There is an Evil God, irony of the God debate

[Relinquish]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

Maybe it is only you.
Or maybe maltheism is not the way you see it and there are other ways, totally different from yours to see maltheism and so, you are alone.

Anyhow, your logic is too confusing so I stay believing in God. Not in god, but in God

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

Where is the irony? What strong arguments exist for an evil god?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

The problem here is that the theist idea of God does not allow for anything petty. That is, God being perfect (whether you think this means “good” or just the most like Himself as possible) would not go for half measures. If He did not care for us, there would be no reason for us to exist, and so we would cease to.

Why create what you detest? For the pleasure of tormenting them? But this would imply that God gained from our existence, which would contradict His perfection (even if perfect evil).

We are created out of love so that we can be loved. We can reject the love and put ourselves in opposition to God, as Satan did. We can even do so, and then pretend we have the moral high ground. But that position is indefensible, one cannot claim moral superiority over the being that created you - that would be to say that God created things better than Himself, (or things which are capable of becoming better than Himself, which would be the same thing). But this also doesn’t work with any theistic conception of God.

No, if there is a God, He must be benevolent. Otherwise we wouldn’t exist to say that He wasn’t.

On another note, and in direct response to your emotional statement - nearly every argument that says God must be evil is purely emotional. It relies on pain and suffering, but to say that a good God would disallow such is to elevate our own feelings of pain to the ultimate standard. Sort of a “that which makes me unhappy must be terrible” sort of thing.

 

[runningdude]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

Catholics are neither “theists” or “atheists”. We are Catholics. We believe in the Catholic interpretation of God, and reject all other interpretations of God. We believe in the Catholic interpretation of God, because we believe God created the Catholic Church to teach about God.

From a Catholic perspective, there is no room for belief in any other so interpretation. The “strengths” of a “theistic” argument or an “atheistic” argument “that people are throwing around” are completely irrelevant. If the Church teaches something, Catholics must believe it. Arguments to the contrary have no meaning to a Catholic.

The Catholic Church teaches God is Good, and that God has three persons, and that God so loved the world, that the Son of God came down to earth to die for our sins.

You can call yourself a “maltheist” and claim that this position has the “strongest arguments” for it, but since the argument that God is evil plainly contradicts the teachings of the Church, no Catholic will believe your argument.

 

[Qoeleth]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

Sure, the “god of this World” (1 Cor 4:4) is the Devil. He is described as “Lord of this Kosmos” by Jesus several times in the Gospel of John. The 1st Epistle of John says, “the whole Kosmos lies under the power of the evil one.”

I understand- the god that the many theist argument prove would have to pretty bad, even by human standards. But that is actually the Devil- the one who sends disease, war, famine, etc. So the God you find to be bad is actually the Devil. Now imagine his opposite- that is the real God!!

Christians should perhaps dump a lot of the old ‘theist’ argument (which support a pagan or even demonic idea of god), and recognise that our God is Jesus Christ, the man of sorrows.

 

[samiam1611]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

You are still projecting human-like attributes to God, which an atheist such as myself does not accept. (As opposed to the theologies of deism, pandeism, and pantheism, which I find more acceptable, relatively speaking.) Particularly unacceptable to me is that you say God is “malicious to mankind.” You are saying God singles out humans as victims of his cruelty, no? This indicates sentience, a quality I can not get on board with.

Your concept of God seems more congruous with reality than the Christian God though. And I agree that belief in a good God seems to be an emotional need - and I think you and I agree reality does not support the existence of a good God.

But why does this necessarily mean God is evil? Couldn’t God be neutral? Saying God is evil, malicious, and cruel are personality traits. Why must God have a personality?

 

[Relinquish]

Maybe it is only you.
Or maybe maltheism is not the way you see it and there are other ways, totally different from yours to see maltheism and so, you are alone.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say.

Anyhow, your logic is too confusing so I stay believing in God. Not in god, but in God

I didn’t propose any ‘logic’.

I just said that maybe both sides of the god debate are right. The theists say there is a god. The atheists say if there is a god, then he is evil. Maybe there is an evil god. I find it strange that people think these positions are mutually exclusive–it’s possible that both are right.

 

[Relinquish]

Where is the irony? What strong arguments exist for an evil god?

Theists argue that there is a god. Atheists argue that if there is a god, he is not the one theists conceive of but is in fact malicious.

The strong arguments for a malicious god are the strong arguments from both the atheist and theist positions. So this would be the many arguments for a god such as the kalam cosmological, Leibniz cosmological, moral argument, argument from design, fine tuning argument, ect. as well as the problem of evil, and/or the problem of divine hiddennes.

