Help with a God debate

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

Here is what he said. Be warned, it hits home.

"The reason I don’t believe in god, Lathan, is because I don’t want to believe someone, something could sit there and make some guy millions in America, help the touchdown in a sports game or similar while allowing the poor to go hungry, allowing them to go homeless. Allowing Children in Africa to die of diseases long since treated by science.
Allows parents to beat their children while burns same relation couples who love their child in hell.
Allows preventative aid to be stolen by the governments of the countries it’s trying to help.
Allows crimes of faith in other countries to go unpunished.
Prevents a gay man from being part of church yet allows the raping of young boys.

No, I refuse to believe that one so evil as this exists. I refuse to believe that god would sit idly by while atrocities such as this happen.

There is only one thing that makes a difference in this world, and that is doing something.
God/Praying doesn’t/didn’t:
Make the Cancer treatments, science did.
Save that guy from heart failure, the surgeon did.
Save that lady from a hostage scenario, the policeman did.
Save that kid who’s trapped in a house fire, the fireman did.
Give me an education, my teacher did.

Everytime something happens in this world, it’s because somebody does something. The only gods in this world are the creatures that do something to change it."

I basically told him about God giving us all free will, and that sometimes people do bad things that have negative consequences. I was pretty upset and that was all that I could think of, and I feel that what I said wasn’t enough.
The more I think about it, things would be A LOT EASIER if God still smite’d people like he did in the old days.

 

[Timothysis]

I certainly wish that atheists could come up with something new instead of trotting out the same old argument time and time again.

It basically comes down to “If I was God, I would _______ and everything and everyone would be great.”

If a person doesn’t have at least a superficial depth of philosophical/theological understanding, then they are never going to get past square 1. It is like a child in a grocery store who cries and wails because mom and dad won’t get them anything and everything they want. The child does not have the understanding that when mom and dad say “no,” it is for his their own good. It is the same with God. If God doesn’t say “yes” to your prayers and supplications, then there must be a good reason for it. Of course, for the atheist, if they were God they would say “yes” to everyone and everything. I wonder how long it would take them to realize that “yes” isn’t always the best answer? What your atheist friend does not take into account with the surgeon, policeman, teacher and fireman is that the duty to serve others is part of the virtue of charity…and from where does that come from? If we truly are just a product of unguided, accidental evolution, how do we understand and practice the duty to serve and help others?

I’ve yet to hear an atheist position that has any meat to it; it’s all emotion.

 

[polytropos]

Argument from evil is all emotion. It does not actually demonstrate internal inconsistency in religion. It is easy, however, to stack up a ton of awful scenarios and it looks like a pretty strong case.

Explaining it using free will is often disregarded as a cop out. Is it? One need only posit the world in which God does prevent evil. You are permitted to will and do good, but you are only permitted to will evil; you can never do evil. It is pretty clear that when you lack the potency to do evil, you do not have the choice to do evil. You do not have free will and love ceases to be freely given. The world in which God prevents all evil is a prison, in which the prisoners can will all the evil they want but can perform none. Learned helplessness says they eventually stop willing.

Constant intervention to prevent evil is nonsensical anyway. God has created a coherent reality. At what point should he choose to suspend it? When people are committing genocide? When people are murdering? When people are torturing? When people are stealing? When people are being mean? Any standard would be arbitrary. Not worth doing when the evil does not cause any issue for the economy of salvation.

The problem of evil is a visceral justification for ignoring God. It is an attempt at proof by contradiction that does not succeed.

 

[snarflemike]

Who cares if a microbe gets Cancer treatments?
Who cares if a microbe is saved from microbe heart failure?
Who cares if a microbe is saved from a hostage scenario?
Who cares if a microbe is saved from a house fire?
Who cares if a microbe gets an education?

If there is no God, and no immortal human soul, then we are just bigger microbes, using more of the planet’s resources. Why the heck should we prosper? Many people believe quite strongly that the planet would be better off if we were gone. We’re all going to suffer and die anyway. We’re just walking sacks of messy chemicals anyway. We have no meaning at all.

