Given what you know about Christianity, what are logical reasons you won't become a Christian?

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There isn't any concrete factual evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did happen, but there is a lot of evidence to support it. 

Such as?#28

Literally read the post dude. 
I did read it "literally". And I am asking you where is the "lot of evidence" that supports the resurrection"?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Biblical testimony actually supports its falsity. 

p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur. 
p2. Jesus has never experienced decomposition. (Acts 2:31: His flesh did not experience decay)
p3. Jesus never died. 
c1. Jesus did not resurrect 
Ergo, Christianity is false. 
Just because his flesh did not decay, doesn't mean he didn't die. God preserved his body. Look at the context of that verse. 
If you die, the process of decay begins. Necessarily.  

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur. 
Flesh takes a few weeks to decay. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus stayed dead for weeks; in fact, it says the opposite.
I didn't say decay I said decomposition. To be decayed is to reach the end of decomposition. What I mean to say is that, the moment you are dead, the process of decomposition begins, regardless of whether any visible tarnishes can be observed. It's like how the process of moulding begins before you actually see mould. 

Evil comes about from more ways than just free will. 
Evil doesn't mean "bad." Evil means "immoral" which requires someone to make an immoral decision. If by gratuitous evils, you simply mean bad things happening, then this doesn't contradict the Christian position.
That's not what I mean by gratuitous evil, I mean evil that has no holistic good making property ie, in it's equation, it is more evil than it is good. The reason for this qualification is so that defences as the "free one" one do not work, for if I grant that evils can be explained by free will, they are therefore justified and not gratuitous. What I speak for specifically is evil that is more evil than it is good. 

Basically, you have two horns which you can hold. 
  1. There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god. 
  2. There is no gratuitous evil, meaning that every single bit of perceived evil which has occurred is holistically good (for to be gratuitous is to be holistically evil). 
It's a true dichotomy, with no third option per the law of excluded middle. 
 
extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence
Extraordinary means "highly unusual." Why do unusual claims require unusual evidence? Why not evidence of any sort? Most people believe in God, so atheism is the more unusual position anyway.
I mean extraordinary in the epistemic sense, that is, the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe. 


sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,145
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
"If we look in revelation, it claims that 1000, years is like one day for God. This is implying that our perception of time is different than Gods. 
So, for God, the first 7 (or six if your being petty) days of creation, were days, but for us they could have been billions of years. "

Its always astounded me that some people believe that a intelligent entity that can Transend time, space and matter and created the entire universe and everything in it  would look like a human being.  What basic scientific indications are there that it would look anything like a human being?

I believe the universe and everything in it was created but don't for one second believe the power and intelligence that created the universe and everything in it is a carbon based entity that looks similar to me in form. Nor do I think it cares if I get cancer and die or win a sporting event.



Rieka
Rieka's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 131
0
2
6
Rieka's avatar
Rieka
0
2
6
-->
@Stephen
What you're doing is harassing everybody who answers. There has been a point in my life where I wondered if He didn't exist, and all the evidence I've found points to His existence. Please stop trying to create problems. This debate isn't about trying to criticize people for their beliefs, the title says "Given what you know about Christianity, What Are Logical Reasons You Won't Become A Christian?" Debate about that. Thank you.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
I didn't say decay I said decomposition.
The verse you quoted said "his flesh did not decay." That's in line with Jesus only staying dead for a few days.

  1. There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god. 
When you say that gratuitous evil causes more harm than good, I assume you are referring to human suffering. But your conclusion doesn't follow if human suffering is a result of sin and rejection of God. Being all good, per Christian doctrine, God must punish sin.

the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe
Are you sure claims like that require extraordinary evidence? "Reality is real" has implications for everything in the universe, yet I think we're perfectly rational in accepting that without extraordinary evidence. Not to mention that "God doesn't exist" holds implications for everything in the universe, so everything other than agnosticism (per your framework) requires extraordinary evidence to accept.
bigdiknazi
bigdiknazi's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 6
0
0
0
bigdiknazi's avatar
bigdiknazi
0
0
0
Ain't seeing a flat eartn
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,429
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”
― Albert Einstein 1954
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Rieka
What you're doing is harassing everybody who answers.

Nope.

There has been a point in my life where I wondered if He didn't exist, and all the evidence I've found points to His existence.

I have no reason to believe Jesus didn't exist. So you have no argument there.



Please stop trying to create problems.

It appears to me that the problems lie with those that claim things such as ' there is a lot of evidence to support the resurrection'  #28  and then do not provide the evidence that they claim exists when asked.


