Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[jinminn]

Could just be me… but I thought we had been going along quite nicely; this last post of yours seemed to turn somewhat more antagonistic. Is this just me?

As what? Certanly not a religion based on the God I worship, as it claims. Its history as a maurading race of murderers who destroyed Catholic communities throughout the eastern arc of the Mediterranian and spread it’s ‘faith’ by threats and intimidation, as it does to this day, is well known. Its ‘book’ is so tied to truth its adherents refuse to defend it on the grounds it’s too ‘sacred’ to discuss while expecting us to believe them.

I don’t doubt you. The point is that it has historic origins which some conclude to be reasonable enough to put their faith in. I’m not convinced by it for a second. Christianity has had its fair share of slaughter and mistreatment in the name of its beliefs as well. Though the death tolls aren’t as high as some claim, it’s not a numbers game after all. Any killed in the name of a loving god is evidence that religious superiority can be used as an excuse. Catholics have done what Muslims have, if not in number, certainly in the types of premises/beliefs used to justify negative actions toward fellow humans. Aquinas, as I believe I stated earlier, logically reasoned it acceptable to kill heretics because they would possibly rob the greatest good from believers and other converts-to-be. Thankfully we don’t practice this today. A doctor of the Church, however, derived the exact same principles used by Muslims on jihad.

Not ‘interesting,’ ironic. And it’s predicted in their writings (The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…). Also, Jesus is alluded to in numerous places in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in Isaiah. There’s plenty of time left for them to come to the truth, as many of them are doing.

Isaiah is pseudonymous – written by at least three authors. In radically different time periods. Many of the passages Christians love to tout as prophecies are no such thing. They were not specifically predictive, but merely looked back at following Jesus to see what applied. Again, this is an impasse. You think it’s amazing, I think it’s a simple pick-and-choose method to apply what works and ditch the rest. Why don’t all of Isaiah’s prophecies apply to Jesus or even some occurrence in the world? Surely he was more than a one hit wonder with chapters surrounding and including 53?

They should be eliminated [from your list of bogus religions] because they are the people to whom God first revealed Himself. They are the Chosen. I don’t know what criteria you’re using to conclude they’re doing just fine, but the conclusion is debateable.

As in not obsessing over Jesus as the messiah. They go on with their current religious beliefs. Whether they as a people have been treated well, do well by worldly standards, and all that… sure, that’s debatable. What I mean is I would not say, as a people, they have spent the last 2000 years looking back over their shoulders wondering if they missed something with Jesus. As you said, some do. But some of about everyone seems to convert. Same with deconversion.

It’s not only possible, it’s certain. With the exception of Christianity, of course.

Everyone else is saying the same about their religion.

LOL! As science answers more and more questions, there are more and more questions. That’s what science does best, ask more and more questions.

Do you debate whether it has provided answers, though? The point is that religion offers unsubstantiated claims to explain origins of the universe and life, why humans seem to have good and bad in them, and so on. Though science may have more and more questions, if it answers how life originated… god will simply end up being synonymous with that mechanism.

And, BTW, as science confronts more questions, more scientists become believers. Science and faith are not incompatible.

I agree! Which is why scientists are far more unbelieving today than ever! In previous centuries, the vast majority of scientists were also believers. Today, members of the National Academy of Sciences are overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic (somewhere in the 90’s percent-wise). A recent study of philosophers found them to be atheist/agnostic to the tune of about 72%.

Continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

The creation of the universe by God does not rule out evolution. The athiest theory of rock begets rock begets life rules out evolution.

Well, if anyone holds that rock begets rock… that would rule it out. Thankfully it’s not the actual method. Get yourself educated HERE as a starting point.

Because it is accepted and believed on faith, not facts. Athiesm has NO facts. Just denial.

I have access to the same facts you do. I simply deny that your religion presents a convincing case of being true.

By definition believing in God requires faith. You insist on proof; absolute, unassailable proof. I can tell you it exists in many places and at many times theoughout the history of the Church, but you will find an excuse to reject all of them, so what’s the point?

I require proof convincing enough for me. You have stated that you have that proof. You have certain occurrences or observations in your handbag that defend your beliefs. Though you have faith, something got you going down that road. The ‘facts’ I am presented with are not convincing enough for me to head down that road.

I find many natural explanations convincing with respect to errors in the bible, why prayers go unanswered, why miracles are decreasing in number and magnitude, etc. You will find an excuse to explain them all away… so what’s the point?

Not me. YOU’RE left standing on air because you’ve abandoned common sense in favor of an absolut athiest position that is more dogmatic than systematic.

Not really. I go with the best scientific evidence. My beliefs can evolve based on what we find out. You’re stuck; in fact, that means you’re the one stuck with dogma whereas I can adapt to what we learn as we progress as a species. There is no current objective proof in support of a supernatural force that behaves in a predictable, repeatable, observable, or intentional fashion.

This would be shown forth if prayers worked, if miracles occurred with even slight regularity, if god would put a hint of himself into everyone’s hearts, etc. He can give me an indescribable yearning for only Him. You believe that exists. I do not since far more believers of other traditions exist than Christians and they remain unconvinced.

Prove it.

Again, this team is used to describe all scientific phenomenon to date. No one hypothesizes anything in the form of ‘goddidit.’ Were any of what I described above to occur, I would update my hypothesis immediately. He did far more in the days of old, supposedly, so again I see no reason why I need to expect that he’s suddenly obsessed with hiding. The Jews forgot him so frequently even in the midst of amazing occurrences that he repeatedly had to get them back to him with afflictions. I’ll take some puss sores any day. I would gladly accept them to know god exists.