What does it even mean to care? It’s just electrical signals in a messy wet brain. Big deal. the universe doesn’t care about us. The planet doesn’t care about us. Nobody and nothing care about us. We’re just something that bubbled up out of the ooze. Big deal. Quit pretending that you have compassion, it’s all just electrical signals. The microbe that thinks it’s a god - what a laugh!

 

[ccmnxc]

I refuse to accept your God, therefore, your God doesn’t exist.

Seems legit to me…

To be honest, this comes across far more as an emotional problem of evil as opposed to logical or evidential. Of the three, emotional problem of evil is by far the toughest to combat.

 

[snarflemike]

To be honest, this comes across far more as an emotional problem of evil as opposed to logical or evidential. Of the three, emotional problem of evil is by far the toughest to combat.

I agree. What I can’t get past is the despair and nihilism in their position. They would rather have the suffering exist with no God and thus no possibility of unending joy down the line. Suffering, death, injustice, then nothing, rather than suffering, death, injustice, then perfect justice and unending joy. They devalue the very suffering and injustice they say they care about.

 

[surritter]

Your atheist friend has said, “I refuse to believe that one so evil as this exists.” He is confused: God does not create evil. But man’s refusal to follow God’s design is what causes the evil to exist.

It’s like running a stop sign and getting injured by the ensuing collision. Apparently your friend would blame the city for erecting the stop sign, rather than blame human disobedience!

Of course, from there he may point out that the poor and hungry didn’t “run a stop sign” themselves. True, but that’s where original sin and the fallen nature of man comes in. (Look, he’s gonna want a pat answer and there isn’t one. But there is an answer, if he can take the time to study and learn about religion and philosophy.)

 

[chris62]

Ask him which theologian, apologist or biblical scholar he consulted before coming to these views.

Or has he only heard one side of the argument?

 

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

Firsty, I just want to say thank you to everyone that posted on this thread. I have a lot to think about in my apologetics work.

I refuse to accept your God, therefore, your God doesn’t exist.

Seems legit to me…

To be honest, this comes across far more as an emotional problem of evil as opposed to logical or evidential. Of the three, emotional problem of evil is by far the toughest to combat.

I agree. It makes me question God’s motives and will. You look at the Bible where God gives his disciples the power to preform Miracles in his name, and then take a look at the world we live in today. I wish he would give me a little power to do some miracles for the worlds we live in.

Your atheist friend has said, “I refuse to believe that one so evil as this exists.” He is confused: God does not create evil. But man’s refusal to follow God’s design is what causes the evil to exist.

It’s like running a stop sign and getting injured by the ensuing collision. Apparently your friend would blame the city for erecting the stop sign, rather than blame human disobedience!

Of course, from there he may point out that the poor and hungry didn’t “run a stop sign” themselves. True, but that’s where original sin and the fallen nature of man comes in. (Look, he’s gonna want a pat answer and there isn’t one. But there is an answer, if he can take the time to study and learn about religion and philosophy.)

Such wise words

Ask him which theologian, apologist or biblical scholar he consulted before coming to these views.

Or has he only heard one side of the argument?

Lol, I’m gonna chat with him again and get more understanding of his viewpoint.

 

[Innoruk]

I basically told him about God giving us all free will, and that sometimes people do bad things that have negative consequences. I was pretty upset and that was all that I could think of, and I feel that what I said wasn’t enough.

The so-called free will defense is one of the offered defenses. Here is a short list of the usual “defenses”. The tale of the twelve officers Enjoy! They expose the problems of all the different “defenses” in an allegorical form.

The more I think about it, things would be A LOT EASIER if God still smite’d people like he did in the old days.

You got that right! The idea of visible feedback is the cornerstone of all educational systems. Reward the good and punish the bad immediately. This is how we teach our children.

Argument from evil is all emotion. It does not actually demonstrate internal inconsistency in religion.

It certainly does show the problem of “benevolence” and actively committing / passively allowing all those unnecessary atrocities, the existence of which cannot be denied. You are mistaken if you think that there is any emotion involved here. It is a pure, cold logical problem. In a godless universe there would be no “problem of evil”.

Explaining it using free will is often disregarded as a cop out. Is it? One need only posit the world in which God does prevent evil. You are permitted to will and do good, but you are only permitted to will evil; you can never do evil. It is pretty clear that when you lack the potency to do evil, you do not have the choice to do evil.