This debate isn't about trying to criticize people for their beliefs,

 I have no problem whatsoever with your faith and your beliefs. My problem is and always has been the scriptures themselves.


the title says "Given what you know about Christianity, What Are Logical Reasons You Won't Become A Christian?" Debate about that. 

Apart from the fact that I gave my reply to and addressed  the OP, here>> #9. The author of the OP @YouFound_Lxam shouldn't introduce other aspects i.e "evidence for the resurrection" in to the conversation that cause the thread to drift slightly in other directions and stick to the theme of his own thread. Shouldn't he?
 Off you go now.

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
I didn't say decay I said decomposition.
The verse you quoted said "his flesh did not decay." That's in line with Jesus only staying dead for a few days.
Even so the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition" so death necessarily entails that this process has began - note again this doesn't  necessarily entail that the end of "decay" has been reached. 

  1. There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god. 
When you say that gratuitous evil causes more harm than good, I assume you are referring to human suffering
No, humans are usually the victims, but the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes. I'll draw it out like this. Let's take the holocaust as an example. Is this an instance of gratuitous evil? 

  1. You can say yes and forfeit the argument. 
  2. You can say no and maintain your position. 
    1. However, if you say "no", (perhaps you say it is a result of "the rejection of God and sin"), then it follows that the holocaust was indeed good in the holistic sense because it was the right thing to happen given our rejection of God and enjoyment of sin. Also I want to reinforce that if I mention "evil", I am using a short hand for gratuitous evil. 

the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe
Are you sure claims like that require extraordinary evidence? "Reality is real" has implications for everything in the universe, yet I think we're perfectly rational in accepting that without extraordinary evidence. Not to mention that "God doesn't exist" holds implications for everything in the universe, so everything other than agnosticism (per your framework) requires extraordinary evidence to accept.
Reality is real is not epistemically extraordinary. The existence of a being with infinite attributes of good, power and awareness is.   
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition"
Words have multiple reasonable meanings that are understood in context. "Decay" necessitates that some amount of decay has occurred. The term can also be translated as a "return to corruption." Not decaying could be a result of the embalming, though some people consider this a part of the miracle while others do not. Neither of these interpretations contradicts Jesus dying.

the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes
I reject the premise that God being good means that God must prevent something that is causing more harm than good. Rejection of God is synonymous with a rejection of good. Per Christian theology, suffering is a result of sin, and God as a judge of humans must allow it to continue. Your premise is that an all-good God must prevent gratuitous evils or must not allow humans to suffer. I reject that premise since the Christian position is that all humans deserve suffering.

epistemically extraordinary
Are you still defining extraordinary as "a truth impacting literally everything else in the universe"? Or do you mean something else? What criteria make something extraordinary, and why do those things require a lot of evidence?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition"
Words have multiple reasonable meanings that are understood in context. "Decay" necessitates that some amount of decay has occurred. The term can also be translated as a "return to corruption." Not decaying could be a result of the embalming, though some people consider this a part of the miracle while others do not. Neither of these interpretations contradicts Jesus dying.
Well first off, it is necessary that if you are dead, you begin to decay. Perhaps decomposition is not viewable, but the process, that is the process of deterioration, has occurred. Regarding it being a part of the miracle, I can grant that he didn't decay, where he was supposed to, but that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't. 

the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes
I reject the premise that God being good means that God must prevent something that is causing more harm than good... I reject that premise since the Christian position is that all humans deserve suffering.
But you've made a vicious contradiction here, the two statements are not compatible. You said first that god doesn't need to prevent things which are more evil than they are good. You then justified this by saying that some people deserve suffering. Yet, if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it. So it seems you do agree that there cannot be something which is holistically evil. 

epistemically extraordinary
Are you still defining extraordinary as "a truth impacting literally everything else in the universe"? Or do you mean something else? What criteria make something extraordinary, and why do those things require a lot of evidence?
It's less so a definition and more like an implication. Take, for example, the following two claims. 
  1. My cat knocked my drink over. 
  2. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
From a purely a priori position, the first could be accepted with far less evidence than the second - the epistemic implications are far more believable. I take god to be akin to the second example - I would sooner accept any finite probability than that of gods existence, because god is ontologically infinite, meaning that no amount of finite evidence ought to compel you into his existence. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,001
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I was a christian. The reason I wouldn't become one again is the reason I stopped being one.

The hypothesis that a god exists which has a message for me personally, can speak to me personally, and yet does not speak to me personally is self-contradictory.