Why doesn’t anyone consider the possibility that theists are successful in demonstrating that there is a god, and the atheists are successful in demonstrating that he is malicious?

 

[Relinquish]

The problem here is that the theist idea of God does not allow for anything petty. That is, God being perfect (whether you think this means “good” or just the most like Himself as possible) would not go for half measures. If He did not care for us, there would be no reason for us to exist, and so we would cease to.

Yes I realize that. What I’m saying is that for the most part the arguments for the existence of a deity don’t support your god any more than they support my god. But on the other hand my god is very strongly supported by the problem of evil. So if there could only be one, it seems my god would best fit the evidence. Supposing your god requires from you many ad hoc theodicies to explain evil–which makes the explanitory power of your deity much weaker than mine. Furthermore using my deity as an explanation for the facts we perceive does also have predictive power–that the future will continue to be grim and hopeless and that people will continue to suffer until the end. Every moment things are not getting better is evidence for my deity, and not for yours. That’s a whole lot of evidence piling up.

Why create what you detest? For the pleasure of tormenting them? But this would imply that God gained from our existence, which would contradict His perfection (even if perfect evil).

Why create what you love? For the pleasure of loving them? But this would imply that God gained from our existence, which would contradict His perfection (even perfect good.)

Your position is hurt by your own reasoning. On the other hand I do not believe that my god is perfectly evil or that he does not have desires. In fact I believe my god does have desires–and that is what gives my theistic beliefs predictive power and explanatory power over yours. That means I have more evidence for my beliefs than you have for yours with respect to this.

We are created out of love so that we can be loved. We can reject the love and put ourselves in opposition to God, as Satan did. We can even do so, and then pretend we have the moral high ground. But that position is indefensible, one cannot claim moral superiority over the being that created you - that would be to say that God created things better than Himself, (or things which are capable of becoming better than Himself, which would be the same thing). But this also doesn’t work with any theistic conception of God.

Wow. I’m surprised you didn’t predict what I was going to say. I would have thought the counter claim would be incredibly obvious.

No, if there is a God, He must be benevolent. Otherwise we wouldn’t exist to say that He wasn’t.

Would you care to define “god” prove this to be the case? I suspect you’re considering a specific person instead of type of thing, as you capitalized the “g” which would make the word a proper noun. When I say “god” I am talking about a type of thing, not a particular thing.

On another note, and in direct response to your emotional statement - nearly every argument that says God must be evil is purely emotional. It relies on pain and suffering, but to say that a good God would disallow such is to elevate our own feelings of pain to the ultimate standard. Sort of a “that which makes me unhappy must be terrible” sort of thing.

What…? I made an emotional statement? Would you care to quote that so I know what exactly you’re talking about?

Oh I see, you have presuppositions that you probably can’t support. Look fellow, I say that the creator is evil because I have evidence and arguments.

I know people often are only able to comprehend the motivations of others by how they would themselves be motivated to behave similarly–but that is really just the manifestation of a shallow mind. Just because you are unable to objectively speak of what is good and evil without having your feelings interfere, doesn’t mean no one can.

My feelings are not the ultimate standard–objective morality is. And if God does something which is objectively evil, like rape, then he is objectively evil.

I will not accept any sort of moral relativism here, I’m sorry but I think moral relativism is just an excuse to get away with dictating what you desire to be good and evil to be objectively good and evil.

 

[Relinquish]

Catholics are neither “theists” or “atheists”. We are Catholics. We believe in the Catholic interpretation of God, and reject all other interpretations of God. We believe in the Catholic interpretation of God, because we believe God created the Catholic Church to teach about God.

… do you know what theism is…?

That’s like saying you’re not bipedal, you’re human. I’m at a loss for words that someone on a philosophy section of a forum would not know what theism means.

From a Catholic perspective, there is no room for belief in any other so interpretation. The “strengths” of a “theistic” argument or an “atheistic” argument “that people are throwing around” are completely irrelevant. If the Church teaches something, Catholics must believe it. Arguments to the contrary have no meaning to a Catholic.

This comment strikes me as completely irrelevant. I don’t think you understand the OP in the least.

The Catholic Church teaches God is Good, and that God has three persons, and that God so loved the world, that the Son of God came down to earth to die for our sins.

No it doesn’t. You just said Catholics are not theists–so you can’t possibly believe God exists.

You can call yourself a “maltheist” and claim that this position has the “strongest arguments” for it, but since the argument that God is evil plainly contradicts the teachings of the Church, no Catholic will believe your argument.

I never said your god was evil. Did I ever capitalize the “g” when writing “god”? If not, then the word wasn’t a proper noun and not referencing a person but a type of thing.