I can hardly wait to see some catholic posters (Gorgias, are you there?) chiming in, and tell you that “free will” and “freedom to act” are two separate ideas. They argue that simply having the internal freedom to decide to do “evil” is the proper definition of “free will”, and the ability to carry out those definitions is not relevant. Obviously I agree with you, and disagree with them when it comes to the definition of free will.

Where we cease to agree is that in my opinion “our almost unlimited freedom to act” - is a very bad idea. It would be perfectly sufficient to have the freedom to “love God” or not (whatever “love” means in this respect). That would be enough to separate the goat from the sheep and fill up heaven and hell accordingly.

You do not have free will and love ceases to be freely given. The world in which God prevents all evil is a prison, in which the prisoners can will all the evil they want but can perform none. Learned helplessness says they eventually stop willing.

Which would be the same result as having a good, benevolent attitude being instilled in everyone in the first place. People would never wish to commit rapes (etc.) because the thought would never come to their mind. And even if such a thought would enter their mind, they would not want to put it into practice. What is wrong with this picture? Nothing. I am constantly amazed that believers argue for the existence of rapes, tortures, wars - in the name of the “almighty free will”!

Constant intervention to prevent evil is nonsensical anyway. God has created a coherent reality.

A very lousy reality. There is no logical reason to have all those negative instincts along with the positive ones. It is easy to imagine a much better reality, but that would be the topic of a different thread.

Finally, the “free will” defense is unable to explain the suffering coming from non-volitional causes (which are incorrectly called “natural evils”). The so-called problem of evil the perennial thorn in the side of christianity and no one could ever come up with a viable solution for it.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Innoruk - Is what you are wanting in human nature that which WAS before the ‘biting of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge’? Do you wish that the ‘genie’ would go back into the bottle - to a time before the ‘Ah Ha’ moment of awareness of what is right and wrong and the ability to choose? Do you wish us to go back into the ‘Garden of Eden’ - back to a state of naivety and amorality - indeed back to a state the rest of the animal kingdom express?

Once ‘we’ left the ‘Garden’ there was no going back - it is either Heaven [a very much better and higher place] or Heaven’s antithesis, Hell - those are now OUR CHOICES.

 

[Innoruk]

Innoruk - Is what you are wanting in human nature that which WAS before the ‘biting of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge’? Do you wish that the ‘genie’ would go back into the bottle - to a time before the ‘Ah Ha’ moment of awareness of what is right and wrong and the ability to choose? Do you wish us to go back into the ‘Garden of Eden’ - back to a state of naivety and amorality - indeed back to a state the rest of the animal kingdom express?

Not really, though I have nothing against that solution. My stance is different.

Let me hypothesize that you (personally) are completely capable of performing any of those heinous acts, but you simply do not want to do them, for whatever reason. Maybe it is your upbringing. Your freedom is there, but you do not wish to take certain actions. Am I right?

Your freedom is not contingent upon the actions of some sociopath, who is willing to commit those acts. If there would be no sociopaths at all, your freedom would be exactly as it is today. So the “free will” defense simply fails, along with all the other offered solutions.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Ah, but even ‘sociopathy’ is part of the rich panoply of ‘difference’ that makes up our collective human nature. Even for sociopaths there is of course the potential of redemption - “Father forgive them, for they know not [in completeness] what they do”.

Also, remember that very often good can be an outcome of the Holy Spirit working in and around those directly and indirectly affected by bad and evil.

Is it really our place and indeed position, with limited knowledge and fallible understanding to lay criticism to Divine planning and design?

 

[Innoruk]

Ah, but even ‘sociopathy’ is part of the rich panoply of ‘difference’ that makes up our collective human nature. Even for sociopaths there is of course the potential of redemption - “Father forgive them, for they know not [in completeness] what they do”.

Also, remember that very often good can be an outcome of the Holy Spirit working in and around those directly and indirectly affected by bad and evil.

Is it really our place and indeed position, with limited knowledge and fallible understanding to lay criticism to Divine planning and design?

None of these will resonate with an atheist.

Our human nature is not “set in stone”. Are you less human because you would decline to commit those acts? And as far as the victims are concerned, their suffering will not be “undone” even if the perpetrator later attempts to redeem himself.