Same point: Faith as a virtue contradicts every time miracles were supposedly used to change the world and people's hearts.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't. 
If death occurs without decomposition, it's still a resurrection, since that term simply refers to being brought back to life. But I think you're reading too much into the semantics of this anyway. A reasonable reading of the verse isn't that Jesus didn't decay at all. I don't think all statements must refer to absolute definitions since a lot of definitions have slight variations anyway. And it's a translation from Hebrew, so semantic technicalities based on English don't really work for the original source material. The meaning is clear enough.

if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it
If you want to define things that way, then sure. I would describe suffering as "just" in relation to what people deserve if we want to get into technical terms. It seems to me that if you can't prove people don't deserve those things, then the gratuitous evil argument isn't evidence against Christianity since we don't know that the suffering is undeserved.

  1. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
I buy that this is less likely than a cat knocking your drink over since cats are known to do things like that, but if this claim were true I do not think it would require extraordinary evidence. NASA making contact with aliens would not be extraordinary evidence, but it would be sufficient to make me believe in aliens. I don't think the threshold is as high as you're putting it.

god is ontologically infinite
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure the scope of something is proportional to its probability. Otherwise, we should have a hard time accepting the existence of the sun, which is 864,000 miles wide.
Path2Paradise
Path2Paradise's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 37
0
0
4
Path2Paradise's avatar
Path2Paradise
0
0
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
surah maryam 88-92

Surah ikhlas 1-4
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't. 
If death occurs without decomposition, it's still a resurrection, since that term simply refers to being brought back to life.
My point is that death cannot occur without decomposition beginning. To be not alive is to have began the process where your cells begin to decompose. 

But I think you're reading too much into the semantics of this anyway. A reasonable reading of the verse isn't that Jesus didn't decay at all. 
But then what part of him is dead if all his cells are still vibing lmao. 

if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it
If you want to define things that way, then sure. I would describe suffering as "just" in relation to what people deserve if we want to get into technical terms. It seems to me that if you can't prove people don't deserve those things, then the gratuitous evil argument isn't evidence against Christianity since we don't know that the suffering is undeserved.
Ok great so suffering is just, where the good making properties out-weigh the bad. Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case? Where the bad making properties out weigh the good? Note that you cannot say "there is" and then justify it with "free will, original sin or deviation from god", because if you have a justification it means that the event is holistically good, given it is explained away and is the just consequence of "free will, original sin or deviation from god". 

  1. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
I buy that this is less likely than a cat knocking your drink over since cats are known to do things like that, but if this claim were true I do not think it would require extraordinary evidence. NASA making contact with aliens would not be extraordinary evidence, but it would be sufficient to make me believe in aliens. I don't think the threshold is as high as you're putting it.
I mean only to say that the standard of proof required in the case of aliens far outweighs that of the cat hypothesis. In the case of the feline,  perhaps merely word of mouth is sufficient. In the case of the alien, I would presume that, were this information to be released to the public, a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice. 

god is ontologically infinite
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure the scope of something is proportional to its probability. Otherwise, we should have a hard time accepting the existence of the sun, which is 864,000 miles wide.
I'll give you an example. Take the sun as an example. Even though this is anti scientific let's assume that it popped out of existence in the literal sense. Obviously, there is some probability of this happening - the number probably has more zeros than their are in the universe, but still there is some possibility. Now suppose you say "either you can accept that it popped into existence or god created it". I would still believe it popped into existence. This is because of epistemology - the "popping" hypothesis is predicated on a finite, albeit unlikely probability. The "god" hypothesis however is predicated on an infinite being. So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes. 
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
 cells are still vibing
Cells not being active isn't exactly the same thing as decay. Decay happens after death, at least that's the most obvious interpretation of the verse.

Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case?
i.e. why doesn't everyone suffer? I've often thought that the more pressing question is why anything good happens to us at all. But there are explanations for this that are strongly implied. When asked why a man was born blind, Jesus says, “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” So some good things help God to achieve his final purpose; the destruction of the devil, the salvation of believers, and the eventual recognition by all mankind of their sinful nature. Some good things lead people to become more moral. But the necessity of punishment for sin and the benefits of good things happening must be weighed. What I expect you want is very specific criteria (i.e. suffering is just in x, y, and z circumstances.) I don't know what those circumstances are, but I don't think that's a reason to believe there aren't any, or that the Christian God couldn't be applying some weighting mechanism and optimizing his level of intervention. We can speculate, as I'm sure you will, but the existence of speculation doesn't undermine the premise.

a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice. 
If a few competing news channels all reported on the alien (Fox and CNN both giving similar reports), I think I would find that sufficient. I'd probably consider an announcement by NASA to be convincing on its own as well.