You keep suggesting faith. Did god speaking directly to Moses decrease his faith? What about Thomas’? What about those walking over dry land through the Red Sea? What about those seeing pillars of fire and cloud? Writing on a wall? Those who had their first born slaughtered because god took control of someone’s heart and overrode their free will? I would take 1/100th of those actions in my life today as evidence to believe.

You can start by explaining – and proving – your first cause. You say it’s proved out well so far, but you have proven nothing. You’ve just made an entirely unsupported faith-based statement.

Don’t get exactly what you mean. My basis for knowledge? Why I exist? Obviously you know that I would rely on evolutionary explanations. You simply stating ‘superman-in-the-sky-did-it’ does not serve as explaining your first cause.

The fact is neither science nor faith can prove a first cause. That God created the universe is far more likely and makes far more sense than rock begets rock begets life.

Again, read up on evolution before setting up a cage match between god (aka whatever-I-can’t-explain) vs. evolution (extremely well studied, predictive time and time again, and continually advancing in explanatory power).

YOUR milk bottle story. You posted a link to a silly video where a guy asks us to pray to a milk bottle and compares it to praying to God. Silly squared.

Well… not my anything. It’s not, actually, that silly. The point is to compare the results. Praying 1 million times and explaining away the non-results as:

• the fault of the praying person
• not aligned with god’s will
• answered in a different form
• not the point of prayer (prayer is to change the praying person, not effect results in the recipient)
• not being able to test god
• whatever other excuse-du-jour

Is the same as me praying to a milk jug and explaining that there are only three answers possible: yes, no, and wait.

If god were to deliver 1/10th of prayers as promised in scripture, I would believe. If Lourdes is any testament, he delivers 67 miracles after ~150 years of pilgrims. Lately, that’s been 5,000,000/year which is a healing rate of 0.00134% even if they all happened this year. I’ll see a doc.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

• if faith is blind, you should have no problem being converted by the next religious individual who walks by with some pamphlets proclaiming the truth.

You’re right. I think I mis-stated my point, which is, faith, once achieved by rational examination, does not require the proofs you require.

the origins of the universe are in no way connected to Jesus of Nazareth via any sort of conclusive means.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was present to God in the beginning. Through Him all things came into being, and apart from Him NOTHING CAME TO BE.” John 1:1-3. I don’t know what you mean by ‘conclusive.’ Probably something more concrete than mere Sacred Scripture.

I’m open to a deity. I’m not going to assume that any derived religions made by man have the slightest idea what that deity is/was, though.

Great! Now all you have to do is prove Chrsitianity is man made.

you equate your evidence with luck. Does luck exist under the realm of god’s providence? It seems he favors you more than me.

I equate my evidence with divine revelation and say, because it has been revealed to me, I am luckier than most people. I don’t know why God chose to reveal his glory to me (at least four times) but it appears He does, indeed, favor me. Perhaps to my condemnation, since I have yet to consecrate my life to Him. There are a lot of nooks and crannies in this game; a lot of things we are completely unaware of. That’s not fair, either, but that 's the way it is.

I will say that this was you regaining your balance yourself, as has happened to me. Felt a little foolish afterward, but my human reflexes function quite well and kept me from truly going down.

As I said, this is exactly what I would expect an athiest to conclude. Please read a little more carefully. I said *I was on the way DOWN! I said I was LIFTED by my shoulders. *My legs were not in the game and I did not regain my balance. Don’t you think I’d know it if I had regained my balance? I definitely did NOT regain my balance. I was lifted up by my shoulders and put back on my feet with no involvement of my own whatsoever.

As is typical with athiest conclusions, you have made an assumption with no information at all simply because you refuse to believe what 's said to you because it doesn’t conform to your dogma.

If that sounds a little testy, it is. It would please me more if you would just call me a liar rather than pamper me with “I will say that was you, etc.” IOW, have a little respect instead of jumping on your athiest high horse and talking down to me.

to be continued…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Were something to happen to me that I found convincing, I would believe.

Of course. You’d be mulishly obstinate not to believe under those circumstances. Faith asks something more.

I don’t truly need to get blood and guts on my fingers like Thomas… I just need something. You have that something for me and you sharing it provides insight into what lets you hold your belief quite strongly. I’m open to the possibility of distrusting my senses for the few occasions I’ve had like you describe. We are quite prone to misinterpreting the evidence around us… constantly.

Heavy! Would you elaborate on your second sentence? What were those occasions and how did your senses oppose them? It may be God gave you the same chance He gave me and you rejected it. Is that possible?

I’m convinced in order to receive the grace of God we must be receptive to that grace.

Other than a book full of immoral commands and stories that are beginning to be proven wrong by archeology (the flood, Jericho was well gone before the trumpet blasts, no evidence whatsoever of a 40 year sojourn in the desert, etc.), you have absolutely nothing to prove the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Worse and worse! A judgment that the commands of God are immoral! An allegation that the allegations of modern science trump Sacred Scripture! And you demand evidence of 3000 years of oral tradition. “He is the God of the living, not the dead.” (Citation omitted.)

I’ve read about the evidence for Jesus and am not convinced.

That’s obvious at this point. I’d like to know what evidence you’ve rejected. Have you investigated the several Eucharistic miracles on record? Have you studied the lives of the saints? Have you considered the facts of the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Juan Diego? Have you studied the lives of Saints John Mary Vianney and Padre Pio? Of Joan of Arc, Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila?

I would be thoroughly convinced by non-gospel/non-Christian historians who said any detail whatsoever about Jesus powers, miracles, specifics of his birth, etc.