I believe in a malicious god. I do not believe that God is malicious. I don’t think God exists.

“God” is the name of a person, “god” is a type of thing.

 

[Relinquish]

Sure, the “god of this World” (1 Cor 4:4) is the Devil. He is described as “Lord of this Kosmos” by Jesus several times in the Gospel of John. The 1st Epistle of John says, “the whole Kosmos lies under the power of the evil one.”

I understand- the god that the many theist argument prove would have to pretty bad, even by human standards. But that is actually the Devil- the one who sends disease, war, famine, etc. So the God you find to be bad is actually the Devil. Now imagine his opposite- that is the real God!!

Christians should perhaps dump a lot of the old ‘theist’ argument (which support a pagan or even demonic idea of god), and recognise that our God is Jesus Christ, the man of sorrows.

The Devil, according to Christian mythology, did not create the universe. My god created the universe so obviously the Devil is not my god. I do not believe your god exists, or your Devil either.

Only my god is the one true god who created everything and designed the universe and life–and we will all suffer greatly for his pleasure. And yes maybe you should dump the vast majority of the arguments and evidence coming out of your own apologetic circles, as they support my deity just as well as they support yours. The only problem is if you do that then my maltheistic beliefs are vastly more supported than your Christian beliefs and you would all be irrational for not converting to maltheism. And I’m not sure why you prefaced that with “old”, even the modern day arguments for the most part don’t support your deity any better than they support mine.

 

[Relinquish]

You are still projecting human-like attributes to God, which an atheist such as myself does not accept. (As opposed to the theologies of deism, pandeism, and pantheism, which I find more acceptable, relatively speaking.) Particularly unacceptable to me is that you say God is “malicious to mankind.” You are saying God singles out humans as victims of his cruelty, no? This indicates sentience, a quality I can not get on board with.

I’ve not said anything about the Christian deity, so I’m not sure what you mean. Why wouldn’t the deity have personlike qualities, though? Why is an unconscious creator or designer more likely than a conscious one? I will admit, demonstrating that the designer/creator/moral law giver is a conscious person is a daunting task which I’ve never seen one preform to my liking, but I don’t see why an unconscious deity would be preferred by you over a conscious one.
For what reason could you not accept that the deity is conscious or sentient?

Your concept of God seems more congruous with reality than the Christian God though. And I agree that belief in a good God seems to be an emotional need - and I think you and I agree reality does not support the existence of a good God.

Thank you, I’m glad you agree.

But why does this necessarily mean God is evil? Couldn’t God be neutral? Saying God is evil, malicious, and cruel are personality traits. Why must God have a personality?

Oh well I don’t actually believe the creator is evil, necessarily. I believe that he, during some moments in human history, and been spectacularly malicious while in other points in human history he seems preoccupied with other things. He is not perfectly evil, and there’s not even any reason to think we’re his first priority or focus.

And why wouldn’t the creator have a personality? I don’t have any arguments that says he does, but just in the same I haven’t heard any arguments that he doesn’t. It seems on this point, as of yet, one should be agnostic. Now I personally have had religious experiences that I wont get into which do lead me to believe the creator is a person–but I admit that I can’t give any proofs for this.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

What are some of the other features of G-d that you believe or don’t believe in? For example, do you believe in G-d’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.? Or is malevolence the only feature? And what do you mean by the statement that “this fellow goes through phases”? Why is that, and what determines the changes?

 

[Relinquish]

What are some of the other features of G-d that you believe or don’t believe in? For example, do you believe in G-d’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.? Or is malevolence the only feature? And what do you mean by the statement that “this fellow goes through phases”? Why is that, and what determines the changes?

I do not believe in the Jewish deity, his name is not “G-d”. I think my deity is practically all knowing, all powerful, and all present. There may be some situations in which he is not in complete control, or not completely knowledgeable about–I’m not sure. If malevolence was his only feature, he wouldn’t be much of a god. I think he possesses all the qualities people traditionally attribute to a god, as well as being malevolent. And I believe he goes through phases of using us for the pleasure of our suffering because human history goes through phases of great suffering. It would be obviously wrong to say that the creator always was wanting to hurt us–or else he would obviously not be very powerful because we’re not always being hurt. And his actions are determined by his nature.

 

[meltzerboy]

I do not believe in the Jewish deity, his name is not “G-d”. I think my deity is practically all knowing, all powerful, and all present. There may be some situations in which he is not in complete control, or not completely knowledgeable about–I’m not sure. If malevolence was his only feature, he wouldn’t be much of a god. I think he possesses all the qualities people traditionally attribute to a god, as well as being malevolent. And I believe he goes through phases of using us for the pleasure of our suffering because human history goes through phases of great suffering. It would be obviously wrong to say that the creator always was wanting to hurt us–or else he would obviously not be very powerful because we’re not always being hurt. And his actions are determined by his nature.

