Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Help! Seriously, these are the kind of arguments/rantings I am up against.....

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
So...I am on another forum, which is anti-religion but mostly anti-Christian. I go on there and defend my Christian faith. I find beautiful scripture to back up my faith. I am constantly ridiculed, called stupid, a fool, a robot with no mind of my own. This morning, there was this one. (It's a bit long). I feel lost and a bit defeated. Any words of wisdom, I would surely appreciate.
So, the following is a quote from this other forum (which I am starting to believe I should just get off and leave them be)

"Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.


Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.


Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.
God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.


Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.


Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.


The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.


All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.


Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.


Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.


Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.


Contradictory Justice

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.


Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?


Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.


The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.


The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.


The Conclusion of the matter

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.
As for me and my house, we shall choose reality. "

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So...
(Snip)
..... we shall choose reality. "

lovebutterflies, would see what was written as a very good challenge to the faith of a non-Calvinist. I would be happy to give an answer, but there were too many points to address. My post would be a run on post. I am willing to have a conversation, maybe it should be more in private?

In the post you cut and paste, the major part concerned the existence of evil. I believe in double predestination, in that God decreed both good and evil. To make several short concise statements...
1---- the purpose of creation is the glory of God. If God is going to manifest his righteous judgment, evil must come into existence so that God can judge it. Otherwise, we would not praise God in eternity for manifesting his righteous judgment.
2---- God is good, in him there is no darkness at all. God is light. So then, yes, he created Adam with a kind of free will in which Adam was innocent, but capable of sin. Adam chose sin, as God decreed. Of course God also decreed the greatest sin of all, the murder by crucifixion of his one of a kind son. God also hardens hearts.

I am sure plenty of people are going to have advice. If you want to talk to me more, let me know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
God made man in His own image. God is the creator - and we are creative as people.
This fellow mentioned something about robots. God made us in His own image - we have some of His qualities.

Man makes robots in man's own image. Robots behave like man - they have some of the qualities of man. There is a program written by man that controls the robot.


Don't you see a similarity?
Creativity.
This fellow refuses to believe God made him/her. Why believe you made a robot?
That robot does not have the great knowledge of man. Man can't struggle to know all about God - as much as the robot does not have all the knowledge about man
 
That robot does not have the great knowledge of man. Man can't struggle to know all about God - as much as the robot does not have all the knowledge about man
A mortal mind does not strive into the Immortal!
--
A manmade robot can't know more than man.
The little difference is that God has given us the ability to make decisions.
 
The end told from the beginning...

IMO the easiest and most undeniable way to prove the grand theme of the bible true is simply because it's all about Him from the beginning to the end.. The largest themes of the gospel are all foretold in countless ways, all telling the story again and again before it ever came to pass.

Of course there's not much profit in sowing His good seed upon a heart of stone and whose reality is not open to the simplest truths of human existence.
 
What was God doing before He made the universe. I have asked that QUESTION a million times.
No man knows. Could that robot tell you what you were doing before you decided to design it?
 
What's to argue? This dude is giving answers to his own objections, one after another. :toofunny

All you need to do is pick out the obvious errors. I haven't read the whole thing yet... but here's one:

God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers

Where does it say that? God says the sins of the fathers will go down generations in fact. However, the idea of God "repenting".. meaning that His punishments are conditional...this shows God is just. If you do thus and so, this is the punishment BUT if you do thus and so, changing or repenting of the previous actions, then God's punishment is changed because you changed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So...I am on another forum, which is anti-religion but mostly anti-Christian. I go on there and defend my Christian faith. I find beautiful scripture to back up my faith. I am constantly ridiculed, called stupid, a fool, a robot with no mind of my own. This morning, there was this one. (It's a bit long). I feel lost and a bit defeated. Any words of wisdom, I would surely appreciate.
So, the following is a quote from this other forum (which I am starting to believe I should just get off and leave them be)

I'm going to reply to each of the contradictions/impossibilities that our friend Mr. Docterman has posted, but not so that you can post them back on this forum. You may do so if you wish, but it is almost certainly a waste of time. You will not win these arguments. I am replying solely for your sake and for that of others who may read this and be disheartened.



Proving a Universal Negative

I would not say that it is "taken for granted" that we cannot prove a universal negative, as I have seen various logical arguments for this stance, such as Agrippa's Trilemma and Descarte's method of doubt/<evil demon> philosophy. Best to say that we assume it to be true due to its basis in logic: we do not take it for granted.



Defining YHWH

Firstly, I do not agree with the characteristics that Docterman claims we attribute to God. He is the Creator; He is omnipotent; He is timeless; He is perfectly just; He is all-knowing/all-seeing. I do not believe that He is all-loving, nor that He is "eternal", in the common understanding of the term. If you do believe that God possesses these qualities then you will have to compile proofs/defences of these concepts yourself.



Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

Firstly, there was not an "eternity" before Creation; there was no time. I see this argument as almost an entirely an appeal to ignorance: Docterman is right in that we do not know why God created everything, but simply because we cannot see a reason for it does not mean that there is none. Although Creation may have been unnecessary for God (a point I would be willing to concede), this does not mean that He could not/would not create.

A God who is perfect does nothing except exist.
This is an unsubstantiated claim; there is no proof in his argument for this conclusion.



Perfection Begets Imperfection


The doctrine against which Docterman argues here is not fully supported by myself. I would argue, as I frequently do, that whatever happens in our Universe is necessarily caused by God, given that He created everything... but that does not rule out our Universe as having been created as God. Our Universe can be considered perfect: if God deliberately chose (which he obviously did) to create an "imperfect" world, then can we really argue that it is imperfect? It was His intention. I think defining the word "perfection" would also make this point more coherent; it does not mean much in this context when left undefined. Is there only one state of perfection? Is perfection relative or is it absolute? I really am struggling to see Docterman's point here: if it is to assert that whatever happens must be God's will, then I am in agreement with him. Can anyone else see the issue here?



The Freewill Argument

I am not a supporter of the doctrine of free will, but I'll deal with this anyway: I see it as a strawman. The argument usually put forward is that imperfection is necessary for some form of greater good, an example of which could be free will. The concept of a greater good becomes irrelevant if our God is without the bounds of logic (i.e. can create objects such as spherical cuboids), but Docterman has already ruled this out for us: God can only do logical things. Thus, it is possible that negative things can exist if they serve the greater good, given that achieving this greater good without negatives would be a logical impossibility.



All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

And now Mr Docterman ascribes the characteristic of "all-compassionateness" (is that a word haha?) to God, despite this being excluded from his original list. I might agree that this is a quality possessed by God, but that would depend exactly upon the definition of compassionate. Anyway, here is a brief list of potential refutations to the problem of evil:
-God may not be omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient - the Biblical evidence for such claims is not absolute.
-the problem is an appeal to ignorance: simply because we cannot see how evil and God could coexist does not mean that they cannot. Indeed, we must remember that God is necessarily transcendent.
-God may be omnipotent without the bounds of logic: it may be logically impossible for Him to coexist with evil, but that is no problem for His omnipotence.
-evil may serve a purpose/greater good which we just do not understand.
-evil is necessary for goodness; evil and good are just two sides of the same coin. We cannot have one without the other.
-evil does not really exist.


Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

This argument defeats itself and assumes that our perceptions of morality are the correct ones, and that God's are wrong. Although it is debatable that infidels serve an "infinite" punishment, if we assume it to be true... so what? It doesn't sound very good to me - no - but just because it doesn't seem right to us does not mean that it is right. As the arbiter of morality, whatever God says is right is right!




Belief More Important Than Action

This also assumes that our understanding of morality is correct, and also (interestingly) assumes as universal Christian doctrine a very heavily-debated concept; the punishment of the ignorant. Again, this is not really relevant - we must simply trust that God will do what is right. This is fairly easy to do, given that He is omnibenevolent.



Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

Yet again, Docterman assumes that His definition of perfection and truth is the correct definition. There could be a perfectly good reason why scripture is not as clear-cut as some of us might like, and the fact that we can't all come up with a common reason is not proof that there is no reason!



Contradictory Justice

This paragraph consists only of out-of-context quotations/citations.



Contradictory History

See above.



Unfulfilled Prophecy

See above. I'm not sure I even understand the alleged contradiction to which Docterman refers here...



The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.
Many Christians would argue that God's omniscience/omnipotence is self-limited.



The Omniscient is Surprised


Here Docterman takes our understanding of human behaviour along with its apparent traits and properties and then generalises these to the necessarily transcendent being, which is God. This is illogical.


Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.
As for me and my house, we shall choose reality. "
The analogy is simply inappropriate. Docterman is talking about proving universal negatives, and it would indeed be illogical to claim that the IPU definitely does not exist as we have proven it: we have not and cannot. I would not dispute that.

Also, what is the difference between an omniscient, omnipotent, timeless and omnibenevolent unicorn and God manifest as a unicorn? None, as far as I can see.
 
What was God doing before He made the universe. I have asked that QUESTION a million times.
No man knows. Could that robot tell you what you were doing before you decided to design it?

God IS. God is God. How can man expect to know and understand God's mind in even a minutia of detail??? To assume, to project that this would be possible shows to me that someone truly doesn't understand the "basic" concept of "God".

