My atheist friend has stumped me

[bmullins]

You are assuming that evil exists because God created evil for a reason. Darkness exists when there is no light, that doesn’t make light evil, nor does it mean that darkness had to be created. Darkness by itself exists because light exists. The same with evil. Good exists because God exists and God is good. Necessarily if there is no good there, we use the word evil to describe it. The very existence of good logically necessitates the ability for good to be absent.

But that also brings us to the very concept of morality. Good vs evil. If morality exists, then we have to assume it comes from somewhere. Otherwise it’s not morality and good and evil don’t exist at all, only the perception. If there is no source for morality rape can be good to one person and evil to another. Yet we know rape is evil. In order for rape to be evil, there has to be a source for good for the lack of good to exist.

As to your last question, why didn’t he create a sinless world? The Christian belief is that he did indeed create a sinless paradise, but we through our own free will and choices have turned it into what we have here. That’s the entire point of the ‘fall’ in Genesis.

 

[Aizi]

Isn’t this the point of the original post, that a belief in God as absolute Goodness is contradictory to the notion of a creation of his that is not absolute Goodness?

But that was addressed, many times–all Goodness requires that people be able to choose evil. Otherwise it is not goodness at all. The problem of evil is meaningful in its original pagan context, where evil itself has supernatural origin, but in a Christian (or any Abrahamic) context the answer is rather simple–evil is a moral failing of our own.

But yes, in Genesis Creation is declared absolutely Good. Evil, which by definition requires human consent and knowledge, is a moral failing of those who already had the option to do good.

But no matter what explanation you come up with for a world that contains evil, Heaven is the perfect example to prove that God could have created a sinless world without evil. So why didn’t He?

Heaven, by definition is made up of those who have become perfect, who chose to accept God. It is incompatible with the rejection of God, ie, evil. People who freely chose to become perfect and to embrace Goodness and Love in life, and gained that perfection either through their life on Earth or through their suffering in Purgatory. But the idea is that they had that choice to begin with. Everyone in Heaven chose to be there. Even the angels had the choice to rebel.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Guan

**There is no reason why a non belief in God will suddenly cause someone to kill him/herself anymore than a non belief in Zeus, Poseidon, Cheshwan, Anubis, etc. **

Who said anything about “suddenly.” Suicide generally take a while to accomplish, sometimes years depending on the method ultimately chosen.

adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

At any rate, do you as a “Catholic” believe that atheists have more of a lust for life than Catholics, which was ASimon’s view. If you do, you are no Catholic.

 

[ASimon]

At any rate, do you as a “Catholic” believe that atheists have more of a lust for life than Catholics, which was ASimon’s view. If you do, you are no Catholic.

Needless to say, this was not my view, and I never said it was. So if you’re going to insist on saying completely insane things, can you at least do us all a favor and restrict them to your own particular views?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

Needless to say, this was not my view, and I never said it was.

On page one you said this.

Death doesn’t have to be an enemy to anyone. The theist believes that nobody ever really dies, so it’s a moot point. The atheist at least acknowledges the reality, and that knowledge makes life (the only one we know we have) even more precious.

More **precious **than what? The Christian experience of life?

You appear to have a selective memory. If you meant something different, allow at least that you left yourself open to misinterpretation rather than reducing yourself to the usual angry atheist lashing out the insanity of others.

 

[Jamiinvegas]

I don’t necessarily understand it myself. But if I try to explain it on a purely secular level I think about my own children and even though I love them I can’t really protect them . If / When something bad happens to them it’s not because I didn’t love them and it certainly wouldn’t be my will that it happens. Things just happen sometimes and we can can be deterred or strengthened by them.

 

[ASimon]

More **precious **than what? The Christian experience of life?

No, more precious than what you presuppose it to be - which is to say, hopeless.

You appear to have a selective memory. If you meant something different, allow at least that you left yourself open to misinterpretation rather than reducing yourself to the usual angry atheist lashing out the insanity of others.

Sorry, but once you’ve conceded that the only thing stopping us all from molesting children is that there exists a secular law forbidding it, I would argue that ‘insanity’ isn’t taking it too far.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

**Sorry, but once you’ve conceded that the only thing stopping us all from molesting children is that there exists a secular law forbidding it, I would argue that ‘insanity’ isn’t taking it too far. **

Sorry, but I never said any such thing. Are you hallucinating?