How does that become your criteria? Would you expect an honest hearing from such people? Don’t you understamd non-Christians are anti-Christians by definition? Why are not the Gospels and other NT writings evidence enough for you? Do you think the writers are lying? What’s in it for them to lie? They gave their lives to Jesus Christ. What possible reason would thay have to lie about what they witness to? It makes no sense.

Historians at the time felt no need whatsoever to note any of the special attributes of Jesus but instead only note that he died, that there were reports of having seen him, and that he had followers (Tacitus even calls it a ‘mischievous superstition’). I don’t consider this conclusive.

Do you mean historians like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like Paul, James and Peter? Or don’t they count? Most of them were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ and what they wrote is history. They witnessed His resurrection. Are they liars? The Gospels are an historic record of His life, death and resurrection. They are the only record that counts and you’re throwing them out? Are you an objective observer?

Which ‘histrorians’ are you referring to?

I would also consider conclusive if anyone could deliver on any form whatsoever of ‘ask anything in my name and I will provide it.’ Perhaps in this post someone suggested that this is silly since we know it can’t mean anything since someone could ask for evil. I don’t doubt that, but will simply add:

• Jesus didn’t specify. We take all of this other promises at their word. Not that this is a deal breaker, just sayin’

Needless to say, if I pray for a new Lexus in His name, I probably won’t see it in my driveway in the morning. I don’t know the particulars of that strange promise of the Lord. I wish He had been more clear about what requests he’d take seriously. I don’t spend too much time on it.

What about assembling any group you want to, having them pray for anything you believe might align with god’s will, and testing the outcome?

This is the milk bottle again. Silliness squared. (Sorry.)

I have no comprehension of why god will change what he does just because people are watching…

Me, too. I don’t give that too much time, either.

Is that a ridiculous idea? I’m not heaving out some wet bales of hay here and asking god to prove himself compared to Baal. He apparently was willing to do that. Can I put out a fleece and see if it’s wet or dry compared to the grass and use that?

No. You are definitely, not asking, but demanding, that God prove Himself. I don’t like your chances. “Unless you believe like little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.” (Citation omitted.)

“It is love I desire, not sacrifice.” (id.)

Peace.

 

[jinminn]

Probably something more concrete than mere Sacred Scripture.

Yes, more convincing than a person writing their explanation. John is also, by far, the latest and most saturated in theological secondary meanings. Why does Mark make no connection to Jesus as the Word/Creator?

Great! Now all you have to do is prove Chrsitianity is man made.

With humanity having been obsessed with making up religions for the last, oh, 25,000 years or so, I’d say that I have every reason to suspect that Christianity is also man made. The natural explanation is quite satisfying to me, given that:

• religions generally seek to explain the unknown
• religions typically explain the unknowns of their day (e.g. natural occurrences in the case of the Greeks/Romans)
• religions are typically abandoned when better explanations come into existence (no one is, any longer, a believer in Greek/Romany mythology)

So… we have 20,000 years of religions that are no longer believed in because they were man’s attempt to explain the unkonwn… and 2000 years ago, we struck gold. This is like the boy who cried wolf. The rational position chooses to be skeptical toward such claims since it seems built into our nature to wonder what human-like-but-supernatural agent is at work running the show.

I don’t know why God chose to reveal his glory to me (at least four times) but it appears He does, indeed, favor me.

And I don’t know why god, if he exists, has chosen to leave me an unbeliever.

As I said, this is exactly what I would expect an athiest to conclude. Please read a little more carefully.

Why would I conclude otherwise? I wasn’t there, intervention by guardian angels is the most unlikely occurrence of any of the various possible explanations. Was anyone there who saw you in a near-horizontal position on the way down and then saw you defy both gravity and angular momentum to both right yourself to a vertical position and regain the distance fallen such that your feet were able to support your weight again? If not, then what you felt is likely to continue to be overridden by natural laws and cannot be trusted. Verified observance is far more trustworthy than your perception.

Patients feel like they were given amazing treatment when, in fact, they received nothing but a sugar pill and got better nevertheless.

As is typical with athiest conclusions, you have made an assumption with no information at all simply because you refuse to believe what 's said to you because it doesn’t conform to your dogma.

Hardly, buddy. I have assumptions based on plenty of assumptions:

• when people fall, there is a likely window of opportunity to catch one’s balance
• gravity is a universal fact of existence
• momentum is a universal fact of existence
• people are highly susceptible to personal interpretations of their senses in an unjustified manner (thinking they heard someone speak, seeing faces in the moon or trees, etc.).

Again, given that the most unlikely occurrence was that you were actually completely unsupported and then had a pair of angel hands being you back up… I’m perfectly logical in concluding something else probably happened.

How about this: I’m a Scientologist. I pay a lot of money to be ‘audited’, a process in which bad memories from my past are purged from me. When I’ve paid enough money, I’m told that the actual issue is an alien soul residing inside of me. After finding this out, I was on my way out of the building, trying to decide if I should pay for the removal of the alien soul. Next thing I know, I fell. My feet were off the ground and I was falling. I literally felt the alien soul lift me back up by my solar plexus and I was safely on my feet.

Would you believe me? Why not? Typical Christian skepticism toward all other religions not their own. I know that the alien soul is real now. You have to have faith in it, that’s all.

If that sounds a little testy, it is.

It is. The above is a sufficient analogy. Your skepticism toward miracle claims in other religions is the same as my skepticism toward your own. You may respond that you believe other miracle claims could be true, but that it it your god working in disguise. Perhaps, though everyone else in that religion would disagree and claim that it was, in fact, their god. Given that, your dislike of my interpretation is the result of your personal attachment to your particular religion.

You do the same all the time without batting an eye.

 

[jinminn]

Of course. You’d be mulishly obstinate not to believe under those circumstances. Faith asks something more.

