Disproving God by Debunking Theodicies (Renamed and Updated: Please Reread)

[Madamadam]

Hi everyone,
I've read some of these religious debate threads and thought i'd start a new one. I am currently enrolled in a philosophy class at college and thought I would present one of my essays in which I attempt to debunk two objections to the argument from evil for the non-existence of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god.

First, I will define evil as something that causes unnecessary/pointless suffering, unnecessary/pointless suffering itself or indifference to someone else's unnecessary/pointless suffering. There are a few ways that evil and suffering can exist in a world created by a god that is only defined as good. One way is that if God lacks omnipotence, he could be unable to create a world without evil and suffering. This lack of power is how Plato reconciled the existence of evil with his good god. Another way is that God may lack omniscience in which case he would not be aware of evil and suffering that he would otherwise act to stop or prevent. A third way is that God may lack a rational mind in which case he would be too stupid to make good decisions regarding his creations. However, these options are not compatible when the modern god of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism defined with all the characteristics of being rational, powerful (not necessarily omnipotent), having knowledge of the future and benevolent to the point of looking out for our best interest (not necessarily omni-benevolent) is proposed as the creator of the universe.

Some people who believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity may subscribe to the theodicy that there is an outweighing good that occurs after every evil which God knows about. So God allows the evil to happen so that the outweighing good can occur. This is an obviously false statement that can be exposed with a simple example. Imagine a young child who contracts Ebola, he suffers from an extremely high fever and excruciating pain while bleeding out of every orifice of his body for two weeks until he finally dies in his crying mother’s arms. It cannot possibly be argued in anyway that the child’s death in this manner was necessary to obtain a greater good. Even if God wanted the child’s soul in heaven, the child’s death by this gratuitously painful disease is unnecessary. God could have just as easily snuffed the child out in his sleep. While the child’s death in any way is a sad experience for all who sympathize with the situation, a long and unnecessarily painful death is always a worse way to die. Did God create Ebola just to enjoy watching children like this suffer in the uniquely excruciating ways that only Ebola can cause?

Other believers in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity may subscribe to the theodicy that God can stop or prevent evil and suffering and wants to stop or prevent all evil and suffering but won’t because he would have to interfere with the freewill of humans. This argument is invalid for a couple of reasons. First, God would not have to interfere with freewill to prevent much of the evil and suffering in the world. Think of all the diseases, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters that make up the evils and suffering caused by the natural world. God doesn’t mention these things in Genesis when he punishes Adam and Eve, so they shouldn’t even be part of the fallen world. It might be said that not all evils are recorded evils, but shouldn’t they be? After all, many of the evils that are missing from the Bible are quite major evils. If God is going to punish us and he tells us what he’s going to do, it should be safe to expect exactly what he says will happen, nothing more and nothing less. And second, God doesn’t even have to take away freewill to prevent humans from choosing to do evil. A complete understanding of freewill which I will present next allows this reason to stand logically.

A rational person P has compatibilist freewill if he has the mental capacity to do what he wants (I use compatibilist freewill because that is the freewill supported by the Bible and Quaran). A number of things can influence P to want certain things. Aside from reason itself, these influences can include emotions, moral sense, knowledge of consequences, cultural norms, and commands or suggestions from others, especially significant others. These factors are what actually lead P to want to do something in any given situation. Thus, a being like God can influence P in many ways to act without taking away P’s freewill. Note the God of Genesis does use two of these methods in a minimal sense to influence Adam and Eve’s actions. He commanded them “do not eat this fruit,” and told them they would die if they did, thus giving them knowledge of only one of the many consequences. He could have done much more to successfully prevent original sin without taking away freewill. Remember, just about all Jews, Christians, and Muslims all blame the existence of human and animal suffering on the original sin of Adam and Eve.

One of the most obvious ways original sin could have been prevented would have been the prevention of temptation. God could have chosen not to create the serpent at all, or he could have chosen to create a good serpent without evil intentions, or he could have kept the serpent out of the Garden of Eden, or he could have kicked the serpent out of the Garden of Eden as soon as it decided to tempt Adam and Eve. Other ways he could have prevented original sin involve God better equipping us to deal with temptation. This assumes that God originally created us as perfectly rational beings. That said, a second way god could have prevented original sin without taking away freewill would have been to endow us with an exceptionally keen moral sense. Thus, while we would still choose to do what we want to do and we would still have the power to choose to sin or not to sin, we would not want to choose to go against our morals. If you think this takes away freewill, it doesn’t. Having strong morals that you always choose to follow does not take away your freewill, it is an expression of your freewill. A third way god could have prevented original sin without taking away freewill would have been to simply convince us with words that his way is best. In a real life situation, I could be troubled by a person and want to kill him. You could then come in and tell me all of the good reasons why violence is not the answer. Being a reasonable person, I would listen to your argument, be convinced by it, and freely choose not to kill. In the same way, God could have taught us to avoid sin. None of these methods would have taken away freewill. The fact that God did none of these things should lead an intelligent person to seriously doubt the story of original sin.

Although freewill makes it possible, sin doesn’t happen as a result of freewill. In rational people, it happens as a result of there being stronger influences to commit sin rather than stronger influences to avoid sin. The total of the influence always comes from both our environment and from our inherent nature as humans. In the Garden of Eden the influence was overwhelming for Adam and Eve to commit sin. We know this because Adam and Eve did commit sin. We also know that either God failed in his responsibility to properly influence Adam and Eve or God purposefully set in motion a series of events that would lead to Adam and Eve committing sin. In the first case, God is obviously fundamentally weak and imperfect if he can’t teach his own creations to live obedient lives. In the second case, God is clearly diabolically evil for creating a situation of entrapment because not only does he cause Adam and Eve to sin, albeit indirectly, he punishes them for it. In either case, incompetent or evil, the real God of Genesis is nothing like what any Christian, Muslim, or Jew would describe him as.

