Religious/Philosophic Discussion

[Guest Hal]

This statement is simply not true. The evidence for a mortal man named Jesus is very lacking. Of all the historians and scholars who lived at the same time as Jesus, there is no evidence that any one of them referenced him or even knew about him.

 

Flavius Josephus is often cited as proof, but the fact is, he wasn't even born until 37 AD, 4 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. By the time he would come of age to actually remember names and places, it would have been a decade after. This is if you completely ignore the fact that Josephus mention of Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) is considered by many to be a forgery. Even with this forgery, Josephus only mentions Jesus twice in all his writings.

 

On the contrary, many other significant people of ancient history, around the same time as Jesus, do have historical records.

 

By the same token, there are spaces where we don't really know who the emperor was. Ancient history is a difficult subject and it is constantly evolving. From what I have seen, I believe Jesus existed as a man.

 

As for historical evolution, did the Roman Empire decline and then fall?

[10_penn]

By the same token, there are spaces where we don't really know who the emperor was. Ancient history is a difficult subject and it is constantly evolving. From what I have seen, I believe Jesus existed as a man.

 

As for historical evolution, did the Roman Empire decline and then fall?

 

As for my own personal belief? I am torn right now. The evidence is really not there for the actual man named Jesus, and I am truly doubting any divinity towards him if he did exist.

 

I'm not so educated on the Roman empire, so I cannot begin to answer that pretending like I am educated on it.

[Guest Hal]

As for my own personal belief? I am torn right now. The evidence is really not there for the actual man named Jesus, and I am truly doubting any divinity towards him if he did exist.

 

I'm not so educated on the Roman empire, so I cannot begin to answer that pretending like I am educated on it.

 

That's ok. Basically there are a few different theories about an event that has tons of sources speaking about it.

 

In 476 AD the Western Empire fell, that's not really debatable. Some people believe that the Empire was in decline prior to that (this was the primary belief for a long time). The new thought says that the West fell and then the empire declined (the fall and decline theory). Within those theories there are also differing points of view about barbarian influence and wars.

[10_penn]

I did not really know much about any of that. I will be doing some homework later

[Guest Hal]

I did not really know much about any of that. I will be doing some homework later

 

For a really good foundation try The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.

[Diagnosis]

I am way late on my post to start quoting anyone, alot of good stuff in here. Just wanted to say, I did misunderstand question 2a, forgive my ignorance. Doing more research now thanks to the other good post on this subject... I get sucked into this debate every time.

[KillJoy]

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

 

This Thread is STILL here!?!?!?!?!?

 

:gabe:

 

KillJoy

[Guest Hal]

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

 

This Thread is STILL here!?!?!?!?!?

 

:gabe:

 

KillJoy

 

This thread is eternal. It exists outside of time, it was always here and will always be here.

[thorne]

for a religion thread its pretty dang tame ,

 

Wish dr rick was here lol i kid

[Nickey4271647545519]

This thread is eternal. It exists outside of time, it was always here and will always be here.

 

Time is relative.

[smokinHawk1647545499]

This statement is simply not true. The evidence for a mortal man named Jesus is very lacking. Of all the historians and scholars who lived at the same time as Jesus, there is no evidence that any one of them referenced him or even knew about him.

 

Flavius Josephus is often cited as proof, but the fact is, he wasn't even born until 37 AD, 4 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. By the time he would come of age to actually remember names and places, it would have been a decade after. This is if you completely ignore the fact that Josephus mention of Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) is considered by many to be a forgery. Even with this forgery, Josephus only mentions Jesus twice in all his writings.

 

On the contrary, many other significant people of ancient history, around the same time as Jesus, do have historical records.

 

please you are grasping for straws here.

[10_penn]

please you are grasping for straws here.

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, then please provide it.

[Slowbalt]

1: Does God exist? If yes, why do you think so? If no, why do you think not?

 

I could not say whether God exists or not because there is no way to be 100% certain but we can talk in probabilities.

 

I do not believe in the Christian God or any other anthropomorphic god that intervenes in daily life. I believe in a life force or maybe an interconnectedness of everything. Does anyone really believe in Zeus or Wotan or Thor? Why not?

 

 

 

1(a): Can the existence of God be proven or disproven scientifically or logically?

 

Not with 100% certainty but again, we can talk of what is more likely or not. I can not disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or leprechauns but there is very little evidence of their existence and one could rationally come to the idea that they are unlikely to exist.

 

2: How do you think the universe was created? (i.e., Not just the big bang, but what cause it)

 

It is very difficult to speculate on what happened before the ability to measure started. From my understand of scientific literature we have been able to measure back to a few milliseconds after "Big Bang". Since we don't have/understand the ability to measure before, the possibilities are endless and we have no evidence that I am aware of swaying us one way or another. Personally I don't find it all that important who banged, or what banged as I don't see that causing any impact on my existence.

 

 

2(a): Is there a sound basis for the theory of intelligent design?

There is a somewhat coherent logical argument that "God did it". This argument is already based on the premise that God exists so it is logically sound but the premise, imho is not supportable.

 

 

3: If God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being why does evil exist?

 

I have never heard a valid explanation of this myself and I can't think of a way evil could exist with the benevolent and loving aspect of the Christian God.