Again, you have concrete examples to support your faith. I do not. Would you believe if you had no supporting evidence for your faith? You probably believed initially because of your parents. This the case for 90-some % of individuals. Only later did you seek justification.

Heavy! Would you elaborate on your second sentence? What were those occasions and how did your senses oppose them? It may be God gave you the same chance He gave me and you rejected it. Is that possible?

• people hearing things that sound like voices but are actually not
• seeing faces in windows, tree bark, and the moon
• Elvis sightings

It is possible I reject the evidence, however we require all kinds of various levels of evidence. Take a common spam email, paraphrased like so: ‘Bill Gates is testing a new email beta program with Microsoft and will send you money for every forward you send. He’s tracking your emails and knows what to send you. It worked for me; I got a check for $10,000!’ Possible responses to receiving this:

• delete it without further thought
• snopes check it, find THIS, and delete it or respond and correct the uninformed
• blindly send it on, hoping it might be true

Given that we have varying levels of skepticism about silly things like this, surely we are all unique in our skepticism and evidence requirements with respect to the resurrection and the Bible. God also surely recognizes this, and therefore, positing that one set of evidence is sufficient to convince everyone is not true. It is for this reason that the majority of individuals are convinced that the world is round but the majority of individuals are not convinced of Jesus as the son of god, even though you believe the evidence to be conclusive.

I’m convinced in order to receive the grace of God we must be receptive to that grace.

I pray to Jesus to reveal himself to me and ask how I may find him. I want to know he exists if, in fact, he does. You can trust my receptivity on faith.

Worse and worse! A judgment that the commands of God are immoral! An allegation that the allegations of modern science trump Sacred Scripture! And you demand evidence of 3000 years of oral tradition. “He is the God of the living, not the dead.” (Citation omitted.)

I didn’t say you had to like the facts, but you do need to recognize them:

• God explicitly commanded non-virgins to be stoned on their father’s doorstep on their wedding night
• God frequently commanded the killing of unbelievers; the killing of ‘every last thing that breathes’ (except for virgins, of course)

These commands were explicitly commanded by god. Are they immoral or not?

Also, geological and archaeological evidence does not support

• a global flood
• the existence of Jericho as a functioning city at the time of the trumpet blasts
• a 40 year sojourn through the desert by the Israelites

That’s obvious at this point. I’d like to know what evidence you’ve rejected. Have you investigated the several Eucharistic miracles on record? Have you studied the lives of the saints? Have you considered the facts of the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Juan Diego? Have you studied the lives of Saints John Mary Vianney and Padre Pio? Of Joan of Arc, Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila?

• Lanciano is not a miracle as no one was there to view the transformation except for him; a piece of heart and blood are not miracles. Only the transformation would be a miracle. Also, the blood type was AB which is possibly thought not to have existed until after the time of Jesus. I’m checking this with a local university as we speak
• The Shroud of Turin is not an official miracle recognized by the Church. Good thing, as it has been replicated using only techniques available during the middle ages by Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia.
  — Bonus points: 3 independent carbon dating tests placed it during the middle ages, exactly when it was first ‘discovered’
• Don’t know much about Juan Diego, though one abbot once stated that he never existed
• Pio was reported to have secretly requested carbonic acid from a stock room for the purpose of ‘cleansing needles’ (though sterile needles could have been requested instead); it is though that this might be the source of his ‘stigmata’ which were not present at the time of his death… perhaps because he was not in private and could not ‘update them’
• Don’t know about miracles from the others

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

How does that become your criteria? Would you expect an honest hearing from such people?

‘Whoever is not against us is with us’ (citation omitted). Non-Christians are not, by definition, anti=Christians. It’s a clear fact that evidence has more credibility if supported by parties without a vested interest in the outcome. This is the whole basis for double-blind studies which prove the medicine you trust is legit. This is why ‘independent’ research is the most trusted - people constantly cry foul when parties with a vested interest are the one determining the results… and the results happen to be in their favor.

Do you mean historians like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like Paul, James and Peter? Or don’t they count? Most of them were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ and what they wrote is history.

Wow… brush up on your Biblical history! Are you serious?

• the gospel writers were anonymous and only assigned names much later
• the gospel writers were certainly not eye-witnesses
• Paul was never an eye-witness to anything in Jesus’ life
• There are many irreconcilable discrepancies historically among the accounts
  — Part 1: youtube.com/watch?v=NBufxLab5ns
  — Part 2: youtube.com/watch?v=alfRadYFFhQ

Lastly, for non-Christians to note Jesus by name but not echo anything comparable to the gospels is fishy. One one extreme we have ‘he died, people think they saw him, they follow him.’ On the other hand we have ‘born of a virgin, Herod killing all under 2 in an entire region to try to kill him too, miracles abounding in many various regions, exorcising of demons, raising at least 2 from the dead, and thought to have been resurrected.’ One group believes all of these. Another group, while often writing about all kinds of less significant events, fails to write anything about the most influential man in history.

Which ‘histrorians’ are you referring to?

Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger

I wish He had been more clear about what requests he’d take seriously. I don’t spend too much time on it.

Me too.

This is the milk bottle again. Silliness squared. (Sorry.)

Well, does prayer work or not? That’s the point. For all the hype and time spent doing it, if the results look the same as chance, randomness, and even the results of other faiths… common sense says to take the least complicated hypothesis: namely that ‘answered’ prayers are due to chance and randomness.

Me, too. I don’t give that too much time, either.

Well, that’s the typical explanation provided by Christians to THIS

No. You are definitely, not asking, but demanding, that God prove Himself. I don’t like your chances. “Unless you believe like little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.” (Citation omitted.)