I presented the two most prevalent defenses of the modern Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity and dismantled both of them. Also, every other theodicy I found seemed to be nothing but very weak arguments. Thus, I can only conclude that the existence of evil and suffering is incompatible with the hypothesized existence of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. I am an atheist and I believe that faith in all deities should be rejected especially personal deities like the aforementioned Judeo-Christian-Islamic one. In my humble opinion, faith in the sadly incoherent Judeo-Christian-Islamic god should be rejected by logical people long before Plato’s god because at least his god can account for evil and suffering.

[jackenape]

Just to remind you, I'm talking about God's nature, the clash would be if your theologians rejected belief in a benevolent, powerful, prescient diety as their schools accept.
We were talking about what they teach, not what they believe. We've had this discussion before.

[NightRogue]

Marcionism
A very interesting read indeed. Of all the stuff I've learned and read over the years, I don't believe I have ever read or even heard about that particular religious view - with the two Gods and all.

Just goes to show how absolutely rediculous organized religion is. Pick a card, any card - that's what it all boils down to.

[Madamadam]

We were talking about what they teach, not what they believe. We've had this discussion before.

There shouldn't be a difference, the seminaries teach future pastors to preach a god with said properties. In nearly every case a student or pastor will believe in that God as they were taught to.

[jackenape]

There shouldn't be a difference, the seminaries teach future pastors to preach a god with said properties. In nearly every case a student or pastor will believe in that God as they were taught to.
That's...just really simplistic. My second choice of word would be "unrealistic."

[marasamune]

Split #666 (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548077)

[jackenape]

Split #666 (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548077)
I was even the last to post. I'm a bad, bad mod. :(

[marasamune]

Stop it, you're making me randy.

[Madamadam]

That's...just really simplistic. My second choice of word would be "unrealistic."

Even with all the splits across the Christian denominations, they at least agree on defining God as I have.

[jackenape]

Even with all the splits across the Christian denominations, they at least agree on defining God as I have.
That when all is said and done, God is basically good ("good" being more than a little subjective)? I don't doubt you might have had something here, but I'm not seeing it.

[Madamadam]

Even though my arguments are sound and relevant, I feel like I've failed people like Koco King and jay-mak who don't seem to be affected by what I have written. I don't know what it would take to reach the diehard type; maybe it can't be done. Still, I want to believe that it can happen and I want to keep trying. I'm gonna do some reading and try some new approaches to the God problem. It seems that I've gone as far as I can go with this.

That when all is said and done, God is basically good ("good" being more than a little subjective)? I don't doubt you might have had something here, but I'm not seeing it.

They agree that God is not evil (not in the slightest) as in never desiring to bring gratuitous evil into the world, they agree that God can do all that is logically possible and they agree that God is at least aware of everything that is happening in the universe. That is enough to give full relevance to my arguments.

Oh and thanks a lot for duly renaming my split:flaming:. I'd appreciate it if you changed it back.

[jackenape]

They agree that God is not evil (not in the slightest) as in never desiring to bring gratuitous evil into the world, they agree that God can do all that is logically possible and they agree that God is at least aware of everything that is happening in the universe. That is enough to give full relevance to my arguments.
If it were true, yes. It's not, though, so I'm not really sure where that leaves you.

[Madamadam]

If it were true, yes. It's not, though, so I'm not really sure where that leaves you.

That's what they teach seminary. It's also what they preach in churches. Again, it's in the doctrinal statements of both kinds of institutions. If you could give me a few examples of mega and large church (http://www.usachurches.org/church-sizes.htm)pastors who preach a lesser God, I would readily admit that it is not always the case. Unless you can do that, I'll just take what you said as a completely unfounded statement.

[jackenape]

If you could give me a few examples of mega and large church (http://www.usachurches.org/church-sizes.htm)pastors who preach a lesser God, I would readily admit that it is not always the case.
Oooh, you dirty little deck stacker you. There are a thousand and one examples of little fire and brimstone churches that teach a petty, angry, vengeful God, but they don't count because they're not McChurches that owe their existence to NOT teaching the more divisive parts of the Bible. How slickly obvious of you.

Unless you can do that, I'll just take what you said as a completely unfounded statement.
You do realize that I'm the only one in this conversation that actually has given specific examples of...well...anything.

[Mr. DNA]

You do realize that I'm the only one in this conversation that actually has given specific examples of...well...anything.

You might well be the only one in this conversation who knows what the conversation is about. I read the comments in this thread all the time and I really am none the wiser.

[jackenape]

You might well be the only one in this conversation who knows what the conversation is about. I read the comments in this thread all the time and I really am none the wiser.
I just know that according to the posts since this has been split, I'm more interested in the viewpoints of theologians, and he's more interested in what they teach in megachurches. For some reason. :shrug:

Whatever. It's a pissing contest as far as I can see. I'm in.

[Mr. DNA]

I'm more interested in the viewpoints of theologians, and he's more interested in what they teach in megachurches. For some reason. :shrug:


Why concern yourself with the viewpoints of theologians? Everyone knows all they do is sit around waxing hysterical about angels and pinheads. :)

But really, why would the made-up irrelevance of anything a theologian has to say interest you? They're trying to do away with Theology at Oxford University! Apparently its curriculum is not "a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1698,Letters-Theology-has-no-place-in-a-university,Richard-Dawkins

What a time to be alive!