So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes. 
I understand your weighting mechanism, but I'm rejecting it as faulty. The sun doesn't require much evidence, despite being very large. I suspect you'd consider one person being able to fly to be much harder to believe than the existence of the sun, given similar amounts of evidence. But that violates the weighting mechanism you provided—the existence of the sun has much bigger implications than one person being able to fly. "More attributes" doesn't mean "more unlikely."
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
 cells are still vibing
Cells not being active isn't exactly the same thing as decay. Decay happens after death, at least that's the most obvious interpretation of the verse.
Not being active is sort of the same as decay. Cells don't stay in some static position - either they are performing cellular respiration of some sorts, or their not, in which case they are either damaged or in the processes of decay. 

Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case?
i.e. why doesn't everyone suffer? I've often thought that the more pressing question is why anything good happens to us at all. But there are explanations for this that are strongly implied. When asked why a man was born blind, Jesus says, “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” So some good things help God to achieve his final purpose; the destruction of the devil, the salvation of believers, and the eventual recognition by all mankind of their sinful nature. Some good things lead people to become more moral. But the necessity of punishment for sin and the benefits of good things happening must be weighed. What I expect you want is very specific criteria (i.e. suffering is just in x, y, and z circumstances.) I don't know what those circumstances are, but I don't think that's a reason to believe there aren't any, or that the Christian God couldn't be applying some weighting mechanism and optimizing his level of intervention. We can speculate, as I'm sure you will, but the existence of speculation doesn't undermine the premise.
This really answers nothing which I was asking. All I want to know, is if their is gratuitous suffering in this world - that is, suffering that serves no good making purposes in the holistic sense. You can say no, and argue that all suffering and evil is good in the long run because it is the consequent of say deviation from god, indulgence into sin or merely the price of free will, but I just want you to confirm whether or not this is your position. 

a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice. 
If a few competing news channels all reported on the alien (Fox and CNN both giving similar reports), I think I would find that sufficient. I'd probably consider an announcement by NASA to be convincing on its own as well.
Even so, you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one. 


So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes. 
I understand your weighting mechanism, but I'm rejecting it as faulty. The sun doesn't require much evidence, despite being very large. I suspect you'd consider one person being able to fly to be much harder to believe than the existence of the sun, given similar amounts of evidence. But that violates the weighting mechanism you provided—the existence of the sun has much bigger implications than one person being able to fly. "More attributes" doesn't mean "more unlikely."
Again, my mechanism is epistemic believability - it has nothing to do with size per say, though that could play an impact. eg, a flying snake is less believable than a flying aeroplane - this isn't really something I disagree with. So my mechanism still stands. 
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,994
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
sort of the same as decay
But that's a semantic point and completely taking the verse out of context. The obvious interpretation is that Jesus didn't stay dead for long. Luke wasn't under the impression that Jesus never died.

all suffering and evil is good in the long run
I understand if this seems like I'm making an annoying distinction, and I see where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption about Christian doctrine that is unfounded. An all-good God behaves in a just matter—all good doesn't just mean maximizing the number of good things that happen or the amount of pleasure that occurs by any means necessary. I argue that it's just for God to allow suffering since humans deserve it. That doesn't mean those things are good. Your hidden premise is that it is unjust for God to allow bad things to happen, but I reject that premise. If you want to bring up free will, I guess you could make the analogy to someone eating a lot of unhealthy food. It's not a good decision, but it's just for me to allow them to do so. (Although free will isn't my entire argument, I also argue that humans deserve suffering, per Christian doctrine.)
    - The sin resulting in suffering is bad, but God allows free will.
    - The suffering resulting from sin is just, since humans deserve to suffer.
    - The action resulting in the suffering (sin) is unjust, since humans do not have the authority to punish other humans for sin. But God has the authority to punish sin or to allow suffering to continue.
This distinction is actually a very important part of Christian doctrine. The crucifixion was necessary and God allowed it for the purposes of penal substitution, but the people who crucified Jesus were not justified in their actions. Just because humans are not justified in doing x does not mean that God is not justified in allowing x.

you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one
Sure. But I don't agree that the standard is "extraordinary," which is hard to quantify in the first place.