Thank you for your answers. One more question: the nature of the god you believe in therefore doesn’t really change, even though it goes through phases or cycles? IOW, do you think his nature remains essentially malevolent, or can it transform itself into a benevolent nature (unlike the Christian Satan) due to the god’s great power? In any case, he seems to be somewhat of a personal god, even though we are not always his main focus.

 

[Relinquish]

Thank you for your answers. One more question: the nature of the god you believe in therefore doesn’t really change, even though it goes through phases or cycles? IOW, do you think his nature remains essentially malevolent, or can it transform itself into a benevolent nature (unlike the Christian Satan) due to the god’s great power?

He could become benevolent if he so desired to change his nature, I suppose. It’s not logically impossible for his nature to be different, but at the same time I don’t know what might motivate him to change.

 

[samiam1611]

I’ve not said anything about the Christian deity, so I’m not sure what you mean.

All I meant was your idea of a god is more palatable to me than the Christian god. But less palatable than deism (a god who does not intervene) or pantheism (a theology I don’t really understand but find appealing).

Why wouldn’t the deity have personlike qualities, though? Why is an unconscious creator or designer more likely than a conscious one? I will admit, demonstrating that the designer/creator/moral law giver is a conscious person is a daunting task which I’ve never seen one preform to my liking, but I don’t see why an unconscious deity would be preferred by you over a conscious one.
For what reason could you not accept that the deity is conscious or sentient?

I’ll answer in a second.

Thank you, I’m glad you agree.

You’re welcome, and I want to add that I highly respect your ability to look objectively at this matter without letting all those messy emotions and wishful thinking get in the way.

Oh well I don’t actually believe the creator is evil, necessarily. I believe that he, during some moments in human history, and been spectacularly malicious while in other points in human history he seems preoccupied with other things. He is not perfectly evil, and there’s not even any reason to think we’re his first priority or focus.

I noticed that your said evil in your title but not in your OP so I was considering asking you that - if you thought God was truly 100% evil, or if you just thought he is like, more bad than good.

And why wouldn’t the creator have a personality? I don’t have any arguments that says he does, but just in the same I haven’t heard any arguments that he doesn’t. It seems on this point, as of yet, one should be agnostic. Now I personally have had religious experiences that I wont get into which do lead me to believe the creator is a person–but I admit that I can’t give any proofs for this.

Well I do consider myself an agnostic atheist, because I think the specific nature of the creator, if indeed there is one, cannot be known through reason or demonstration. Only through revelation can God be known, IMO, and the multitudes of conflicting revelations leads me to distrust all revelation.

I will respond to the issue of personality shortly.

 

[TimothyH]

There is some irony in the god debate. Here we have theists arguing that there is a god, and we have atheists arguing that if there is a god, it’s not the god the theists conceive of.

Has no one ever considered that maybe both the atheists and theists are right? Maybe all the arguments for the existence of a deity are compelling enough to accept that there is one, and the atheological arguments that if there was a god, he would be evil, deceptive, and all around not nice are compelling as well. I am the hybrid that is born of both the atheistic and theistic position.

I am a maltheist, I accept both most of the popular theological and atheological arguments. I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind. The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

If you really think about it, the sort of deity I believe in best fits the arguments and the evidence everybody’s throwing around. I don’t get why no one else sees this, though. Maybe people just don’t want to believe in that sort of god, maybe it’s purely an emotional thing. Anyways are there other maltheists out there like me?

Then who do you say Jesus is?

-Tim-

 

[in_servitude]

I believe there is a creator/designer deity, and that this fellow goes through phases of being incredibly cruel and malicious to man kind.

In my opinion, I do think it is spiritually healthy to spend some time thinking this way. Because, if we do not actually wrestle with the concept that we might want to flee God, then how can we truly embrace Him?

I did engage in this internal debate for some time. I decided to reject the notion of an evil God. I cannot see a way for an evil God to offer Himself up by being tortured to death.

One theory that I adhere to is that God lives outside of time. His creations, however, live inside of time. Therefore, all of the overt predictions of the crucifixion of Christ demonstrate their Holy Origin.

The way I see it, I am the most rational. I am willing to conceive to the stronger arguments from both sides, and this is where it has gotten me.

People will often comment that they don’t see why God allows cancer, auto accidents, etc. etc… However, I ask them, “What would happen if God actually inhibited every kind of consequence to our sin?” Blank stare.

You may judge yourself to be rationally superior, but I have not seen that side prevail in my discussions.