Not technically. I can’t demand anything from a party I have no contact with. I’ve requested and am waiting and open. Am I not to receive any conclusive answer, I am left with the conclusion that god does not exist or does not care.

Ever notice how believing like little children anywhere else is called ‘naivety’? Does that same principle work for the dead from the Heaven’s Gate plot? I sense that turning off critical thinking skills (associated with those not qualified as little children) is a bad idea in every other area. Considering that god gave me critical thinking… I think I’ll use it in this area as well. Smarter people than you or I exercised it just fine to try to prove god. When I began my quest, I concluded that I was safe in using it to explore arguments against god, as if he existed and authored all truth I would have nowhere to return but to him.

Are you scared that thinking will not return me to the source of all truth? I thought that the truth would set me free? Or might it set me free from religion?

“It is love I desire, not sacrifice.” (id.)

The word is ‘mercy’, not love. No idea what it means in this context.

 

[sannb]

Ferde Rombula:
Do you feel like you are getting nowhere? Great job and a valiant effort though! This is a job only the Holy Spirit can succeed in accomplishing. Unfortunately, bringing down those strongholds can be very painful to the ones hanging on to them. Jinminn seems to think he is open, but unfortunately it is not with the right disposition, and he is so full of misinformation that it is difficult to cut through the cobwebs tied around him, like a caterpillar in it’s cocoon. But the hope is in God’s Mercy and that there will be a beautiful butterfly that emerges in the end. I recommend Jinminn into the hands of our Mother Mary, that She will see to his conversion, as she did mine, calling upon St. Michael and his warriors to wage battle against the principalities and powers that are working on the loss of souls on earth. :angel1:

Perhaps, Jinminn, you would benefit from reading the following since you like to read so much?

markmallett.com/blog/?p=2804#more-2804
and
markmallett.com/blog/?p=2861#more-2861

 

[redhen]

This thread has strayed considerably. Are there any other defenses with the PoE (natural evil that is)?

 

[sannb]

To Redhen:

I disagree that the thread has strayed considerably. This was part of the original question posed to SnakeMauler “Either god doesn’t care, he is evil, or he doesn’t exist.”
The conversation has been just exactly about the existence of God, His goodness and His love, as opposed to not caring or being evil - and Jinminn and others have cast doubt that God exists, and therefore can’t care and must be evil to let terrible things happen to people. Thus the conversation has continued to show that God is not evil, does care and does exist. :bible1:

 

[redhen]

To Redhen:

I disagree that the thread has strayed considerably. This was part of the original question posed to SnakeMauler “Either god doesn’t care, he is evil, or he doesn’t exist.”

But there are many other threads on the existence of God. Theodicy has to with justifying the problem of evil, given that God exists.

Thus the conversation has continued to show that God is not evil, does care and does exist. :bible1:

Thus the conversation has continued to show that the PoE will continue to furnish many future essays and conversation…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well, if anyone holds that rock begets rock… that would rule it out. Thankfully it’s not the actual method. Get yourself educated HERE as a starting point.

There’s nothing there to tell me where the first speck of dust came from. That’s what I mean by ‘first cause.’ I’ve said neither science nor religion can account for the first cause.

By ‘rock beget rock,’ I mean the notion that the universe, the billions of billions of tons of matter whirling around out there, all came from a speck of dust, which science used to posit, or the Big Bang, which is science’s current solution-de-jour, which, aside from being conjecture, is perfectly compatible with the creation of the universe by God. You propose the untenable position it all came from nothing, which I reject. I propose God willed it into existence, which you reject. I say my belief makes far more sense than yours because, in order for something to move, there has to be a mover. You have no mover.

I have access to the same facts you do. I simply deny that your religion presents a convincing case of being true.

You have most of the facts I have and and you see them differently. From the opposite direction, I’d say. You see them, not as facts, but as allegations to be rejected. If we both saw them as facts we’d have to come to the same conclusions.

Your use of the phrase “your religion” tells me you are not a believer. Why do you bill yourself as a Catholic? Time to change that, isn’t it?

I require proof convincing enough for me. You have stated that you have that proof. You have certain occurrences or observations in your handbag that defend your beliefs. Though you have faith, something got you going down that road. The ‘facts’ I am presented with are not convincing enough for me to head down that road.

You require proof. Proof is, by definition, convincing. If you had proof, you wouldn’t need faith, would you? I’m not optimistic about you getting the proof you need.

The facts you are presented with are, as I said, not actual facts to you. As facts they have convinced billions over the past 2000 years. To contest them, as you do, you have to believe that 12 relatively uneducated men took the word of a charlatan, who offered them nothing but hardship and persecution, proceeded to conquer the Roman Empire by spreading lies throughout the known world, lies which enticed many thousands of the most brilliant, best educated people who ever lived and which persist today, 2000 years later. Is that what you believe?

Continued…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Continuing…

I find many natural explanations convincing with respect to errors in the bible, why prayers go unanswered, why miracles are decreasing in number and magnitude, etc. You will find an excuse to explain them all away… so what’s the point?

That comes from listening to the voice of Satan. That’s who’s giving you these ‘natural explanations.’ That’s who’s putting these questions into your mind; the ones you think you’re asking yourself. And now that I’ve brought him into the picture, Satan, clever devil that he is, is going to convince you he doesn’t even exist. He’ll convince you he’s just like God, a figment of my imagination. And you’ll believe him.

Not really. I go with the best scientific evidence. My beliefs can evolve based on what we find out. You’re stuck; in fact, that means you’re the one stuck with dogma whereas I can adapt to what we learn as we progress as a species.