epistemic believability
I feel like we're back to where we started. What makes God epistemically unbelievable? Your initial proposition seemed focused on scope (i.e. how much impact would the God explanation have on the universe?) But if we're not referring to scope, how do you measure epistemic believability? I'm sorry if the word "epistemic" is meant to explain this, but I'm not a philosophy expert.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
sort of the same as decay
But that's a semantic point and completely taking the verse out of context. The obvious interpretation is that Jesus didn't stay dead for long. Luke wasn't under the impression that Jesus never died.
Well call it semantic, but taking the word of the bible is all that I am doing. 

all suffering and evil is good in the long run
I understand if this seems like I'm making an annoying distinction, and I see where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption about Christian doctrine that is unfounded. An all-good God behaves in a just matter—all good doesn't just mean maximizing the number of good things that happen or the amount of pleasure that occurs by any means necessary. I argue that it's just for God to allow suffering since humans deserve it. That doesn't mean those things are good. Your hidden premise is that it is unjust for God to allow bad things to happen, but I reject that premise.
This is absolutely not true. I agree that some evils can be explained away by say free will. I can even grant that some can be explained by original sin or human temptation. These would be instances of temporal evil, however, they are holistically good. Even though a vaccine hurts, that is, it is temporally bad for a child, it is holistically good in the long run. Even though say working out hurts, and is a temporal bad, it is holistically good in the long run. See, I accept that there are some evils or bad which are justified by some greater good. 

Yet this is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is gratuitous evils - evils which do not have this element of good which outweighs the net bad. I'm not saying that god cannot allow suffering, or that it is unjust for bad things to happen - bad things like causing a child harm or causing yourself harm, can be, in context, good. But what I am arguing about (I wasn't even arguing it at this stage, we are jumping the gun here), is that god cannot allow holistic bad's. That is, some bad which brings no good. Like say a vaccine which only causes harm and no good. Or some bad or pain inflicted on the self, which unlike working out, brings no over all good. These are instances which I am talking about. 

you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one
Sure. But I don't agree that the standard is "extraordinary," which is hard to quantify in the first place.
Well extraordinary is merely a measure on which we calculate if something is believable. If I use another example, like a flying elephant, my point still remains.  

epistemic believability
I feel like we're back to where we started. What makes God epistemically unbelievable?
Because of his infinite properties of goodness, awareness and lovingness. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
Words of Wisdom.



Men had a notion of creation.

And so created a GOD in their own image.

And also created a fantasy tale to go with it.


I'm pretty sure that there is no requirement of me to mutter prayers or sing hymns.

Or seek forgiveness for my sins.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Because the real god is not the Christian one.

Christianity's devil being capable of outdoing God at persuasion and possession and God failing to stop the devil is a singular plothole so severe and idiotic, that alone tells me Christianity is BS.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,357
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
The Christian position is a bit complicated.

Its not as simple as

"Good God only does good things. Allowing evil isnt a good thing. Therefore, good God doesnt exist.".

Lets look at some verses which provide the explanation.

  1. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. - Psalm 145:9
  2. No one is good but One, that is, God. - Mark 10:18

The second verse tells us that we are all evil. The first verse tells us that God is good to all, no exceptions. This means that God is good towards evil people.

When Bible talks about good, it does not talk about pleasure outweighting the pain.

It talks about life and the praise of God.

Therefore, good God is God who creates life, God who is praised. Good God is God who is good to all, therefore God who gives life to all. That is the Bible's definition for good God.

God good to all would be God who gives life to all, to both good and evil people. 

So really, when we define good as "an increase of life, and an increase of praise of God", we see that the existence of evil does not negate God being good. Rather, God giving life to evil people would still be counted as good action.

Since we are all evil, and God gave eternal life to us, that means how God is good to us.

Therefore, evil is not the opposite of good, by Bible's standards. Rather...

In fact, the existence of evil is good since existence itself is good.

I guess if I had to put it in the forms of premises and conclusion, it would look like:

P1) Creating all life is a good action
P2) Creating all life caused evil to exist
C) The existence of evil is good, since it is the result/part of a good action

Therefore, its not that evil results in greater good. Its that a good action has evil as its part/result.

Existence of evil is good, if we assume that existence itself is good. Therefore God, being the creator of all existence, is good.

Okay, lets put it through definitions:

1. Good God being defined as God who is good to all
2. Good being defined as giving of life
3. God who is good to all is God who gives life to all
4. Giving life to all would mean giving life to evil people
5. Good God is God who gives life to evil people

Same logic can be applied to existence and explain the existence of evil.

