Bill Mahar's atheistic arguments

[ateista]

Mickey has answered well, God is Love. If you want that explained, you need to read the work. It just can’t be boiled down without making some gross over-simplifications and glossing over quite a bit.

Unfortunately the assertion that God is love is probably the most unacceptable one among all the ones I read so far. A loving and caring being actually helps the ones in need. This is what we are urged (commanded) to do.

This life is the only one we know, even though you believe that there is another one. In this life there is no sign of a loving and caring God. God could prevent both the natural and moral evils, if he wanted to. He does not. Therefore in my book, God - if exists - is indifferent to our suffering.

The only possible explanation to that is each and every piece of suffering is logically necessary to achieve some greater good. The phrase “logically necessary” means that even God’s omnipotence is insufficient to achieve that greater good, if even a miniscule amount of suffering would be prevented. If only one rape would not happen, if only one murder would not take place, if only one child-abuse would be prevented, God’s “plan” would be thwarted.

Maybe you could summarize the linked article in a few paragraphs. If your summary would whet my appetite, then I will go and read the whole works.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There are no “generic” principles. Insects and mammals are vastly different.

DNA is DNA.

“Verdana”]About 2-3% different from the great apes. That is still a lot of genes.

Odd. I never see that emphasized.

I didn’t get cured of evolution off at Oral Roberts: I studied it at the University of Chicago. The story didn’t add up.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, and I did not intend to. It was just an example of emergent attributes.

“Life” is defined as: “complex responses to complex stimuli” - nothing less, nothing more. The difference between living and inanimate matter is more of a personal preference, than an objective distinction.

LOL. Necrophilia.

Some biologists (who are the arbiters of “living” creature
) consider viruses “alive”, while some others do not.

Yes, some of those “arbiters” can’t decide that a human fetus is a person.

Let me contend for the sake of argument that a piece of rock in my garden is alive. It eats, procreates, conducts long philosophical discussions with its peers. Unfortunately for us, it lives on a very different time-scale. One second of its life equals 100 years of our lives. So there is no way to decide - unless many millions of human generations would sacrifice their whole life observing this rock move. So prove to me that it is NOT alive.

I rather do something practical, like proving to you that Jesus is alive.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Islam is spreading in some parts of the world. Christianity is on the decline - generally. In Europe the churches are near empty.

Europe is nearly empty, why should their Churches be different?

In the Middle East, we don’t have empty church problem, the same here in the US.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Did you read the sequence of posts you reply to? I asked why could not God simply forgive our “sins”. Why did he resort to this elaborate “self-sacrifice”?

God was in Christ, reconcilling the World unto Himself.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That’s an interesting theory but it doesn’t account for one thing. Jesus has this habit of touching peoples lives like He did with mine. Out of the blue one day He appeared and I’m not entirely sure it was physical, but he asked me one question which was “Will you let me love you?” to which I responded “yes”. My entire being was flooded with love, joy, peace, forgiveness and bliss. It was an unsolicited singular event in my life that I have not been able to reproduce with drugs or thinking about it or desiring it to happen again.

Was it a psychotic break? perhaps… or it was real? I wasn’t expecting it nor did I ask for it, it just happened and it was a life changing experience.

Just for the record I work on a psych unit and have been around a lot of delusional patients that have had psychotic breaks, and the ones that I have seen normally are filled with paranoia where voices tell them to harm themselves or others or both. They normally have to be physically taken down and restrained because they become violent or totally non compliant. That is normal in a psychotic break. The voices they hear usually persist, but can be lessened with meds but usually not eliminated.They normally don’t get admitted to the hospital because they’ve had an experience of astounding well being which is what I experienced. My experience lasted about 20 minutes. There isn’t an argument an atheist can make that can negate that experience.

I heard Maher mention horace, and I’ve thought about that a bit. The only place horace, osiris, mithra and others exist today is in textbooks and the arguments of atheists. Jesus on the other hand exists in peoples lives in a transformational way of love and peace. People really are touched by Him and have their lives transformed by Him. That’s why there are churches all over the world today for Jesus Christ and no churches or very few for the others. The roman persecution isn’t the only thing that accounts for the rise of Christianity. Lives touched and transformed are another reason for the rise of Christianity, and as far as I’m concerned the primary reason Christianity survived the roman persecution.

Anyone see the response of that one (Sherry? I don’t usual watch, so I am not up on the names) to Maher: "You are asking all these people what they think about God.

Have you asked God?"

Maher was stumped, which doesn’t happen often.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Unfortunately the assertion that God is love is probably the most unacceptable one among all the ones I read so far. A loving and caring being actually helps the ones in need. This is what we are urged (commanded) to do.

This life is the only one we know, even though you believe that there is another one. In this life there is no sign of a loving and caring God. God could prevent both the natural and moral evils, if he wanted to. He does not. Therefore in my book, God - if exists - is indifferent to our suffering.

So you are willing to trade in your free will.

No deal. God is not a giant puppeteer.

The only possible explanation to that is each and every piece of suffering is logically necessary to achieve some greater good. The phrase “logically necessary” means that even God’s omnipotence is insufficient to achieve that greater good, if even a miniscule amount of suffering would be prevented. If only one rape would not happen, if only one murder would not take place, if only one child-abuse would be prevented, God’s “plan” would be thwarted.

Disturbed.

The only murder necessary in God’s plan was God’s own.

Maybe you could summarize the linked article in a few paragraphs. If your summary would whet my appetite, then I will go and read the whole works.