Wouldn't that make the person understanding God, a God himself?

This question is non sequitur and has nothing to do about anything. It's merely a philosophical question, such as how many angels can sit on a head of a pin. ;)
 
What's to argue? This dude is giving answers to his own objections, one after another. :toofunny

All you need to do is pick out the obvious errors. I haven't read the whole thing yet... but here's one:



Where does it say that? God says the sins of the fathers will go down generations in fact. However, the idea of God "repenting".. meaning that His punishments are conditional...this shows God is just. If you do thus and so, this is the punishment BUT if you do thus and so, changing or repenting of the previous actions, then God's punishment is changed because you changed.


Thank you:thumbsup
that dude must have lost a game/match...he is crestfallen - and has written out of his sorrow :biglol
 
A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

Ah now here is a theological concept he's missing. Why would this be impossible for (a) God?

Anyway, it is not God who sentences "His creation". God created all things good, and with the ability to make choices. (Thus man's choice to sin? ) He wanted more than just robots, as you know, but someone to fellowship with etc. (ie. He walked and talked with them in the garden.) The punishment was not created for mankind, but for the angels (satan et al) who rebelled against Him. When man also rebelled, man put himself under the same punishment. (God is a just God.) .... I am sure you can follow this argument out. ;)
 
Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

What was God doing before He made the universe. I have asked that QUESTION a million times.
No man knows. Could that robot tell you what you were doing before you decided to design it?

God IS. God is God. How can man expect to know and understand God's mind in even a minutia of detail??? To assume, to project that this would be possible shows to me that someone truly doesn't understand the "basic" concept of "God".

Wouldn't that make the person understanding God, a God himself?

This question is non sequitur and has nothing to do about anything. It's merely a philosophical question, such as how many angels can sit on a head of a pin. ;)

I told you...that dude lost a game. His team lost a game. I know what it tastes like having lost an Important game. I am talking out Of experience.

BARCELONA lost to Inter Millan (2010 Champions League):angry :crying4 I wept forever.
So.. this dude has written out of his agony.
 
I told you...that dude lost a game. His team lost a game. I know what it tastes like having lost an Important game. I am talking out Of experience.

BARCELONA lost to Inter Millan (2010 Champions League):angry :crying4 I wept forever.
So.. this dude has written out of his agony.

+1 for making me laugh! ;)
 
I told you...that dude lost a game. His team lost a game. I know what it tastes like having lost an Important game. I am talking out Of experience.

BARCELONA lost to Inter Millan (2010 Champions League):angry :crying4 I wept forever.
So.. this dude has written out of his agony.
I will try and find out what team he supports. He could have bet and lost a huge amount of dough :chin
He was either demolished by Real Madrid or BARCELONA, or Manu or Chelsea or...
:shocked Did I go off topic? Sorry for my messironaldovanpercyrooneytorresm misconduct :toofunny
:topictotopic :nod
 
+1 for making me laugh! ;)

guffaws!

I have heard about people who commited suicide after losing a game. Once you lose a match... you pick a pen, open your mouth and begin a piece of tripe - and gargle strange things.

--
Manu lost to Mancity (1:6) few days ago... and our church music director deliberately missed a rehearsal. He was late to church the next sunday.
The other dude that sings tenor did not come to rehearsals - and also missed a sunday service.

--
after this last sunday I met with him. He said:
'Abuse me! Mock me. Laugh at me. It was 6:1. Didn¡¯t Chelsea lose to Arsenal by 5:3 ? Is my case the worst?

Please my fellow forumers, pity a dude who lost a game. It is painful
 
I'm going to reply to each of the contradictions/impossibilities that our friend Mr. Docterman has posted, but not so that you can post them back on this forum. You may do so if you wish, but it is almost certainly a waste of time. You will not win these arguments. I am replying solely for your sake and for that of others who may read this and be disheartened.



Proving a Universal Negative

I would not say that it is "taken for granted" that we cannot prove a universal negative, as I have seen various logical arguments for this stance, such as Agrippa's Trilemma and Descarte's method of doubt/<evil demon> philosophy. Best to say that we assume it to be true due to its basis in logic: we do not take it for granted.



Defining YHWH

Firstly, I do not agree with the characteristics that Docterman claims we attribute to God. He is the Creator; He is omnipotent; He is timeless; He is perfectly just; He is all-knowing/all-seeing. I do not believe that He is all-loving, nor that He is "eternal", in the common understanding of the term. If you do believe that God possesses these qualities then you will have to compile proofs/defences of these concepts yourself.



Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

Firstly, there was not an "eternity" before Creation; there was no time. I see this argument as almost an entirely an appeal to ignorance: Docterman is right in that we do not know why God created everything, but simply because we cannot see a reason for it does not mean that there is none. Although Creation may have been unnecessary for God (a point I would be willing to concede), this does not mean that He could not/would not create.

This is an unsubstantiated claim; there is no proof in his argument for this conclusion.



Perfection Begets Imperfection


The doctrine against which Docterman argues here is not fully supported by myself. I would argue, as I frequently do, that whatever happens in our Universe is necessarily caused by God, given that He created everything... but that does not rule out our Universe as having been created as God. Our Universe can be considered perfect: if God deliberately chose (which he obviously did) to create an "imperfect" world, then can we really argue that it is imperfect? It was His intention. I think defining the word "perfection" would also make this point more coherent; it does not mean much in this context when left undefined. Is there only one state of perfection? Is perfection relative or is it absolute? I really am struggling to see Docterman's point here: if it is to assert that whatever happens must be God's will, then I am in agreement with him. Can anyone else see the issue here?



The Freewill Argument

I am not a supporter of the doctrine of free will, but I'll deal with this anyway: I see it as a strawman. The argument usually put forward is that imperfection is necessary for some form of greater good, an example of which could be free will. The concept of a greater good becomes irrelevant if our God is without the bounds of logic (i.e. can create objects such as spherical cuboids), but Docterman has already ruled this out for us: God can only do logical things. Thus, it is possible that negative things can exist if they serve the greater good, given that achieving this greater good without negatives would be a logical impossibility.



All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

And now Mr Docterman ascribes the characteristic of "all-compassionateness" (is that a word haha?) to God, despite this being excluded from his original list. I might agree that this is a quality possessed by God, but that would depend exactly upon the definition of compassionate. Anyway, here is a brief list of potential refutations to the problem of evil:



Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

This argument defeats itself and assumes that our perceptions of morality are the correct ones, and that God's are wrong. Although it is debatable that infidels serve an "infinite" punishment, if we assume it to be true... so what? It doesn't sound very good to me - no - but just because it doesn't seem right to us does not mean that it is right. As the arbiter of morality, whatever God says is right is right!




Belief More Important Than Action

This also assumes that our understanding of morality is correct, and also (interestingly) assumes as universal Christian doctrine a very heavily-debated concept; the punishment of the ignorant. Again, this is not really relevant - we must simply trust that God will do what is right. This is fairly easy to do, given that He is omnibenevolent.



Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

Yet again, Docterman assumes that His definition of perfection and truth is the correct definition. There could be a perfectly good reason why scripture is not as clear-cut as some of us might like, and the fact that we can't all come up with a common reason is not proof that there is no reason!



Contradictory Justice

This paragraph consists only of out-of-context quotations/citations.



Contradictory History

See above.



Unfulfilled Prophecy

See above. I'm not sure I even understand the alleged contradiction to which Docterman refers here...



The Omniscient Changes the Future

Many Christians would argue that God's omniscience/omnipotence is self-limited.



The Omniscient is Surprised


Here Docterman takes our understanding of human behaviour along with its apparent traits and properties and then generalises these to the necessarily transcendent being, which is God. This is illogical.


The analogy is simply inappropriate. Docterman is talking about proving universal negatives, and it would indeed be illogical to claim that the IPU definitely does not exist as we have proven it: we have not and cannot. I would not dispute that.

Also, what is the difference between an omniscient, omnipotent, timeless and omnibenevolent unicorn and God manifest as a unicorn? None, as far as I can see.
I would disagree a little with you regarding freewill and there are some other things to be said about the problem of evil, as there are with most things philosophical, but overall that is a great response.

It seems to me that the Docterman presumes far too much and really doesn't provide much solid evidence or reasons to believe his arguments.
 
Huge sigh. Thank you all for your answers. I am feeling so ganged up on on this other site and I think maybe I really should get out of there because it is SO anti-Christian. A lot of anti everything but really anti-Christian. BUT there is the other side of me that says, "Well, what if......what if you say the right thing and it gets someone thinking differently and looking at things differently..." Then again, from what I see on there (yeah like the dude that lost his game lol) so many heart-hardened people really bent on spreading untruths, and maybe just don't want to hear the truth. We Christians on there do try to back each other up and I am impressed with "us" not losing our cool. I had to walk away a few times because I knew if I let my emotions get the best of me I was not going to make a very good impression.
So thank you for your wise words. It's very very nice to be on a Christian site :thumbsup
 
You are welcome butterfies :salute

---
Butterflies are so adorable - no reptile shall eat you. Go on with this great work of pollination - and let those flowers blossom. The Owner of the Vineyard keeps the Butterflies.
Most of those reptiles shall surely join the butterflies in this work of pollination. :lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top