Again, it really depends on how "good" is defined, and Bible defines good in a different way than most other books. Its not as simple as "pain vs. pleasure". When Bible talks about good, it has many meanings. I gave examples of some meanings that can be used, but I am pretty sure there is more to it as Bible is a 2000 page book.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The only criteria for heaven, is to be without sin.
And who determines what qualifies as sin?

And God didn't make these criteria, it just makes sense. God is perfect and cannot allow non-perfect people into a perfect place, because then he wouldn't be perfect, and that place wouldn't be perfect. 
If God is our creator and there are imperfect people, you can no longer claim God is perfect.

Moreover, there is no reason why heaven must be a perfect place. That was a choice God made. 

And even if God decided he wanted to send all the perfect people to a perfect place, why create a place of torment and torture for everyone else? Whatever the reason, that was still his decision as was the criteria that those of us who don't believe go there.

He's the almighty creator of everything. Why dig yourself into such logical holes to absolve him from responsibility for the system he created?
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let's say I'm generous and grant this. Please demonstrate this creator is the character described in the bible, which has existed for less than 5000 years, while the universe is demonstrably between 13 and 14 billion years old. 
First of all, you don't grant this, because this is fact.

Second of all, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is 5000-, or 6000-year-old. 

If we look in revelation, it claims that 1000, years is like one day for God. This is implying that our perception of time is different than Gods. 
So, for God, the first 7 (or six if your being petty) days of creation, were days, but for us they could have been billions of years. 
By "grant" this, I mean I'm not asking you to argue it, we can, for the sake of discussion, agree that intelligent life cannot exist without an intelligent creator. What I'm asking you to do is demonstrate that this intelligent creator is the one you happen to believe in, and not any of the thousands of others that pre-dated the bible. My point about the 5000 years was not that that's how old the bible says the earth is, it's how long it's been around. It seems strange to me, in other words, that human beings have inhabited the earth for somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 years, but Jesus let them sin and burn in hell without ever revealing himself for, conservatively, 98,000 years (2000 years since Jesus died). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Why would he or god do that? According to you, those people are responsible for all of their sins and are therefore in hell. They had no way to know about Jesus at all, no way to figure out if they were sinning, and they worshipped false gods. 


BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7


.
Rieka, who says she doesn’t have to follow the direct words of Jesus the Christ in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as a Bible 2nd class woman: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” 


THE DUMB ASS "RIEKA" QUOTE IN SHOWING HER CHILD LIKE AGE AGAIN:  "I'd question who created God. Who gave him the power to create, and why he'd let evil come to the world if his creations were supposedly perfect."

Correcting RIEKAS Bible Stupidity is a full time job, whereas this doltish kid is as Bible ignorant as Miss Tradesecret!!!

1. RIEKAS STUPID QUESTION #1: "I'd question who created God."  
SIMPLE ANSWER FOR HER SIMPLE MIND:  God has been God from all of eternity. Nothing caused Him to exist. He had no beginning and he will have no end.
"Even from everlasting to everlasting you are God"(Psalm 90:2)
"For I lift my hand to heaven, and say, as I live forever" (Deuteronomy 32:40).

2. RIEKAS STUPID QUESTION #2:  "Who gave him the power to create"
SIMPLE ANSWER FOR HER SIMPLE MIND:  "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

3. RIEKAS STUPID QUESTION #3:   "and why he'd let evil come to the world if his creations were supposedly perfect."
SIMPLE ANSWER FOR HER SIMPLE MIND:  Jesus as God (2 Peter 1:1) created evil in the first place;  "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create evil; I am the Lord, who does all these things."  Furthermore, Jesus' creation as god are NOT PERFECT; "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Yes, we know, what did we expect from a young acting little girl named RIEKA, but complete stupidity on her part about her alleged faith in Christianity!  LOL!

.


TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Because I am, ultimately, and evidentialist (with some non-standard views surrounding intuition) and do not find Christianity to be a justified enough belief to hold to in comparison to my current religion.
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Becoming a Christian does not align with my morals

7 days later

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
When it comes to God, there are more sensical concepts about it in other belief systems and even philosophies.

Mind you, the God of Spinoza is far more sensical and logical than the Jehova of the bible. So, why choose Christianity if it's incapable of convincing the modern educated man? 😆
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Generational data transfer is such that people are in the main conditioned theists, rather than theists by choice.

Educated in other words.

Clever people re-evaluate and reject theistic non-sense.

Educated does not necessarily mean clever.