I find that truly sad and very unfortunate. You “go with” means it’s you who are stuck with the best scientific evidence. You’ve put yourself in the position where you have no choice. And you think you’re free. I’m “stuck” with the truth. All you have are doubts. And the best scientific evidence, which doesn’t really tell you what you say you want to know and never will.

There is no current objective proof in support of a supernatural force that behaves in a predictable, repeatable, observable, or intentional fashion.

By that very narrow definition, no, there isn’t, just as there 's no objectrive proof of science’s version of creation. As I say, there’s a lot of evidence, but as long as you allow Satan to rule your mind, you will never accept it. Never, ever.

This would be shown forth if prayers worked, if miracles occurred with even slight regularity, if god would put a hint of himself into everyone’s hearts, etc. He can give me an indescribable yearning for only Him. You believe that exists. I do not since far more believers of other traditions exist than Christians and they remain unconvinced.

Well there you are! You have it solved for yourself. All prayers shall be answered or answered prayers are a fantasy. Miracles should occur at ten AM every day in every time zone in the world or there are no such things as miracles. The whole world has not yet been evangelized to Christianity, so Christianity must be a sham. Perfect!

Again, this team is used to describe all scientific phenomenon to date. No one hypothesizes anything in the form of ‘goddidit.’

Nonsense. Ask them how this planet we live on can spin at over 1000 MPH and fly through space at 25,000 MPH and remain in perfect balance with the sun in a predictable path for millenia and they’ll tell you gravity and centrifugal force do it. Ask them WHY they do it and they’ll tell you, “Well, that’s just the way it is. They DO it!” That’s their ‘goddidtit.’ That’s their superman in the sky and you believe them without a second thought.

Were any of what I described above to occur, I would update my hypothesis immediately. He did far more in the days of old, supposedly, so again I see no reason why I need to expect that he’s suddenly obsessed with hiding. The Jews forgot him so frequently even in the midst of amazing occurrences that he repeatedly had to get them back to him with afflictions. I’ll take some puss sores any day. I would gladly accept them to know god exists.

The modern world, particularly in the West has rejected God and now pursues hedonism with a vengance. And you want God to perform miracles for you? You want God to dance for you? In the days of the ancient Hebews, God was introducing Himself to the world. It’s not so today. We know enough today to either accept and follow Him or reject Him by the operation of our will. It’s up to us. If you’re waiting for God to grab you by the ear and drag you along, don’t hold your breath.

Well… not my anything. It’s not, actually, that silly. The point is to compare the results. Praying 1 million times and explaining away the non-results as:

• the fault of the praying person, [etc.]

You don’t understand prayer and I’m not expert enough to teach you. Suffice it to say prayer is not asking with the expectation you will be answered. That’s the problem you have with prayer. I still say your milk bottle story is silly.

If god were to deliver 1/10th of prayers as promised in scripture, I would believe. If Lourdes is any testament, he delivers 67 miracles after ~150 years of pilgrims. Lately, that’s been 5,000,000/year which is a healing rate of 0.00134% even if they all happened this year. I’ll see a doc.

Lourdes is a destination for pilgrims, not a miracle factory. Millions go there because that’s where the Mother of God appeared to Bernatette Soubirous. When the first miracle occurred, people started showing up for a cure. There are no guarantees.

You’re spitting on 67 miracles? If your heart were open to God, you’d rejoice at one. How many would you like? Sixty-seven thousand? I submit to you, if there were sixty-seven MILLION you would not be convinvced.

Stop listening to Satan. That’s your first task. Reject HIM, not God. God does not let any demon affect us without our willing consent. Reject Satan diligently and he will go away. Then you can begin to pray.

 

[jinminn]

Perhaps, Jinminn, you would benefit from reading the following since you like to read so much?

markmallett.com/blog/?p=2804#more-2804
and
markmallett.com/blog/?p=2861#more-2861

Wow, quite the certainty you have about me. You have not identified how I am ‘misinformed.’

Anyway… read your links:

• Almost all scientists from the olden days were theists… everyone was.
• Einstein was certainly not a theist. The article is a nice example of quote-mining and misrepresentation. Overall he was mostly unconcerned, but if anything, he though of ‘god’ as whatever is/was responsible for creating the universe he studied. He attributed to it no personality, intervening nature, etc.
• Re. Miracles:
  — Covered some with Ferde
  — Re. Fatima: someone actually set up a camera with a solar lens and found the sun not to be dancing at all, even though 80k people might have said otherwise. Wait, they could see what the camera couldn’t right?
• Re. incourrupts: read up on the ‘incorrupts’ and you will find that they are ‘kind of incorrupt’. Intact, but blackened. Does Padre Pio count? Given that his casket was triple sealed, I suppose it’s not really a miracle at that point.
  — THIS looks more like mummification than incorrupt to me
  — You also are aware that these incorrupts often have a wax or silicone face or set of hand coverings and that you’re not really seeing their actual parts because they were… corrupt?

I honestly can’t even read the second article. There is evidence of morality in monkeys, as I’ve already posted HERE. Science is making headway on explaining morals and consciousness.

For the rest of that second article, your choice of an apologist is a horrid example if you ever hope to win any converts. Essentially he sets up straw man after straw man and then has a good ole fashioned witch burning party. Some include:

• atheists reject evidence, especially amazingly good supernatural evidence
• atheists are scientific to such a degree that they make it into a religion
• atheists deny god because somewhere deep down they want to do whatever they want sexually
• atheist just hope there isn’t a god and search in vain for proof
• atheists aren’t experiencing god because they’re not living ‘like children’; by that I mean that they can’t hope to experience him while they’re off rejecting him and living in sin

I’ve read the entire New Testament several times through. I’ll give you a nice passage that sounds just like this guy:

John 9:34: “To this they replied, “You who were born in utter sin; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.”