Secular law is a consequence of moral law, and moral law comes to us from God. If you have a conscience, you know that. It is a part of our collective nature to obey the moral law that is within us as well as without. But some people do not have a conscience.

Laws that forbid and punish child molestation are necessary, if only to get convicted child molesters off the street. We cannot do without such secular laws, because common sense tells us that without them child molestation would increase manifold.

So do you have a problem with anything I just said?

Does it sound insane to you?

 

[ASimon]

Sorry, but I never said any such thing. Are you hallucinating?

Secular law is a consequence of moral law, and moral law comes to us from God. If you have a conscience, you know that. It is a part of our collective nature to obey the moral law that is within us as well as without. But some people do not have a conscience.

Laws that forbid and punish child molestation are necessary, if only to get convicted child molesters off the street. We cannot do without such secular laws, because common sense tells us that without them child molestation would increase manifold.

So do you have a problem with anything I just said?

Does it sound insane to you?

Yes, because that isn’t what you said, first of all. And secondly, inserting an imaginary God with imaginary laws into the equation doesn’t do much to “up” the sanity factor.

Incidentally, nothing in the Bible commands us to be kind to children, much less that we shouldn’t molest them. Though there are specific edicts stating they should be beaten and killed for disrespect, and we’re enjoined to celebrate the man who would’ve killed his own son to honor God’s will. So there’s that.

In any event, your distinction between moral laws and secular laws does nothing to ameliorate your shameful assertion. Even if secular laws were a consequence of moral laws (coming from God), would the removal of such secular laws eliminate the moral law? Would it no longer be a part of your conscience to not molest children if the secular law was taken off the books? You are saying that it would - so you don’t just have a low opinion of humanity, you have an equally low opinion of the primacy of God’s moral code.

I have to say, I’ve seen many Christians admit to me, with no trace of shame, that they’d behave less morally in a Godless Universe. But you’re the first Christian I’ve ever seen admit to me that, even in God-Universe, he’d molest children if the State of Texas didn’t have a law saying it wasn’t allowed.

 

[bmullins]

I have to say, I’ve seen many Christians admit to me, with no trace of shame, that they’d behave less morally in a Godless Universe. But you’re the first Christian I’ve ever seen admit to me that, even in God-Universe, he’d molest children if the State of Texas didn’t have a law saying it wasn’t allowed.

The point is this. The only way that we can consider there to be an actual, concrete morality is for there to be a source for that morality. You assert that people inherently know that they shouldn’t molest children, because of our ‘conscience’. Yet if there is no God, no creator, no designer… there is no conscience. There is only a fabrication of what our minds have put together, and there is no right or wrong.

In a world where there is no concrete morality (definitive right and wrong) there is no good or evil. The person decides based on his own thoughts what is right or wrong. Then another person can come to the opposite conclusions and both be right. In a world that has no God, no morality exists, only perception. It will perfectly acceptable to rape someone, as long as you are fully convinced in your mind it is ok.

That is why he says that not having a God would indeed make morality decrease, because morality would then be a subject of whatever we decided it to be… and every society could choose their own rights and wrongs. The very fact that we consider some actions always evil, means there IS a concrete morality. In fact, we see that people on opposites sides of the planet came to the same conclusion that certain acts were just evil. This means that it transcends our own thoughts and minds. Attempting to remove a real God with concrete moral laws from the equation doesn’t make the fact that you yourself are relying on His moral code to determine your own moral standards any less real.

 

[ASimon]

That is why he says that not having a God would indeed make morality decrease, because morality would then be a subject of whatever we decided it to be… and every society could choose their own rights and wrongs. The very fact that we consider some actions always evil, means there IS a concrete morality. In fact, we see that people on opposites sides of the planet came to the same conclusion that certain acts were just evil. This means that it transcends our own thoughts and minds. Attempting to remove a real God with concrete moral laws from the equation doesn’t make the fact that you yourself are relying on His moral code to determine your own moral standards any less real.

You missed the point. He’s not saying he’d behave worse in a Godless Universe. He’s saying that in THIS Universe, which he believes HAS a God, the only reason he (and presumably everyone else) doesn’t rape children is because there’s a secular law forbidding it. He then had an opportunity to clarify this amazing assertion, and he instead reinforced it - only to add that in his mind, secular law has primacy over God’s moral law.