The church also asserts that “no good can come out of evil”. It is convenient to teach (infallibly ) both sides of the coin. As Dogbert said once when he was caught in a contradiction: “I prefer to call it having no loose ends”.

Yes, it is our place to make that judgment call, based upon our limited view. If we are in error, God is always welcome to come and explain why we are wrong. If he does not, you are also welcome to explain what “good” came out from a sociopath kidnapping, raping, torturing and slaughtering a small girl. I can hardly wait. I hope you are aware that you just switched from the “free will defense” to the “greater good defense”. Let me suggest that you click on the link above and read all the different approaches to this problem. It is enlightening.

 

[josh987654321]

Here is what he said. Be warned, it hits home.

"The reason I don’t believe in god, Lathan,…

Here are some great quotes on the existance of God - proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

I strongly recommend going to youtube and typing in “Ravi Zacharias Atheism” you will find some very good arguments from him, like this one here (only goes for 10min) Please watch this - youtube.com/watch?v=EonZXFd0Afw

Gospel of Chaos, If there is no God, than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, than there is no moral law and without moral law, there is nothing to distinguish between good and evil or right and wrong, thus without God, there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong, it’s all just subjective opinion. So his argument against God makes no sense, if there is no God, than why is the world so wrong? How can he call a line crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight line is?

Gospel of Chaos, I also recommend reading through some of these quotes I have here for you and to also share them with your atheist friend, because I think they will relate well to him -

*Does God exist?

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the subject of a God, the barber said:
“I don’t believe that God exists.”

Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who allow all of there things”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with dirty long hair and an untrimmed beard.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the barber. “I am here, and I am a barber, and I just worked on you”

“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”

“Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”

“Exactly!” - affirmed the customer “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist!
what happens, is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him, That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”*

*The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?” A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " “Of course” answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : “Professor does Cold exists?”

The professor answered, “What kind of question is that? …Of course the cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

The young student answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body heat or we are not hot.”

“And, does Dark exist?”, he continued. The professor answered “Of course”. This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil.”

The student responded, “Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in the hearts of man.”

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.

The young man’s name was Albert Einstein. *

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?.. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis

*An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias*.

I would also encourage him to read the Gospels if he has not done so already, because there are many, many moral truths that are revealed to us through the teachings of Christ. In short, the Gospels hits us hard.

For me it was many moral truths written on my heart and mind, quite simply, it just makes sense and the more understanding and knowing of Christ I have, the more and more sense everything else makes, exactly like C.S. Lewis said, I don’t believe in the sun because I can see it, but because by it, I can see everything else.

The more I think about it, things would be A LOT EASIER if God still smite’d people like he did in the old days.

I have a few questions for you.

If God were to smite all the wicked, where would he start and where would he finnish? are we not all sinners?

If God were to remove the choice of evil, how could we choose good?

**Luke 9:51-56 A Samaritan Village Refuses To Receive Jesus

*51 Not long before it was time for Jesus to be taken up to heaven, he made up his mind to go to Jerusalem. 52 He sent some messengers on ahead to a Samaritan village to get things ready for him. 53 But he was on his way to Jerusalem, so the people there refused to welcome him. 54 When the disciples James and John saw what was happening, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to destroy these people?”

55 But Jesus turned and corrected them for what they had said. 56 Then they all went on to another village***.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Portofino]

I hope you are aware that you just switched from the “free will defense” to the “greater good defense”.

I’m not a Christian, and I’m on the fence regarding theism, but I respect those Christians who acknowledge that suffering is a “great mystery” with no easy answers.

Free will, for example, helps explain what is called “moral evil” (e.g., murder), even though (by my lights) it doesn’t well explain why someone else should have the freedom to violate their neighbor’s freedom (for example, a victim’s suffering is the result of the free will of the perpetrator, not of the victim).

Free will doesn’t well help explain what philosophers call “natural evil” – hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, incurable diseases, accidents, etc. Voltaire grappled with “natural evil” in his poem on the disaster of Lisbon, and his novella Candide. He believed in God, but didn’t pretend to offer a solution.