[jackenape]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1698,Letters-Theology-has-no-place-in-a-university,Richard-Dawkins

What a time to be alive!
From the article, I learned that Dawkin's is a bit of an ass (as evidenced by the braying). From a bit of research, I learned the problems are mostly the result of the changes made by Wycliffe Hall's principal.

When I use the word "theologians," I'm talking about scholars (those would be the people who ended their employment with Wycliffe).

[Mr. DNA]

Listen, if you were an Oxford Professor, and you'd had the sort of run-ins with Oxford theologians that Dawkins has had (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PSM887YIs4), you'd be more than willing to rub salt in the wounds when their contemptible little "subject" is being found out as the waste of time and resources that it is. Far from being an ass, I think that Dawkins is the epitome of British reserve in this video, in the face of a professional obscurantist.

EDIT: Ah, fix the link eh jackenape? :)

[jackenape]

Far from being an ass, I think that Dawkins is the epitome of British reserve in this video, in the face of a professional obscurantist.
A learned jackass with a vendetta is still a jackass with a vendetta. He's an absolutist that blames everything on the system itself rather than the minority of people who twist it to their purpose, a hypocrite who claims the existence of God to be a scientific hypothesis while systematically denying at all turns even the possibility that He's ever shown Himself in any way, and, on a personal level, I've a hard time respecting him as a proponent of logic when he seems more interested in the backhands he can toss in a debate than the actual debate itself.

On the plus side, he makes a wonderful braised pheasant.

[Mr. DNA]

Ah-ha! Dawkins slandering at its finest! Let's have a look shall we?

A learned jackass with a vendetta is still a jackass with a vendetta.

Is it really a "vendetta", though? The man has spotted that most people in the world irrationally believe in a fictitious entity, and he wants to attempt to remedy this absurd affliction. Surely this is a rather understandable desire?

He's an absolutist that blames everything on the system itself rather than the minority of people who twist it to their purpose,

I take this to mean that he blames the atrocities and idiocies perpetrated in the name of religion as being the fault of the religion itself, and not the minority who might "misinterpret", wilfully or otherwise, the original intended instruction of the dogma. Of course, if the various systems of iron-age myths were not taught as fact to people in the first place, they wouldn't have anything to misinterpret. Wouldn't we all be better off in a world in which individuals are taught to be sceptical enquirers, rather than stunted indoctrinated robots?

a hypocrite who claims the existence of God to be a scientific hypothesis while systematically denying at all turns even the possibility that He's ever shown Himself in any way,

I'm not sure that that it the case. Dawkins is always banging on about evidence, and his stance would be that evidence is required when forming a judgement about anything. If evidence in support of a creator was forthcoming, then he would have to re-evaluate his position, but as there has never been any reputable or convincing evidence in favour of a creator, the only rational outcome is to disbelieve in such an entity. But he's certainly not closed to the possibility of anything, so long as evidence is presented.

and, on a personal level, I've a hard time respecting him as a proponent of logic when he seems more interested in the backhands he can toss in a debate than the actual debate itself.

Yes, well, this is a common complaint. Mind you, he'd contend that there isn't really a debate to be had, so sound and logic-based is the atheist argument, and so the only way in which to confront the madness that is religion is to mock it.

On the plus side, he makes a wonderful braised pheasant.

No clue as to what this means!

[shortkut]

Yes, well, this is a common complaint. Mind you, he'd contend that there isn't really a debate to be had, so sound and logic-based is the atheist argument, and so the only way in which to confront the madness that is religion is to mock it.
if you resort to mocking, then odds are you no longer has a sound or logic-based argument.

[Mr. DNA]

if you resort to mocking, then odds are you no longer has a sound or logic-based argument.

When the sound or logic-based argument is falling on the deaf ears of the ignorant, mockery might well be the only remaining course of action.

[jackenape]

Is it really a "vendetta", though?
Yes.

Of course, if the various systems of iron-age myths were not taught as fact to people in the first place, they wouldn't have anything to misinterpret.
Pretty. Somewhere in the world a mother is telling her child that if he goes swimming after he eats, he'll drown. Is Dawkins going to take this mother to task, or is he going to send in Robin?

"Justification" should not just be another word for "excuse".

If evidence in support of a creator was forthcoming, then he would have to re-evaluate his position, but as there has never been any reputable or convincing evidence in favour of a creator, the only rational outcome is to disbelieve in such an entity. But he's certainly not closed to the possibility of anything, so long as evidence is presented.
I can agree with the sentiment, but not as it relates to Dawkins. Considering his attitudes on theology and philosophy, he just doesn't strike me as the kind of man who's ever even considered the possibility, much less one who'd have bothered reviewing any "proofs".

Yes, well, this is a common complaint. Mind you, he'd contend that there isn't really a debate to be had, so sound and logic-based is the atheist argument, and so the only way in which to confront the madness that is religion is to mock it.
It's easy to "contend" when he's only ever had the guts to debate obviously delusional crackpots.

No clue as to what this means!
Oh, yea of deficient palates. :shake:

:D

[Mr. DNA]

Pretty. Somewhere in the world a mother is telling her child that if he goes swimming after he eats, he'll drown. Is Dawkins going to take this mother to task, or is he going to send in Robin?

Oh, come on now, there is a world of difference between old wives' tales and organised religion. Old wives' tales are not responsible for the wholesale subjugation of rational thinking in many parts of the world; it takes the organised buffoonery of religion to do that.

I can agree with the sentiment, but not as it relates to Dawkins. Considering his attitudes on theology and philosophy, he just doesn't strike me as the kind of man who's ever even considered the possibility, much less one who'd have bothered reviewing any "proofs".