 

[Anthony_V]

Incidentally, nothing in the Bible commands us to be kind to children, much less that we shouldn’t molest them.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:36-40[/BIBLEDRB]

Though there are specific edicts stating they should be beaten and killed for disrespect, and we’re enjoined to celebrate the man who would’ve killed his own son to honor God’s will. So there’s that.

You seem to lack an understanding of the trinity. The trinity is a community of love. Three persons, yet the same being; consubstantial-- the same substance and actuality. Thus, all actions are eternally made such that they are reflective of the consubstantiality that the trinity is. Thus, the suffering of the father and spirit was consubstantial with that of Christ. The way you seem to understand it, Christ is not eternal, but literally made. He is begotten. All that to say, objective love is a reflection of the trinity itself.

In any event, your distinction between moral laws and secular laws does nothing to ameliorate your shameful assertion. Even if secular laws were a consequence of moral laws (coming from God), would the removal of such secular laws eliminate the moral law?

If your theory is correct, then killing a woman’s child would be agnate to killing the woman herself.

Would it no longer be a part of your conscience to not molest children if the secular law was taken off the books? You are saying that it would - so you don’t just have a low opinion of humanity, you have an equally low opinion of the primacy of God’s moral code.

A conscience is not absolute as God is. If you effectively kill your conscience, it is akin to cutting off your arm, yet insisting that your nervous system is malfunctioning because you cannot feel what your dead appendage might be feeling.

I have to say, I’ve seen many Christians admit to me, with no trace of shame, that they’d behave less morally in a Godless Universe. But you’re the first Christian I’ve ever seen admit to me that, even in God-Universe, he’d molest children if the State of Texas didn’t have a law saying it wasn’t allowed.

This is due to a lack of common understanding of morality. You see it as subjective. We see it as objective.

 

[ASimon]

You seem to lack an understanding of the trinity. The trinity is a community of love. Three persons, yet the same being; consubstantial-- the same substance and actuality. Thus, all actions are eternally made such that they are reflective of the consubstantiality that the trinity is. Thus, the suffering of the father and spirit was consubstantial with that of Christ. The way you seem to understand it, Christ is not eternal, but literally made. He is begotten. All that to say, objective love is a reflection of the trinity itself.

I was talking about Abraham, not God or Jesus.

If your theory is correct, then killing a woman’s child would be agnate to killing the woman herself.

Sounds fine to me.

This is due to a lack of common understanding of morality. You see it as subjective. We see it as objective.

I don’t see it as subjective, actually. But I don’t know how you can honestly claim to be objectively moral if all that’s stopping you from violating God’s supposed law is Man’s actual law.

 

[Anthony_V]

I was talking about Abraham, not God or Jesus.

My Apologies

Sounds fine to me.

The substance of your existence seems to be different than that of your mother and father. Certainly, you are not a coexistence of your mother and father, but rather you.

I don’t see it as subjective, actually. But I don’t know how you can honestly claim to be objectively moral if all that’s stopping you from violating God’s supposed law is Man’s actual law.

I misunderstood the original statement. My apologies

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

**I have to say, I’ve seen many Christians admit to me, with no trace of shame, that they’d behave less morally in a Godless Universe. But you’re the first Christian I’ve ever seen admit to me that, even in God-Universe, he’d molest children if the State of Texas didn’t have a law saying it wasn’t allowed. **

I don’t believe you. This is a crock. No Christian has told you he would molest a child if there were no secular law against it.

Grow up!

 

[kbf1970060]

… imaginary God with imaginary laws into the equation doesn’t do much to “up” the sanity factor. … .

Let’s all start singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” while we start plugging away at theories, like parralell universes, at slide rules, with imaginary numbers, to establish a law.

 

[ASimon]

Let’s all start singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” while we start plugging away at theories, like parralell universes, at slide rules, with imaginary numbers, to establish a law.

Nobody’s salvation rests on a scientific theory of parallel universes ever proving out, or in believing in any such theory until it does, so this isn’t much of a comparison.

 

[kbf1970060]

Nobody’s salvation rests on a scientific theory of parallel universes ever proving out, or in believing in any such theory until it does, so this isn’t much of a comparison.

You fiegn ignorance.

 

[ASimon]

You fiegn ignorance.

And you can’t spell.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

And you can’t do scripture.

Your words: **Incidentally, nothing in the Bible commands us to be kind to children, much less that we shouldn’t molest them. **

Mark 10:13-16 “People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.’ And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.”