When it comes to “natural evil”, as I see it, there are a few explanations, none of which is satisfying to me:

----the “greater good” argument; the faith that, no matter how awful the event appears to be, it serves a greater good. For one thing, such thinking is off limits as regards human conduct towards other human beings; you cannot give someone cancer because you think they will learn from adversity. You cannot harm someone’s child because you believe that the parents will come out of it with a stronger faith.

The “greater good” argument is, at best a paradox because it says, “it would be monstrous for a human being to claim to love a child, and yet knowingly permit that child to get an incurable disease; however, God can knowingly permit it, and still love that child.” There is no way to disprove this, in principle, yet it is a conceptual blank check – in other words, we could all be born with cancer and, for all we know, we get it because God loves us and is serving the greater good. Such thinking obviously doesn’t absolve us from trying to cure a disease, so – as far as our conduct is concerned – we do not believe it serves the greater good, but that it is an evil that must be addressed. Unfortunately, some forms of suffering do not admit of human remedy, even when we want to remedy them.

As I understand it, there is a long view of free will whereby it was the Fall that brought tsunamis and earthquakes, unrelievable suffering, cancer and incurable diseases, into the world. This would have to be a punishment imposed by God, however, because human beings are not creators of nature. Human beings could not create nerve endings, or suffering, or natural disasters. Thus, the external hand of God would have to be inevitable, even in cases where it’s because of our free will that the whole natural world went sour. A human being cannot create, nor can Satan create (I’m using create in the ultimate metaphysical sense, not in the sense of creating by manipulating what has already been created). At the very least, one would have to say that God re-fashioned created in a way that suited our Fallen natures. A human being, alone, is not capable of refashioning creation it in that fundamental sense.

The final explanation, of course, is the free will of Satan, though it’s occurred to me that it is itself a paradox as to why, though Satan has free will, Satan should have been created with such “power” to wreak havoc. The most ill-willed human being is still merely human. Satan can have free will, but human beings often ascribe him a quasi-omnipotence (he can read your thoughts; be virtually omnipresent, etc.).

But this is telling to me – human beings who believe in God cannot agree whether a. the earthquake was caused by God for the greater good; b. the earthquake was caused by Satan; c. the earthquake was caused by God as punishment; d. the earthquake is a consequence of the Fall thus, in the long view, attributable to “free will” (though, again, a human being cannot create a earthquake, in most circumstances; only God can create). Final possiblity – the earthquake was an accident, a contingency. Neither the hand of God, nor that of human beings, was involved. I could imagine a theist believing that contingency exists, even if God does… Though that returns us to the problem of evil; in human life, leaving something to “contingency” is negligence.

 

[jonathan_hili]

You’ve got some good responses so far, Lathan.

I’d like to add a couple (hopefully good) more:

(i) It’s interesting that your friend is happy to point out only the negative aspects of religion, while only point out the positive aspects of science. Doesn’t he believe that religious people do good? What about hospitals, universities, charities, adoption houses, etc. etc. all begun by Christians? Doesn’t he believe scientific people can do evil? What about the Nazi doctors’ experiments, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, abortion, etc. etc.? I think we need a bit of balance here.

(ii) I think your free-will approach is a good one. He cites the classic problem of evil. I’d suggest material on this website, such as the CA tracts, which are great. What about this scenario?

• God stands by while a murder attacks and kills an innocent child.
• Okay, God intervenes and as the man attacks the child, he turns the knife to butter.
• Now the man is full of rage and tries to strangle the child.
• Okay, so God intervenes again and immobilises his hands.
• The police come and arrest the man. He is sent to prison, where he is full of rage and anger.
• Okay, so now God has to turn his brain to butter and make him feel good.

Is this really what your friend wants?

 

[JRKH]

Here is what he said. Be warned, it hits home.

Your friend presents his argument very well. At first reading they do tend to “hit home” and put one on the defensive. However…upon examination I see some rather glaring inconsistencies in them. I’m not sure I can adequately explain them…but I will try.

First of all, I would tell him that you do not believe in the god he describes either. The god he is describing is not the God you believe in.
This should get him to delve deeper into the charges he is making and allow you the opportunity to really discuss the particulars.

