that He being God was a good enough reason, but maybe I can give you more. I think Job had this very question after he was being put through trials. He was questioning God and God answered in Job 38-42. God asks Job where he was during creation, if he was the one giving the birds the knowledge of how to migrate and build their nests in inaccessible places, if he was the one who told the morning when to begin and the sun when to set (etc. etc. for 5 chapters). Job 40:1-4 says, “Then the LORD said to Job, "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it." Then Job answered the LORD and said, "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. "Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more."” And later in 41:11 God gives a reason for His authority, “{Whatever} is under the whole heaven is Mine.” Clearly this must be true if He is the Creator. He has the right to this authority. Previously, you used the example of a sculptor and his sculpture. Wouldn’t you say that the sculptor deserves everything the sculpture can give- because he is worthy of it? As Paul says, the sculpture has no right to question the sculptor’s reasons for things (like it or not). Job 42:1-6 shows a proper response to this reason by God. “Then Job answered the LORD and said, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." 'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."”

I think the real issue here is that you don’t think God is all-loving (although it’s a premise you begin with in your argument, so it should be able to stand). If you really thought God was all-loving (which you don’t believe, according to many other posts I’ve seen on your interpretation of O.T. events), then Him having his ways higher than ours wouldn’t be a problem. So- that’s another battle to fight. :)

Would you be angry at your child?

Where do you get the idea that God is angry? The passage certainly does not say that. I would not equate anger with justice.

Then God is an "automaton"; Despite all the perfections you attribute to him, do you believe that human beings are superior to him in at least that one respect, that we have that choice and he does not?

This goes back to the- we can’t use the same reasoning when dealing with God. Would you say that being able to choose evil makes humans superior? My answer to this question continues below.

They would have to issue a blanket denial that such comparisons can ever apply, precisely because the way God is said to have acted, according to the Bible, would so clearly be irrational and immoral if a human being ever did the same things.

If a king over a country was capable of being perfectly loving (doing the absolute best) to all of his subjects and was asking them to follow him completely and was exercising perfect justice, it might not hurt to follow him. However, we would say that he has no absolute ‘right’ to do so, because he is a human, just like his subjects. The subjects would have to submit to that king’s authority of their own will- agreeing that the king was no better or more worthy, but for the case of order and sanity, they would follow. In the case of God, we can still choose to submit, but to not submit would be high treason. We would say that God, as Creator, does have this right to assert authority. In this example, it breaks down because God has rights that we don’t. This is why comparisons break down with God.

God also has ‘constraints’ if you will- constraints within His character. For instance, His power would allow Him to destroy things. However, His justice will not allow Him to destroy something that did not justly deserve to be destroyed. His love would allow Him to have relationships with his creation. However, His holiness will not allow Him to have relationship with anything tainted by sin. In the same way, God has the ability to make choices (perhaps that isn’t a good word… not sure), but His holiness will not allow Him to make evil choices.

Of course, if your beliefs are correct, you yourself will become an automaton by that point, so maybe you won't mind.

I disagree. I have already chosen to follow God here on earth. You make it seem as though once I get to heaven I would want to change my mind (wanting to do evil) and be unable to. Why would I want to change my mind if God is truly all powerful, knowing, loving, holy, just, etc.? The people in heaven are those who have already chosen to serve God on earth.

"Sin" tells me that I am somehow accountable to a supernatural being I cannot see or talk to; that I can do something wrong even if I never harm or inconvenience anyone in any way.

I am going to make full use of this sculpture/sculptor analogy. If the sculptor made several sculptures (which he spent lots of time and care on) and they were somehow able to harm each other (one might get pushed over and shatter to pieces- thus destroying it), would this not harm the sculptor? Of course, he was not personally ‘damaged’ as you say, but something has harmed his creation. He has a personal vested interest in the wellbeing of this sculpture. How could he not feel like this was not only a crime against his creation, but also against himself? This speaks only to sins committed by humans against each other. The next section deals with sins directly in opposition to God.