 

[Newbie2]

If only those stupid Romans did not persecute the early Christians, there would be no Christianity today.

That, methinks is a non sequitur.

Thank you, ateista, for making us stronger. Thank you for helping assure that there will be Christianity in the future. :V

I second that. Maybe in a couple thousand years someone will say, “If only those stupid athiests didn’t mock and ridicule those twenty-first century Christians, there would be no Christianity today”.

 

[ateista]

So you are willing to trade in your free will.

Nonsense. I do not want to go into the free will debate again, but you can look up a few threads in the Philosophy section, where the so called “free will” defense is completely and totally demolished. The existence of free will only allows for the possibility of moral evil, but does not explain the actuality of it. And none of it explains the non-moral (natural) evil.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Nonsense. I do not want to go into the free will debate again, but you can look up a few threads in the Philosophy section, where the so called “free will” defense is completely and totally demolished.

Why don’t you post a link to these arguments that “demolish” the “free will defense.”

The existence of free will only allows for the possibility of moral evil,

That’s enough. Some will, and have, chosen wrongly.

but does not explain the actuality of it

Some have exercised, abused actually, the freedom to chose, and chosen wrongly.

And none of it explains the non-moral (natural) evil.

Only if you think man is a being isolated from the universe.

 

[ateista]

Why don’t you post a link to these arguments that “demolish” the “free will defense.”

Here is one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=258493&highlight=seekingcatholic

That’s enough. Some will, and have, chosen wrongly.

Some have exercised, abused actually, the freedom to chose, And chosen wrongly.

But not as a logical necessity! The point is this: God could have instantiated a world where everyone has free will and no one “abuses” it.

Though it has nothing to do with my post in which I say that God could have “bypassed” this existence and created everyone directly in heaven, so that everyone would enjoy the eternal bliss - which is supposed to be God’s wish. Your attempt to derail from this point by falsely appealing to free will is null and void.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here is one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=258493&highlight=seekingcatholic

But not as a logical necessity! The point is this: God could have instantiated a world where everyone has free will and no one “abuses” it.

LOL. Like the scene in the Life of Brian, where the crowd repeats in a trance “We are all individuals,” and the lone dissenter says “I’M not.”

Though it has nothing to do with my post in which I say that God could have “bypassed” this existence and created everyone directly in heaven, so that everyone would enjoy the eternal bliss - which is supposed to be God’s wish. Your attempt to derail from this point by falsely appealing to free will is null and void.

Well, I guess Rome has spoken.

The Bride of Christ is not a Stepford wife.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Maybe you could summarize the linked article in a few paragraphs. If your summary would whet my appetite, then I will go and read the whole works.

I’ll try (Isa, you can correct anything you see amiss) - but bear in mind that this will most likely be missing quite a bit.

Due to the fall of Adam, our nature has been corrupted. It has been distorted from its original glory as God had created it. This was due to the sin of Adam, who stood as it were as a proxy for all of mankind.

In order for our nature to be restored, God came down from Heaven and took on our nature so as to re-create it former splendor. And more than that, He elevated it beyond that for us to truly enjoy eternity with Him.

–I was right, there is so much missing there (all those details and such). Please, I urge you to read the entire work.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ll try (Isa, you can correct anything you see amiss) - but bear in mind that this will most likely be missing quite a bit.

Due to the fall of Adam, our nature has been corrupted. It has been distorted from its original glory as God had created it. This was due to the sin of Adam, who stood as it were as a proxy for all of mankind.

In order for our nature to be restored, God came down from Heaven and took on our nature so as to re-create it former splendor. And more than that, He elevated it beyond that for us to truly enjoy eternity with Him.

–I was right, there is so much missing there (all those details and such). Please, I urge you to read the entire work.

The one line associated with St. Athanasius: God became man so that man could become like God.

For God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness: nor could one that is good be niggardly of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord. And among these, having taken special pity, above all things on earth, upon the race of men, and having perceived its inability, by virtue of the condition of its origin, to continue in one stay, He gave them a further gift, and He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise. 4. But knowing once more how the will of man could sway to either side, in anticipation He secured the grace given them by a law and by the spot where He placed them. For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature
Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king

cont.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. So, as the rational creatures were wasting and such works in course of ruin, what was God in His goodness to do? Suffer corruption to prevail against them and death to hold them fast? And where were the profit of their having been made, to begin with? For better were they not made, than once made, left to neglect and ruin. 8. For neglect reveals weakness, and not goodness on God’s part— if, that is, He allows His own work to be ruined when once He had made it— more so than if He had never made man at all. 9. For if He had not made them, none could impute weakness; but once He had made them, and created them out of nothing, it were most monstrous for the work to be ruined, and that before the eyes of the Maker. 10. It was, then, out of the question to leave men to the current of corruption; because this would be unseemly, and unworthy of God’s goodness.
   But just as this consequence must needs hold, so, too, on the other side the just claims of God lie against it: that God should appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death. For it were monstrous for God, the Father of truth, to appear a liar for our profit and preservation. 2. So here, once more, what possible course was God to take? To demand repentance of men for their transgression? For this one might pronounce worthy of God; as though, just as from transgression men have become set towards corruption, so from repentance they may once more be set in the way of incorruption. 3. But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God. For He would still be none the more true, if men did not remain in the grasp of death; nor, secondly, does repentance call men back from what is their nature— it merely stays them from acts of sin. 4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought? 5. For His it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery— lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought— He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear . For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father— doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire .

Btw, the whole work is 37 pages long.