Worlds problems....

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Yesterday you wrote this -

No i dont think that's the implication at all, its not that God is withholding evidence as in hiding something from you, but that the evidence that is presented is not valid in your eyes, or is flawed, or whatever.

and then today -

does God withhold certain information from persons, yes indeed.

If that's not a u-turn, i don't know what is.

although it seems on the surface that its a U-turn, the two statements were made with
regard to different questions, the first, what i thought was the intent of the Gmans
statement, the second, what the Bible actually states. If i admit that I have changed
my mind, will you stop beating up on me?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
although it seems on the surface that its a U-turn, the two statements were made with
regard to different questions, the first, what i thought was the intent of the Gmans
statement, the second, what the Bible actually states. If i admit that I have changed
my mind, will you stop beating up on me?

The issue is not that you've changed your mind, i know you've changed your mind and so do you, anyone with a reading comprehension of 8+ years plus can see you've changed your mind. I actually don't care if you've changed your mind, we all make mistakes we are after all human, that's part of learning.

The interesting part of this for me is - when you changed your mind why not just hold your hand up acknowledge that you had? It's no biggie, in fact it demonstrates an act of humility and grace, virtues that are commendable. Instead you went on this wild-goose chase trying your hardest to admit you'd not changed your mind until the evidence was incontrovertible. Faced with choice of humility or obfuscation you chose the latter.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
.. Faced with choice of humility or obfuscation you chose the latter.

Nothing new there.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The issue is not that you've changed your mind, i know you've changed your mind and so do you, anyone with a reading comprehension of 8+ years plus can see you've changed your mind. I actually don't care if you've changed your mind, we all make mistakes we are after all human, that's part of learning.

The interesting part of this for me is - when you was incontrovertible. Faced with choice of humility or obfuscation you chose the latter.

I find the question of whether God is withholding pivotal information to be of great interest. The question brings up the argument from nonbelief, as at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

Which is of course completely unconvincing to the faithful. 😉

Personally I find the argument from nonbelief to point to universal reconciliation as the rational position for humans to take WRT a loving God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The issue is not that you've changed your mind, i know you've changed your mind and so do you, anyone with a reading comprehension of 8+ years plus can see you've changed your mind. I actually don't care if you've changed your mind, we all make mistakes we are after all human, that's part of learning.

The interesting part of this for me is - when you was incontrovertible. Faced with choice of humility or obfuscation you chose the latter.

a wild goose chase? trying my hardest? if i tried my hardest i would still be arguing
against changing my mind, i still could argue, but i simply gave up, like you say, its no
big deal, so I'm not Jesus and imperfect, i knew that already.

Originally posted by JS357
I find the question of whether God is withholding pivotal information to be of great interest. The question brings up the argument from nonbelief, as at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

Which is of course completely unconvincing to the faithful. 😉

Personally I find the argument from nonbelief to point to universal reconciliation ...[text shortened]... on for humans to take WRT a loving God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

You still collide with the problem of evil and the "Epicurean paradox"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what do you mean chosen? The apostle Peter states that all christians are a chosen
race.

galveston75 has often claimed that many Christians are not 'chosen'. Surely it is not galveston75 who decides who are Christians and who are not?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You still collide with the problem of evil and the "Epicurean paradox"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Yes, a different concept of the world is needed, that is, it must be conceived of as having no evil. This is something that neither the God-believers nor their opponents are willing to do.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You still collide with the problem of evil and the "Epicurean paradox"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God is willing and able to prevent evil, but not on your schedule .. when he is good and ready.

If you open your mind and understand that roughly 6000 years from Adam to the return of Christ and then another 1000 years for Christ's reign on earth, then that 7000 years completes the reign of evil on the earth. Sin and death will be eliminated after that. 7000 years is nothing in the life of the universe which scientists say must be many millions of years old.

Atheists are like kids going on a 4 hour road trip, and every 15 minutes would ask "Are we there yet?", and then think that their father is lost.

There is a time frame for every journey. Your lack of understanding of all the parameters involved does not make God malevolent any more than the childs lack of understanding of what a 4 hr trip entails make the father lost.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes, a different concept of the world is needed, that is, it must be conceived of as having no evil. This is something that neither the God-believers nor their opponents are willing to do.

?

I would have no trouble living in a world with no evil, or of working towards that goal.

The point is that if a god exists then they should have the ability to make that world a
reality and have done so yesterday (so to speak).