Just replace ‘were born in’ with something like ‘persists in’ or ‘live in’ or whatever you have and you’ll sound just like a Pharisee.

Regardless of your straw man, I actually am open to evidence and continue to pray to find Jesus despite my doubt. How I think that could happen? No idea. But I still do it. I even let a friend of mine wash my feet and pray over me with his wife. Extremely uncomfortable. It’s actually you who end up sounding like an evidence rejecter. Evolution, by the way, has nothing to do with the origins of the entire universe. Evolution has to do with the progression of living things; your poster boy misrepresents it. Evidence is a theory that is only increasing in it’s explanatory power and supporting evidence and is accepted by the scientific community. To deny it would be akin with denying the holocaust.

And about 93% of National Academy of Science members are atheists. Not sure what happened in the last 200 years or so, but there’s been a definite shift since Newton. Also, why don’t you give science about 2000 years of councils and meetings and pow-wows to figure out the answers before criticizing it as having inferior answering power? Seriously, modern science hasn’t had the benefit of such a long time to meet and figure out how to make logical arguments for intangible and unknowable aspects of god like homoousia and such.

Anyway, caricaturization of those you know nothing about doesn’t really help your case. I guess that was my main point. I find those pages rather insulting.

 

[sannb]

Jinnminn: Me thinkest thou protesteth too much!

Listen to Ferde Rombola - he is telling you the truth! Sorry but your hollow arguments just don’t hold a candle to either Ferde’s points nor to Mark Mallett’s writings.

It seems as though you feel you have all the answers and yet you appear to be quite unsettled/discontented. That, in and of itself, should tell you something. God’s love and mercy is there for everyone, and it is proven by the fact that He has not zapped you into oblivion yet – according to your way of thinking, God should step in when an injustice is done by a person who is doing evil to another. And you have done a great job of insulting God, so you should be grateful that He does not act in such a way. He gives us all, in His mercy, a lifetime to change, no matter what we have done to offend Him, whether it is harming or killing others, or denying His very existence. That is because He loves us so much that He would have suffered His passion if you or I were the only person on earth to be saved!

What if you are wrong? There are many words that you will want to eat when you find out you are - believe me, I know from personal experience!!

 

[redhen]

– according to your way of thinking, God should step in when an injustice is done by a person who is doing evil to another.

I can see now why many people immediately jump on the **moral **Problem of evil, it’s so easy to defend - free will.

And you have done a great job of insulting God, so you should be grateful that He does not act in such a way.

Right, much better to consign jinminn to an infinite punishment, for a finite sin.

He gives us all, in His mercy, a lifetime to change, no matter what we have done to offend Him, whether it is harming or killing others, or denying His very existence.

Many humans don’t have a lifetime to wrestle with these issues. Many are snuffed out in infancy by disease, viruses, genetic birth disorders, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, cold, heat, starvation, etc., all of which are evidence of the problem of **natural **evil.

What if you are wrong? There are many words that you will want to eat when you find out you are - believe me, I know from personal experience!!

What if you’re wrong about Calvinism? Lutheranism, the thousands of other denominations, or other religions?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I can see now why many people immediately jump on the **moral **Problem of evil, it’s so easy to defend - free will.

I’d like to see you continue that thought with your critique and your alternative.

Right, much better to consign jinminn to an infinite punishment, for a finite sin.

Neither the Catholic Church nor any Catholic assigns anyone to eternal (sic) punishment. God alone is our judge.

Many humans don’t have a lifetime to wrestle with these issues. Many are snuffed out in infancy by disease, viruses, genetic birth disorders, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, cold, heat, starvation, etc., all of which are evidence of the problem of **natural **evil.

If the definition of ‘evil’ is any misfortune suffered by mankind, you’re right. I think we’re talking about theological evil. In that context, what’s your point?

What if you’re wrong about Calvinism? Lutheranism, the thousands of other denominations, or other religions?

ALL non-Catholic Christsian sects are derived from the Catholic Church beginning in the
16th Century. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were all Catholics. Their revolt was clear heresy. The validity of the remainder is debatable.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombula:
Do you feel like you are getting nowhere?

I haven’t done an evaluation of that. I’m just trying to plant a few seeds with the hope they will sprout.

This is a job only the Holy Spirit can succeed in accomplishing.

No doubt about that. If the seeds don’t sprout, we’re off the hook.

Unfortunately, bringing down those strongholds can be very painful to the ones hanging on to them. Jinminn seems to think he is open, but unfortunately it is not with the right disposition, and he is so full of misinformation that it is difficult to cut through the cobwebs tied around him, like a caterpillar in it’s cocoon.

I think he’s a sincere seeker of truth, but he does seem to get in his own way a lot. We’ll keep planting and hope for the best. What else can we do?

 

[jinminn]

I’ve said neither science nor religion can account for the first cause.

Fine. Stale mate. I say ‘I don’t know’; you say ‘god’.

By ‘rock beget rock,’ I mean the notion that the universe, the billions of billions of tons of matter whirling around out there, all came from a speck of dust, which science used to posit, or the Big Bang, which is science’s current solution-de-jour, which, aside from being conjecture, is perfectly compatible with the creation of the universe by God. You propose the untenable position it all came from nothing, which I reject. I propose God willed it into existence, which you reject. I say my belief makes far more sense than yours because, in order for something to move, there has to be a mover. You have no mover.

• I don’t say ‘nothing’; I say that whatever it was, it doesn’t need to be a timeless, spaceless, disembodied mind of omnimax characteristics. I’m perfectly fine with ‘we don’t know yet’.
• HERE is an article about the unmoved mover.
• In the end, the same conundrum exists for you about god. Namely, something exists… where did it come from? It couldn’t have existed forever… something must have created it! Why is god any different? All you’ve done is to define god such that he doesn’t require a previous cause, but by definition you don’t know of anything else that fits this criteria… which is why you have to invent god as the solution.