Well, he was actually a confirmed Christian until his teens when he discovered Darwinism. He was convinced by Paley and others, who proclaimed that the intricacy of the natural world, and of living things, proves that there must have been a creator behind it all. So he certainly has considered the possibility.

And as for reviewing "proofs", have you ever read The God Delusion? He goes through the lot, showing them up to be a load of complete bunkum.

It's easy to "contend" when he's only ever had the guts to debate obviously delusional crackpots.

Every theist in the world is obviously delusional, but he doesn't just debate "crackpots". The link I gave above is him arguing with Oxford Professor Alistair McGrath, one of the world's foremost religious apologists. Actually, Alistair McGrath isn't really the best example of someone who isn't a crackpot. Here he is with the Bishop of Oxford!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZf3jdRYRw

Oh, yea of deficient palates. :shake:

:D

Each to their own and all that!

[jackenape]

Oh, come on now, there is a world of difference between old wives' tales and organised religion. Old wives' tales are not responsible for the wholesale subjugation of rational thinking in many parts of the world; it takes the organised buffoonery of religion to do that.
So it IS specifically about religion, and NOT about the spread of inane myths.

See? Vendetta. :D

So he certainly has considered the possibility.
We all say a lot about ourselves without ever really having giving it any thought. Honestly, does he really strike you as someone who has ever believed? Especially considering his complete disregard for what belief is to people?

And as for reviewing "proofs", have you ever read The God Delusion? He goes through the lot, showing them up to be a load of complete bunkum.
I don't have any arguments with his science, but for a believer, "proof" isn't always a tangible thing.

Actually, Alistair McGrath isn't really the best example of someone who isn't a crackpot. Here he is with the Bishop of Oxford!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzZf3jdRYRw
Considering the turns the Church of England has taken of late, I'm not really ready to lay down an anti-crackpot amnesty on CE leaders at the moment.

Each to their own and all that!
Infidel.

[Mr. DNA]

So it IS specifically about religion, and NOT about the spread of inane myths.

See? Vendetta. :D

Some inane myths are more harmful than others, though. Anyway, some myths are worth holding onto. Bonnie Prince Charlie was not, so I'm told, the patriotic champion of Scotland that the romantic poetry and folk tales would have us believe, but the image of the swashbuckling Prince leading his Scots charges to their doom at the battle of Culloden is something that brings a tear to even my cynical eyes. The Loch Ness monster rocks! No, it is when these myths are taken, not with a pinch of salt, but with a steadfast and absolutist conviction, that they begin to spook the rational observer.

We all say a lot about ourselves without ever really having giving it any thought. Honestly, does he really strike you as someone who has ever believed? Especially considering his complete disregard for what belief is to people?

No, I don't find it hard to believe that he was a typical Anglican in his teens, plodding along in that very particular non-offensive and wishy-washy manner that is so typical of the C of E. Christ, I can remember praying to God that he'd give me the strength to stop masturbating, so concerned was I that I was damning my whole family to hell (no-one instructed me on the theological ramifications of masturbating, by the way, I must have come up with that lunacy myself).

As for his disregard for what faith is to people, what would you say that faith is to people? I'd say that it is a mistaken and persistent view of the nature of reality, held without evidence and contrary to all reason.

I don't have any arguments with his science, but for a believer, "proof" isn't always a tangible thing.

It's just too easy isn't it! Who needs proof when you've got an inward and personal conviction or "feeling" that there is "something more" to our existence than the physical world in which we live. It's just not good enough.

Considering the turns the Church of England has taken of late, I'm not really ready to lay down an anti-crackpot amnesty on CE leaders at the moment.

Hey, the only reason I included that confused old fruit was in the interests of keeping things balanced. C of E affiliations or not, he's a damn sight less ridiculous than the reprobates he debated at the likes of Liberty University...

[jackenape]

No, it is when these myths are taken, not with a pinch of salt, but with a steadfast and absolutist conviction, that they begin to spook the rational observer.
And also when they should be handled with the most care, and this man is almost literally the bull in the china shop. He's shown as much disdain for the beliefs of colleagues he purports to respect as he's shown for the Fred Phelps' of the world.

I agree with him in a general sense; I just don't agree with his methods or his excuses.

As for his disregard for what faith is to people, what would you say that faith is to people?
I'd say it's something that a lot of people consider to be as much a part of them as any body part you can name, and I'd say his (lack of) style of attack drives even moderate believers further into an "us vs. them" mentality where "us" quickly becomes more and more dominated by the ideas of the crackpots.


It's just too easy isn't it! Who needs proof when you've got an inward and personal conviction or "feeling" that there is "something more" to our existence than the physical world in which we live. It's just not good enough.
We accept things without tangible proof all the time, more often than not just little things that make life life and not a constant walking dread. It's just a matter of scale.

[Mr. DNA]

And also when they should be handled with the most care, and this man is almost literally the bull in the china shop. He's shown as much disdain for the beliefs of colleagues he purports to respect as he's shown for the Fred Phelps' of the world.

When the beliefs of (a very small minority) of his scientific colleagues amount to nothing more sophisticated than imaginary friends, how can he have anything but disdain for such beliefs? What is there to respect about such obvious fantasy?

I agree with him in a general sense; I just don't agree with his methods or his excuses.

Other than matter of factly asserting the sheer lunacy and folly of a belief in that for which there is no evidence, how else can we go about combating such delusions? It's clear that rational discussion is like water off a duck's back to a theist (admittedly, a generalisation), and so in light of this how do we go about convincing the afflicted that their entire world view is erroneous and highly ridiculous, without necessarily putting it as bluntly as that?

I'd say it's something that a lot of people consider to be as much a part of them as any body part you can name, and I'd say his (lack of) style of attack drives even moderate believers further into an "us vs. them" mentality where "us" quickly becomes more and more dominated by the ideas of the crackpots.