My ideal society (as I currently envision it) would probably look like Ian M. Banks' fictional
Utopia "The Culture" which mainly deals with 'evil' as an external threat posed by others
(who in reality might not exist depending on the number of sentient species in the galaxy).

However while that society sounds wonderful to me (and is probably as close as is possible
to a society which has no evil) it doesn't appeal to everyone and I am sure that someone like
RJHinds or robbie would absolutely hate it.

Which would be a question I might ask them if they could cope with hypothetical questions.

And one could argue that imposing a society on someone who doesn't want it is evil.

I certainly argue that even if god did exist then that god trying to impose their vision for society
on humanity is evil.

So perhaps what we really need is the space to create differing societies for differing people.

Which we wont find on this planet.

Which is why we need to expand out into space.

The only place big enough for new countries, worlds, and civilisations to be formed and grow.

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75 has often claimed that many Christians are not 'chosen'. Surely it is not galveston75 who decides who are Christians and who are not?

why are you continually asking me to comment on the Gmans perspective? weird.

Originally posted by Rajk999
God is willing and able to prevent evil, but not on your schedule .. when he is good and ready.

If you open your mind and understand that roughly 6000 years from Adam to the return of Christ and then another 1000 years for Christ's reign on earth, then that 7000 years completes the reign of evil on the earth. Sin and death will be eliminated after that. 7 ...[text shortened]... more than the childs lack of understanding of what a 4 hr trip entails make the father lost.

This argument is pretty stupid because you are making it to me.
(know your audience)

Which means you are going to be hit with this response.

ADAM AND EVE ARE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FROM A FAIRY TALE AND NEVER EXISTED.

Not 6,000 years ago or 600,000 years ago.

The roots of civilisation trace back at least 10,000 years and humanity itself several
hundred thousand years with early hominids stretching back several million years.

And I KNOW this for a fact.


So any argument that starts by mentioning Adam being a real person is utterly pointless
and idiotic when directed towards me.

You have to prove your theology true before I am going to care about it.

Meanwhile, Your callous disregard for in your estimation 7,000 years of human suffering has
been duly noted.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This argument is pretty stupid because you are making it to me.
(know your audience)

Which means you are going to be hit with this response.

ADAM AND EVE ARE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FROM A FAIRY TALE AND NEVER EXISTED.

Not 6,000 years ago or 600,000 years ago.

The roots of civilisation trace back at least 10,000 years and humanity itself severa ...[text shortened]... r callous disregard for in your estimation 7,000 years of human suffering has
been duly noted.

And I KNOW this for a fact,

really what facts?

Originally posted by Rajk999
God is willing and able to prevent evil, but not on your schedule .. when he is good and ready.

Ah! The famous time traveling God that can prevent evil that has already come to pass!
Or do you really mean that he is not actually willing and able to prevent some evil but rather picks and chooses?
The problem with your argument is that whatsoever God may do in the future, it will never reverse all the evil that has already come to pass.
Yes I know that some Christians brought up with the 'eye for an eye' legal system think that two people missing eyes is somehow perfection, but most people realize that pain can never be reversed and compensation doesn't really do it justice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
And I KNOW this for a fact,

really what facts?

Well there is the DNA evidence, the Archaeological evidence, the...

Oh who am I kidding, You don't understand or agree with the basic foundational principles
of logic or evidence that are required for me to explain this to you and are proud of it.

Until you are prepared to learn how to reason properly lets just stick with
"It has been demonstrated by science to my satisfaction that..." When I claim to know something.

You believe in the literal truth of Noah's Ark so you are so far off the beaten track that my
trying to explain this is pointless.


My point was that making an argument to me that starts by assuming things that I believe/know
not to be true is really pointless.

Like RJHinds (or you) telling me to read the bible... I don't believe in your god, if god doesn't exist then
the bible was written by men who were delusional, and as they lagged a coupla thousand years behind
us in scientific knowledge and moral development don't really have anything interesting to say.
So starting your argument (to me, or really any atheist) with "it says in the bible..." is really pointless.

Because you missed the first step of convincing us that we should care what it says in the bible.


Likewise I don't believe in creationism (young earth or otherwise) and so starting the argument by
assuming that creationism is true is pointless because I am going to just throw it out on it's face
because I don't accept the premises.

Just like I unfortunately can't start an argument with you where I have evolution is true as a premise
because you won't accept that. So I would have to first try to convince you that evolution is true
before I can move on.