"The reason I don’t believe in god, Lathan, is because I don’t want to believe someone, something could sit there and make some guy millions in America, help the touchdown in a sports game or similar while allowing the poor to go hungry, allowing them to go homeless. Allowing Children in Africa to die of diseases long since treated by science.

Agreed. I would not believe in such a god either. This view of God is a very childish one and to truly understand the great glory and majesty of God one needs to move away from such childish and limited views of God.
Now I understand that your friend is simply reacting to things he sees and things he has heard about God (from many different sources and belief systems no doubt), but it is necessary that we realize how much bigger God actually is…and how some of our perceptions are so myopic - we simply cannot see the larger, more infinite picture.

Allows parents to beat their children while burns same relation couples who love their child in hell.
Allows preventative aid to be stolen by the governments of the countries it’s trying to help.
Allows crimes of faith in other countries to go unpunished.
Prevents a gay man from being part of church yet allows the raping of young boys.

These are false arguments and this needs to be pointed out to him. He uses “allows” here in a sense that God approves one thing while punishing another. Take the very first one…How does he know that parents who beat their children do not go to hell? All sin is punished…either in this life or in the next.

No, I refuse to believe that one so evil as this exists. I refuse to believe that god would sit idly by while atrocities such as this happen.

Again - agree with him that such a god is not worth believing in or following…However…what is his evidence that God is “Idle” while such atrocities happen?

There is only one thing that makes a difference in this world, and that is doing something.
God/Praying doesn’t/didn’t:
Make the Cancer treatments, science did.
Save that guy from heart failure, the surgeon did.
Save that lady from a hostage scenario, the policeman did.
Save that kid who’s trapped in a house fire, the fireman did.
Give me an education, my teacher did.

Agree with him (except on point one about praying) and point him to Mt 25 and the final judgement. Go and do and act is very much a theme of Christ’s ministry and or our faith.

Every time something happens in this world, it’s because somebody does something. The only gods in this world are the creatures that do something to change it."

Here we are not all that far apart. Indeed we are the hands of God in the world. Those who work change things for the good are the children of God.

Hitting on free will is quite accurate, but is always the first line of argument and likely will make little effect on the atheist. However - if you really want to “mess with his head”…agree with him where-ever you can…unpack his arguments, agree with the points you can and then discuss further the points where you don’t.

He has pointed out flaws in certain descriptions and understandings of “God”. It might be up to you to try to point out why these understandings are either false or too limited.
As an example, in the above, I suggested that some of his arguments are false because he is presuming God allows (and approves) one kind of sin while punishing another with hell. Yet where is his evidence (in church teaching) for such a position? There is none.

In the matters of disease and other sufferings this can be difficult and needs a much more long term outlook. One not limited by the world. An innocent child who dies of a treatable disease is sad indeed. Yet since that child IS innocent, we believe such a one will go to heaven to be with God for all eternity.
Of course this belief must not prevent us from trying to help such ones, but expanding ones horizons beyond this life offers a much better perspective.
You friend offers many worthy forms of help in his list above…Yet we know that for all the efforts of police, firemen, doctors etc…the people they save will eventually die. So what does this say about the efforts of those people? If everyone eventually dies…then isn’t the effort of the doctors etc. all in vain?
If he says (as I’m sure he will) no it is not in vain - that it improves our world and our lives - shout “Alleluia” and tell him you agree and explain that in Christian parlance this is called “building up the kingdom”.

Sorry - I’m rambling a bit.

All I’m trying to say is this…instead of looking on him and his views as a whole…try taking them apart. Agree where you can and work through the others. Make your arguments reasonable…not emotional…be prepared to demonstrate how many of those “doing something” are, themselves, Christian - and that “doing something” is quite central to the teachings of Christ.

I hope some of this is helpful

Peace
James

 

[empther]

If men didn’t wage war with each other requiring every country to maintain a huge military at enormous expense…

If men didn’t commit crimes requiring expensive police forces…

If men weren’t lazy and expected government hand out checks…

If people didn’t waste their lives watching “Wheel of Fortune” every night,

etc etc etc

Then,

there would be no poverty,

we would have developed space age technology ten thousand years ago,

disease would have all but been eliminated thousands of years ago,

we would be living in lifestyles undreamed of by people in our current world.