OK, but if these militant, no-holds-barred tactics are doomed to failure for the reasons you have stated, what are the alternatives, given that the religious do not seem to be swayed by cold, hard reasoning?

We accept things without tangible proof all the time, more often than not just little things that make life life and not a constant walking dread. It's just a matter of scale.

I'm not sure that we do accept things without tangible proof all the time. For example, love is often cited as something for which there is no rhyme or reason to, and it is sometimes seen as an example of that which we wholeheartedly ascribe to, without any rational explanation. However, (and I hope this love thing doesn't sound like too much of a strawman) we do indeed acquire evidence for why we might be "falling in love" (whatever that means) with someone, rather than someone else; a reciprocated lustful glance, for example, or noticing that someone's idiosyncrasies and quirks fit into our personal definition of what is "cute" or "adorable". We like certain kinds of music because, I think, we are conditioned at an early(ish) age to find certain rhythms or styles or ethoses more palatable than others. I grew up listening to hard rock, from the likes of Led Zeppelin to Nirvana, and I find myself gravitating towards in-your-face, powerful and yet melodic guitar-driven rock.

I'm rambling a lot of crap now, but I think that we are perfectly entitled to appreciate that which our senses are continually exposed to, be it the whimsical colours of a rainbow, the melodic chaos of garage rock, or the intoxicating pheromones of a love interest, whilst at the same time recognising that our appreciation is entirely subjective, and that it is our life experiences up until the present moment which constitute and account for our particular aesthetic preferences. We can appreciate things like music and colours and flowers and women, whilst remaining aware that our views are subjective, and necessarily not the be all and end all, or based on tangible evidence. This does not give us free reign to start believing in imaginary friends, and expect other people to "respect" such wanton tripe!

[Madamadam]

Sorry to interrupt...

Oooh, you dirty little deck stacker you. There are a thousand and one examples of little fire and brimstone churches that teach a petty, angry, vengeful God, but they don't count because they're not McChurches that owe their existence to NOT teaching the more divisive parts of the Bible. How slickly obvious of you.

The big churches better represent mainstream Christianity than those little ones. Those thousand and one churches are ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament that teaches a God of Love. Again, it's better to go to the source...

You do realize that I'm the only one in this conversation that actually has given specific examples of...well...anything.

...The source is here at these seminaries. You want specific examples? Here they are:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=seminary+doctrinal+statement

[jackenape]

What is there to respect about such obvious fantasy?[/qutoe]
I didn't say respect the belief; I said respect that it is a belief.

[quote]OK, but if these militant, no-holds-barred tactics are doomed to failure for the reasons you have stated, what are the alternatives, given that the religious do not seem to be swayed by cold, hard reasoning?
Education and patience. A lot of patience. Dawkins and his kind always try to start from the top and work their way down. That's worked...uh...well, not at all. You educate the children, something that's going to be impossible to do if you send the parents scrambling with them into the fallout shelter.

I'm not sure that we do accept things without tangible proof all the time.
Sure we do. We believe we'll wake up in the morning. We believe we're not going to be stabbed by some punk on the street over pocket change. We believe the pint in our hands isn't going to be the final straw on our liver. It's all a bunch of small things, but it adds up. Some people just put a name to it.

The big churches better represent mainstream Christianity than those little ones. Those thousand and one churches are ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament that teaches a God of Love. Again, it's better to go to the source...
Well, nice to see you agree with me. So does that mean you admit the fallacy of your original argument?

You gotta admit it: that was slick.

...The source is here at these seminaries. You want specific examples? Here they are:

:rotfl:

The first one that comes up is the Dallas Theological Seminary, which specifically states that students only need to agree with their seven principals, none of which state "God is good". THAT'S fuggin' funny.

[Mr. DNA]

I didn't say respect the belief; I said respect that it is a belief.

I'm not sure that I'm with you here. Are you saying that because someone chooses to believe in something, then we must respect their belief in such a way as to tip-toe around the matter, without ever doing anything as brash or heartless as directly questioning the basis upon which the belief is held? That when someone's thoughts and ideas are such that they constitute a belief, we should necessarily choose not to engage the individual in an argument over the reasons for their holding their belief? Isn't that what "ye of little faith" has been doing for thousands of years? And look how far it's got us.

Education and patience. A lot of patience. Dawkins and his kind always try to start from the top and work their way down. That's worked...uh...well, not at all. You educate the children, something that's going to be impossible to do if you send the parents scrambling with them into the fallout shelter.

I understand this way of thinking; why alienate the very people you are hoping to reach out to by straight-up calling them and their beliefs irrational? However, how do we go about educating "the children" in the ways of empirical evidence, reasoning and rationality, if they are being fed a constant diet of bull**** and irrationality in their homes? Do you not think that there's any worth at all in prominent men (and women) of learning speaking out about the preponderance of irrational modes of thinking that are hampering the quality of human life on virtually every country on the planet? I fear that if we hang around being "patient", the problem of religion and the ingrained and indoctrinated belief in fictitious entities, will continue to be the norm far into the latter part of this century and beyond.

Surely the only way to educate people about the problem is by confronting it head on; to have folk write their books, and attend conferences, and generally argue the case for clarity and reason. Our arguments are the better of the two, by a country mile, and the religious will never be able to confront the deep intrinsic lunacy of their irrational belief unless they are exposed to the straight dope of why they are mistaken.

Sure we do. We believe we'll wake up in the morning. We believe we're not going to be stabbed by some punk on the street over pocket change. We believe the pint in our hands isn't going to be the final straw on our liver. It's all a bunch of small things, but it adds up. Some people just put a name to it.