[regarding sin] If there is a God, he needs nothing from us, and we cannot harm him. I reject that word and all its shameful connotations.

Clearly I have been vague on this issue. If you will allow, I will quote someone who is able to put it in more ‘rational’ and ‘philosophical’ terms- J. Edwards. This is a bit long, but, I think, necessary to lay groundwork for why it is possible to sin against God.

Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never be so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful.
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.
Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.
But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.
So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.- Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, I Samuel 2:25. Genesis 39:9; Psalm 51:4. The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.
If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.

If you were able to wade through that (sorry!), his point is that any obligations we have toward God- infinite love, obedience, etc., that are not met deserve infinite punishment.

How can you possibly believe that if you also believe that literally any person put in that situation would do exactly the same thing?

This was my personal opinion on what would happen. I’m not saying it would for certain.

p.s. Maybe you should retract your post about atheists not being angry. :) I will concede that not all who post here are, but there are definitely some! I don’t feel like I’ve offended or personally attacked anyone, but there are some strong words and language being used against Christians. Don’t worry- I take Luke 6:27 literally. :)

Comment #133 by: Mollie | June 23, 2007, 9:00 am

Ebonmuse,

Two thoughts,

Certainly. If you've ever read Paradise Lost, there's a very good example. Near the end, an angel takes Adam up to a hilltop and shows him all the events of theological history - the flood, the Egyptian captivity, the apocalypse, and so on - that will occur as a result of his disobedience. The only problem is, the angel doesn't do that until after the fall, when it's too late for that information to affect Adam's decision. Why not show him that before eating from the tree, so he'd know in advance what the results would be, rather than expecting him to comprehend a concept he'd never heard of and could not possibly visualize?

According to Genesis, God did tell Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit. I think that is a pretty strong warning. It seems as though if Adam and Eve were not moved by a threat on their very life, then it is possible that they would not be moved by anything. What do you think?

Do you mean to tell me that if God exists, he will punish me, not for being perverse, but simply for being wrong?

This is not intended to scare you into anything, but just as an idea which may pique your interest. I offer it as a hypothetical idea as I will not be offering any reasoning or evidence to support it. It is just something for you to mull over.

Perhaps God is not as omnipotent as some think. Perhaps, if there is a life after this, it has "natural" laws as this life does. Perhaps there are certain things which make people unable to take part in the afterlife. Perhaps it is not a punishment that some may face but a natural consequence, much like hitting the ground is a natural consequence of falling off the roof.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment #136 by: Matt R | June 23, 2007, 9:50 pm

“{Whatever} is under the whole heaven is Mine.” Clearly this must be true if He is the Creator. He has the right to this authority. Previously, you used the example of a sculptor and his sculpture. Wouldn’t you say that the sculptor deserves everything the sculpture can give- because he is worthy of it?

A sculpture in real life would be inanimate. By contrast, in every situation where we cause conscious beings to come into existence, the obligation is not from the created to the creator but rather the other way around. If you bring children into the world, you are responsible for their upbringing unless that resposibility is formally handed to someone else. I would argue that the owners of dogs and cats have a responsibility either to stop their pets from breeding or to try their hardest to find good homes for the puppies and kittens that ensue. So if God created us, then I would argue that He has an obligation toward us. He is responsible for us. As an all-knowing, all-powerful being, it seems to me He ought to be perfectly capable of dealing with that responsibility.

Comment #138 by: Lynet | June 23, 2007, 10:25 pm

Heather,

I realize this is a tangent, but could they comprehend what death was? Paul says that death was a result of sin, and so first there must be sin, and then death. At this point in time, could Adam/Eve comprehend what death was? Could that type of death even sink in, or was it too abstract?

In their interaction with the serpent, they seem to recognize it as a punishment to be avoided. Whether they fully comprehended cannot, I think, be easily understood from the text.

I have not been following the discussion closely and I do not know how relevant the idea is to the whole. I just jumped in on one thought. I do not think the matter relates closely to the POE as a whole.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment #140 by: Matt R | June 24, 2007, 12:05 pm