You have most of the facts I have and and you see them differently. From the opposite direction, I’d say. You see them, not as facts, but as allegations to be rejected. If we both saw them as facts we’d have to come to the same conclusions.

False. We draw different conclusions. Case in point: a friend of mine recently prayed with his wife to god on whether to buy a granite counter top on short funds. She prayed for god to deliver money via mail. Soon after, their state tax refund came. They concluded that this was god answering their prayer. Here are the ‘facts’:

• they prayed about counter tops
• they asked the answer to be in the form of money delivered by mail
• money came by mail
• it was the end of April, shortly after tax season
• tax refund money is theirs to begin with and no special gift

Those are their ‘facts’ of the case. They concluded that this was god’s answer. So, my conclusion, given the same ‘facts’ is that it is perfectly reasonable for a check to come at the end of April for tax refund purposes and that this is a coincidence. Don’t focus on whether you think their prayer was answered or not; just focus on the fact that with the same facts, they perceive on conclusion and I draw a different one.

Your use of the phrase “your religion” tells me you are not a believer. Why do you bill yourself as a Catholic? Time to change that, isn’t it?

‘Bill myself’? What, is that in my forum ID or something? Haven’t paid attention to that. I’ve been doubting for about 4.5 months now. I still go to Mass with my wife and pray to Jesus in how to find him, but I don’t receive and am not convinced of Christianity’s truth claims.

You require proof. Proof is, by definition, convincing. If you had proof, you wouldn’t need faith, would you? I’m not optimistic about you getting the proof you need.

Face it, you have the ‘proof’ you need or else you wouldn’t put ‘faith’ in the rest. Take your falling example. That supports your faith. If you had no ‘proof’ you would be believing blindly which would be completely illogical and have no foundation. It would be impossible to believe blindly as you wouldn’t even know about Christianity. Even to know about its existence requires you to have heard the story from someone or read it, which immediately leads your mind to decide if it seems plausible or not.

You have the ‘proof’ you need to believe; I do not.

The facts you are presented with are, as I said, not actual facts to you. As facts they have convinced billions over the past 2000 years. To contest them, as you do, you have to believe that 12 relatively uneducated men took the word of a charlatan, who offered them nothing but hardship and persecution, proceeded to conquer the Roman Empire by spreading lies throughout the known world, lies which enticed many thousands of the most brilliant, best educated people who ever lived and which persist today, 2000 years later. Is that what you believe?

A numbers game doesn’t win any battles. Though not billions, millions are convinced about golden plates delivered by an angel to Joseph Smith, 8 armed gods, and whatever else you want. Scientologists even believe they need alien souls to be purged from their bodies. Also keep in mind that councils have decided the doctrine necessary to make everything work – it wasn’t until 325 that they figured out what Jesus was made of. Though objectively Christianity is either lie or not, I would not go so far as to say that they believe they are spreading lies.

I’m not convinced by number-of-believers anyway.

 

[jinminn]

That comes from listening to the voice of Satan. That’s who’s giving you these ‘natural explanations.’

Wow. Nice one. I should have seen that coming at some point. When no other explanation will do resort to either 1) the fault of the doubter (hardened heart, moral agendas, not really being open and other ad hominem attacks or 2) it’s the devil!

I find that truly sad and very unfortunate. You “go with” means it’s you who are stuck with the best scientific evidence. You’ve put yourself in the position where you have no choice. And you think you’re free.

This is a stitch!! The Church will never changes its views lest it risk falling since it supposedly has the gridlock on all morals from a divine source and thus needs to maintain this appearance. Yet science, which you somehow ‘poo-poo’ as imprisoning answers the necessary questions to provide us all with better means of health, energy, communication, and what have you… and I’m ‘stuck’?

If ‘stuck’ means I’m not free to stay with geocentric, flat-earth, bloodletting and the like… I’m happy to be a ‘prisoner’ of it.

By that very narrow definition, no, there isn’t, just as there 's no objectrive proof of science’s version of creation. As I say, there’s a lot of evidence, but as long as you allow Satan to rule your mind, you will never accept it. Never, ever.

• don’t get the point of your post: do you accept evolution or not?
  — if so, there is a considerable heaping pile of evidence suggesting that the predictive power of the theory continues to answer questions about life’s path since it began on earth.
  — if not, keep reading

If you keep letting Xenu operate in your mind, you’ll never be a fully functioning thetan and accept the evidence.

Miracles should occur at ten AM every day in every time zone in the world or there are no such things as miracles. The whole world has not yet been evangelized to Christianity, so Christianity must be a sham. Perfect!

• predictive power carries a lot of weight. The predictive nature of fluid dynamic theories, gravity, and combustion equations allow planes to fly with very repeatable results.
• you put a lot of weight on the predictive power of the claim that the Eucharist is transformed into the body and blood every time at Mass, correct?
  — if so, then you believe that god answers a request on behalf of a priest for a miracle with regularity at 8:15 9:30 and 12:00 on most Sundays in parishes across the world
  — if his words supporting faith in this miracle are reducible to ‘do this in memory of me’ (read ‘celebrate Mass weekly and I will transform the bread and wine when you say the words of consecration’) then why would we not expect the same from ‘ask anything of the father in my name and I will grant it’?
• My point regarding the numbers is that you can hardly criticize me as being pig-headed when the rest of the world is far from convinced by your ‘facts’
  — you yourself used the ‘numbers game’ on me as well

Continued…