We believe we'll wake up in the morning because it's happened every other morning of our lives so far. We have evidence to fall back on. We believe we're not going to be mugged because it has never happened before. Why should today be any different? The pint of lager in our hands has never done us much harm before.... etc etc. Our life experiences are responsible for constituting our everyday beliefs, but unlike religious belief we at least have some evidence, albeit grainy and patchy, with which to form our tentative conclusions. Religious belief doesn't work that way. There's no evidence, however, sketchy, to fall back on. It's just dumb, mind-numbing belief for the sake of believing, without any mode of reference, whatsoever, with which to back it up.

[jackenape]

I'm not sure that I'm with you here. Are you saying that because someone chooses to believe in something, then we must respect their belief in such a way as to tip-toe around the matter, without ever doing anything as brash or heartless as directly questioning the basis upon which the belief is held? That when someone's thoughts and ideas are such that they constitute a belief, we should necessarily choose not to engage the individual in an argument over the reasons for their holding their belief?
I didn't say that at all. It's the difference between effectual questioning of a belief and ineffectual attacking it.

I understand this way of thinking; why alienate the very people you are hoping to reach out to by straight-up calling them and their beliefs irrational? However, how do we go about educating "the children" in the ways of empirical evidence, reasoning and rationality, if they are being fed a constant diet of bull**** and irrationality in their homes?
You start small. Explain half-lifes, the fallacies of irreducible complexity, the reasonings for the development of morals, all the small stuff that always seems to get in the way of anything meaningful. Don't attack the belief, but give them the ability to look at from something more than a dogmatic perspective in a piecemeal way that doesn't raise red heresy flags.

Do you not think that there's any worth at all in prominent men (and women) of learning speaking out about the preponderance of irrational modes of thinking that are hampering the quality of human life on virtually every country on the planet?
Only to other learned men and women that already agree with them.

Our arguments are the better of the two, by a country mile, and the religious will never be able to confront the deep intrinsic lunacy of their irrational belief unless they are exposed to the straight dope of why they are mistaken.
Yeah, and when believers find themselves lost in the Great Multisyllabic Wars, who are they going to turn to for answers?

Religious belief doesn't work that way. There's no evidence, however, sketchy, to fall back on. It's just dumb, mind-numbing belief for the sake of believing, without any mode of reference, whatsoever, with which to back it up.
God is and always has been. Generations of belief, feelings, and teachings back it up. There's never not been a God before, why wouldn't there be one now. Doesn't really seem all that different to me, aside from the lineage.

[Madamadam]

Well, nice to see you agree with me. So does that mean you admit the fallacy of your original argument?

You gotta admit it: that was slick.

No, the fact the NT describes a God of love is the very thing that creates the contradiction of his existence with the presence of evil. :duh: It gives relevance to my argument.

:rotfl:

The first one that comes up is the Dallas Theological Seminary, which specifically states that students only need to agree with their seven principals, none of which state "God is good". THAT'S fuggin' funny.

Some of them say it outright, some of them don't. That first one though specifically says:

We believe that the Godhead eternally exists in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and that these three are one God, having precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and obedience (Matt. 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 1:1–3; Rev. 1:4–6).

That directly implies omniproperties.

That's what they teach and students will tend to agree with it.

It doesn't matter if they're not forced to agree. A universal agreement from the beginning would be pretty much impossible to believe after all.

edit: impossible to create

I didn't say that at all. It's the difference between effectual questioning of a belief and ineffectual attacking it.

I like that idea, but I feel that there is a place for both attacking and questioning. Questioning is a good place to start and disproofs seal the deal. That's how it worked with me anyway.

It doesn't matter if they're not forced to agree.

Forgot to mention that the teachers are forced to agree with the full statement.

[jackenape]

No, the fact the NT describes a God of love is the very thing that creates the contradiction of his existence with the presence of evil. :duh: It gives relevance to my argument.
Or, if you choose to read it as a story, it shows a maturing God, in which case there is no contradiction.

It doesn't matter if they're not forced to agree. A universal agreement from the beginning would be pretty much impossible to believe after all.
But all real Christians believe the same thing.

^^ That's your line, by the way.

But why is it, exactly, that suddenly missions statements don't mean anything?

Forgot to mention that the teachers are forced to agree with the full statement.
Let me quote:

"He became and remained a perfect man, but sinless throughout His life; yet He retained His absolute deity, being at the same time very God and very man..."

Always God, always man, He still had to become perfect. Your argument falls apart on this one.

[Madamadam]

Or, if you choose to read it as a story, it shows a maturing God, in which case there is no contradiction.

If you go by that, you are saying that at some point in the past, God did not care if his creations suffered and died. That's just plain unacceptable as it contradicts Genesis. God was creating a "good" universe as the word is repeatedly stated after each creation day. Pointless suffering was excluded.

Let me quote:

"He became and remained a perfect man, but sinless throughout His life; yet He retained His absolute deity, being at the same time very God and very man..."

Always God, always man, He still had to become perfect. Your argument falls apart on this one.

You're misunderstanding that. "Becoming" refers to God incarnating himself in the flesh. It doesn't refer to growing as a person morally. Being sinless throughout his life means that he was perfect from birth.

[jackenape]

If you go by that, you are saying that at some point in the past, God did not care if his creations suffered and died. That's just plain unacceptable as it contradicts Genesis. God was creating a "good" universe as the word is repeatedly stated after each creation day. Pointless suffering was excluded.
"Good" isn't "flawless."

You're misunderstanding that. "Becoming" refers to God incarnating himself in the flesh. It doesn't refer to growing as a person morally. Being sinless throughout his life means that he was perfect from birth.
An important part of the story is Satan's attempted temptation of Jesus. You can't tempt something that's perfect.

[Madamadam]

"Good" isn't "flawless."

The point was that pointless suffering was excluded from the original universe because God did not want it there (being a good being).


An important part of the story is Satan's attempted temptation of Jesus. You can't tempt something that's perfect.

And Jesus never even considered sinning. You're equivocating here, Jesus was tempted in the sense that Satan was trying to convince him to do things, not that he actually felt tempted to sin.

[jackenape]

The point was that pointless suffering was excluded from the original universe because God did not want it there (being a good being).
An absence of pointless suffering for two people so long as they followed His rules. Paul Harvey would be so disappointed in you.

And Jesus never even considered sinning. You're equivocating here, Jesus was tempted in the sense that Satan was trying to convince him to do things, not that he actually felt tempted to sin.
So why would Satan bother? Why would it be worth mentioning? And how does that play into Jesus' two (that were written about) sins (thievery and anger)?

[Madamadam]

An absence of pointless suffering for two people so long as they followed His rules. Paul Harvey would be so disappointed in you.

Still, he could have made sure the rules were followed.

So why would Satan bother? Why would it be worth mentioning? And how does that play into Jesus' two (that were written about) sins (thievery and anger)?

Why would Satan bother? Maybe that's just what he does. Maybe it was worth mentioning because it supposedly happened. I'm not going to try to get around Jesus' two sins, maybe a theologian would.:shrug:

[jackenape]

We've had that discussion before, an unanswered(able?) question, and nothing that requires a reply. HolycrapI'mout! :umm:

:party2:

[The_Mess]

Impartially ruling jack the winner, due to making the obviously only sane choice.

All subsequent discussion is now mute, m'kay? Dissenters will be shot/clue-batted with metaphysics and short lucid descriptions of why proving/disproving any entities etc is realistically and philosophically impossible.

[Madamadam]

All subsequent discussion is now mute, m'kay? Dissenters will be shot/clue-batted with metaphysics and short lucid descriptions of why proving/disproving any entities etc is realistically and philosophically impossible.

We were having that discussion in "Does God exsist" but no one's replied to me in a few days. We could continue it here if you want.

Like I was saying there, logically impossible entities can be disproven.

Impartially ruling jack the winner, due to making the obviously only sane choice.

And what is that choice exactly? Reducing God past his traditionally held properties?

[Madamadam]

This is the exchange between me and Quixotron in Does God Exist (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=541808)

I would want to know how we can prove or disorve something that may or maynot exist? also, do we have the instruments to detect a god? i an an electrical engineer and i use scopes, spectrum analyzer to detect voltage signals. But my point is, how do we kow if something is there unless we're looking for it and how will we capture a measurement?


Logic works. If a proposition creates a contradiction with the reality of the universe, the proposition must be false. That's how it works with God.

That's how it works with God.

I mean that mostly. As in when it comes to traditional types of gods. Some gods are logically possible. In those cases you could create experiments like seeing if the god answers prayers or intervenes in any number of ways.

That covers most Gods, leaving one more and that's the Deist God. Good luck trying to detect him.


I am going to have to disagree respectfully on the first part. Logic can only go so far as with the current sets of thinking and rational explanation of a society in that particular time. there are many mysteries to unlock and data to uncover, we can only yhten refine our logic until then.

Logic is based anyways on powers of observation and reasoning and confirmed through testing, measuring and deriving equations/principles to model a system/deity. And to tweak that model to arrive at an estimation that bests aproximates the original plant.

Granted, in the past, ideas once considered illogical are now logical in the light of new discoveries in science and other areas (the concepts of evolution would probably not have been considered logical hundreds of years ago). However, when something is just so plainly obvious like the Problems of Evil, Confusion, and Non-belief, using logic to assert absolute proof is acceptable. For example, If we define a square as a polygon with four equal and perpendicular sides, we can use logic to prove that a drawing is a square by making appropriate measurements. If we define God with omniproperties, then by making objective observations of reality we can prove such a being is unrealistic.

If the claims are made that God is evil/good, just/merciful, immutable/omniscient/loving, omniscient/free/omnibenevolent at the same time, those are logical contradictions. It's like claiming that you know knowledge is impossible.

The Problem of Evil is not going to go away. It is has been called "The Rock of Atheism" and it represents one of the strongest disproofs against the traditional concept of God.

[Tim!]

I am just going to be broad and blunt for a second. I think that it would be extremely stupid to think that there is no God. I mean look at the bible and the 100 or so prophecies that it fulfilled. Plus you got the dead sea scrolls which tell you that most of this stuff was found (remeber this just has some stuff from the bible in no way was this the "first" bible) in 300-100 BC, so the reasoning of "oh they just wrote that later" is out of the picture.
8. Israel would be restored and repopulated
Bible passage: Ezekiel 36:8-10
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Ezekiel 36:8-10, the prophet Ezekiel said that the people of Israel would return, rebuild and repopulate their fallen cities. Ezekiel, according to the Bible, lived about 2600 years ago during the time of the Babylonian Captivity, when many Jews, including Ezekiel, were taken as captives to Babylon. After the Babylonian Captivity ended, many Jews returned to their homeland. But about 1900 years ago, the Jews again were forced into exile, this time by the Romans. However, since the late 1800s, millions of Jews have returned to their ancient homeland. And, once again, they have been rebuilding and repopulating their ancient cities. In 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews living in Israel. Today there are about 6,000,000.

Ezekiel 36:8-10
"`But you, O mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, and I will multiply the number of people upon you, even the whole house of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt.

http://www.100prophecies.org/page1.htm. God or no God try and find another book that has all there prophecies correct.

[jackenape]

All right. Go through all one hundred examples and give us a list of which are real prophecies, "apocalyptic prophecies" (passages written to appear to be prophecies, but were in actuality written at the time the "fulfillments" were already occurring), and prophecies that were "fulfilled" only by the most imaginative swerving (wrong time, wrong place, literal prophecies with non-literal fulfillments and vice versa). In other words, take the history, context, and purpose of the passages and actually apply them to the understanding of those passages.

Or, you know...don't. That's what the writers of that site have done, and they provide the answers you want.

[Tim!]

Or, you know...don't. That's what the writers of that site have done, and they provide the answers you want.So what? I mean on every pro-atheism site it is the same thing. They give the readers the evidence they want. Why should a christian site site be called out? Remember that huge list of contradictions on a thread awhile back. That was from a atheist views giving reasons why the bible is wrong. However all of them were debunked. Same principle an atheist is giving atheists examples that they want... However it is always the pro atheists that get praised and the Christians getting short changed.

[jackenape]

So what? I mean on every pro-atheism site it is the same thing. They give the readers the evidence they want. Why should a christian site site be called out?
How Christian is lying to prove your point?

To answer your question, all of them should be called out. The nature of bullsh*t isn't changed by the slinger's faith.

Remember that huge list of contradictions on a thread awhile back. That was from a atheist views giving reasons why the bible is wrong. However all of them were debunked.
No, a few were. Most weren't even discussed, and at least some are contradictions.

[Madamadam]

I am just going to be broad and blunt for a second. I think that it would be extremely stupid to think that there is no God. I mean look at the bible and the 100 or so prophecies that it fulfilled. Plus you got the dead sea scrolls which tell you that most of this stuff was found (remeber this just has some stuff from the bible in no way was this the "first" bible) in 300-100 BC, so the reasoning of "oh they just wrote that later" is out of the picture.

http://www.100prophecies.org/page1.htm. God or no God try and find another book that has all there prophecies correct.

Not particularly impressed with that website:sleepy:

The Bible does not have all it's prophecies fullfilled. I'll list a few failed prophecies below. Not only that, but there are places in the Bible like Daniel 11 which is an entire chapter containing extremely specific prophecies which have been shown to have been written after the fact (written in the future tense while actually being written from a historical viewpoint) with the exception of verses 40-45 in which the author really does attempt to predict the future. None of those prophecies came true however which is unfortunate for the position of people who hold the Bible to be inerrant. Then there is the story of Judas' death. This was an allegedly fulfilled prophecy (the thirty pieces of silver and a potter's field), but we see two very different accounts of the same story between Acts and Matthew. That alone makes it obvious that the stories were being made up to fit the prophecy rather than their being an actual account of history.

So we see two prominent kinds of prophecy fabrication present in the Bible:
1. The prophecy was written after the fulfillment.
2. The fulfillment was fictional.

Then there's the third category in which a Bible prophecy does seem to have actually come true. It's the same way many of Nostradamus' prophecies have come true:
3. Simple coincidence or misinterpretation

Here are a few failed prophecies:

1. According to Ge 2:17, Adam will die the same day that he eats the fruit, but that did not come about, since, according to Ge 5:5, Adam lived to age 930. [Note that the same Hebrew word for "die" is used as elsewhere in the Old Testament, standing for physical death.]

2. According to Ge 4:12,14, Cain will be a fugitive and a vagabond, and constantly subject to assassination, but that did not come about, for, according to Ge 4:16-17, Cain had a wife and family, and lived in the same area all his life, and built a city.

3. According to Jos 17:17-18, Ephraim and Manasseh will drive out the Canaanites, but according to Jg 1:27-29, they did not drive out the Canaanites.

4. Jer 34:5 prophesied that Zedekiah will die in peace, but according to 2Ki 25:7 and Jer 52:10-11, that did not happen. Instead, he saw his sons killed, was carried off in chains, blinded, and eventually died in prison.

5. Am 7:17 prophesied that Amaziah's sons will die by the sword, but according to 2Ch 26:1,21, Amaziah's son Uzziah died of leprosy.


These are some of the failed prophecies listed and/or explored in this article:The Argument from the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html) by Theodore Drange
Please take the time to read the entire article if you have a genuine interest in the Bible.

As far as it being stupid to think that there is no God. I can see how it can be philosophically unjustifiable to disprove all Gods. But I see nothing stupid about being smart enough not to get suckered into believing in fairytale religions. It's so easy for people like you to say that Zeus and the Greek gods or Ra and Egyptian gods are myths, but when it comes to Christianity or whatever religion they come from, they fool themselves when they stand and assert "My religion is the truth! Everyone else is wrong!"

I'd like to explore some other ways God could have prevented evil. Here's one that I thought of just now:

God prevents the bad consequences of our actions. Say you steal an apple from the lunch box of one of your classmates/co-workers. God could make an identical apple appear in his lunch box. Or say you kill someone that you don't like for some irrational reason (you wouldn't have a good reason to hate if god prevents negative consequences), God could bring that person back to life.

Biblically, this could have been done in the Garden of Eden. God could have made it so that the knowledge in the fruit from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was indigestible by humans (like cellulose). That way, it wouldn't matter if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they would still remain ignorant of the difference between good and evil. The fall would have been prevented and choice would have been preserved.

[jackenape]

Dude, it's time to let go. The thread had a good run (and a really, really long stretch of bad run), but it's over now. Let it have its dignity.

[Madamadam]

Well I was actually trying to conclude it with that post with the excerpt from "Does God Exsist?" but Tim wanted to be starting something. So we started, Heeeheee!

*Michael Jackson reference