 

A couple questions to the forum:

 

Can Free Will exist with the all knowing and all powerful God of the Christian bible?

 

If God has the power to listen to prayers and take action on them, how is it moral for God to allow innocent people to be raped, amputated limbs not to grow back, and war not to end?

[Guest Hal]

Can Free Will exist with the all knowing and all powerful God of the Christian bible?

 

If God has the power to listen to prayers and take action on them, how is it moral for God to allow innocent people to be raped, amputated limbs not to grow back, and war not to end?

 

1. Yes. The God of the Bible doesn't change your ideas, you have the freedom to pick what you do. That freedom of choice can be seen throughout the Bible.

 

2. You just asked the question of evil that you previously said you cannot answer. What argument do you want? Are we arrogant to believe that there is no good cause for those evil acts? We can't see it, but we are definitely arrogant if we think we can conceive of everything that an omnipotent being knows. Is God like a parent? He could have motives that we simply don't understand.

 

Must evil exist as a counter to good? Can we know pleasure if we never know pain?

 

Does free will extend beyond arrogant humans? Is there a sort of cosmic free will? That would be able to explain all evil acts.

 

Is there an equilibrium of pain in life? Will all the pains in my life equal all the pain in the life of another person who may have been a victim of murder or rape?

[Slowbalt]

1. Yes. The God of the Bible doesn't change your ideas, you have the freedom to pick what you do. That freedom of choice can be seen throughout the Bible.

 

If free will is the idea that I am free to make any choice yet God knows EVERYTHING about me before I am born then what I see as free will is simply the path that God knows I am going to choose. If God knows I will choose it before I have the option of choosing it, I do not see this as free will. It is only God's plan.

 

2. You just asked the question of evil that you previously said you cannot answer. What argument do you want? Are we arrogant to believe that there is no good cause for those evil acts? We can't see it, but we are definitely arrogant if we think we can conceive of everything that an omnipotent being knows. Is God like a parent? He could have motives that we simply don't understand.

 

The bible says God answers prayers and people do pray but they are unanswered. Is God not listening? Does God not care? That was my point but I apologize for the strange wording.

 

Must evil exist as a counter to good? Can we know pleasure if we never know pain?

 

Does free will extend beyond arrogant humans? Is there a sort of cosmic free will? That would be able to explain all evil acts.

 

Is there an equilibrium of pain in life? Will all the pains in my life equal all the pain in the life of another person who may have been a victim of murder or rape?

 

Evil does not have to be a counter to good. It could be argued that there is no good and evil (Friedrich Nietzsche anyone?) there are just things that people (animals) do. The motives and the outcomes can be calculated or not. All of this would have to depend on what you mean by "good" (good for who?).

 

Personally I believe in free will to the extent that government and corporations will allow. Other forms of life are the same in my opinion. Depending on what you mean by "cosmic free will" I could agree with that. Things happen. They all have a cause but are not necessarily calculated and planned for a purpose.

 

As far as pain equilibrium, I do not believe there could be one as pain is relative to a point of view. Some people are born with a deficiency to not feel physical pain but I'm sure they can feel emotional pain. Is that the same, different, equal? One person who was raped may not have any issues with it as another may feel that it ruined their life, etc.

[Rustlestiltskin]

This thread is eternal. It exists outside of time, it was always here and will always be here.

 

I think i'm going to pick up that book you mentioned above, "fall of the roman empire". sounds like a good read

[Guest Hal]

If free will is the idea that I am free to make any choice yet God knows EVERYTHING about me before I am born then what I see as free will is simply the path that God knows I am going to choose. If God knows I will choose it before I have the option of choosing it, I do not see this as free will. It is only God's plan.

 

 

 

The bible says God answers prayers and people do pray but they are unanswered. Is God not listening? Does God not care? That was my point but I apologize for the strange wording.

 

 

 

Evil does not have to be a counter to good. It could be argued that there is no good and evil (Friedrich Nietzsche anyone?) there are just things that people (animals) do. The motives and the outcomes can be calculated or not. All of this would have to depend on what you mean by "good" (good for who?).

 

Personally I believe in free will to the extent that government and corporations will allow. Other forms of life are the same in my opinion. Depending on what you mean by "cosmic free will" I could agree with that. Things happen. They all have a cause but are not necessarily calculated and planned for a purpose.

 

As far as pain equilibrium, I do not believe there could be one as pain is relative to a point of view. Some people are born with a deficiency to not feel physical pain but I'm sure they can feel emotional pain. Is that the same, different, equal? One person who was raped may not have any issues with it as another may feel that it ruined their life, etc.

Ok, then subscribe to a different definition of omniscient. Because there is free will, God cannot know what you will choose to do without a margin of error. There are many different takes on God's omniscience, I just picked the one I enjoy. Now, if you want to take my more absolute Idea, God does not lay out a plan for you. I think an omniscient being can simply see all possibilities and can know which road you will take given any choice. That does not mean that you don't make your decisions, it simply means God would be prepared for all of them.

 

How do you know their prayers are unanswered? How do they know? What if God answers prayers in a way we cannot see? This is another point of human arrogance. "God, please let me win the lottery." That wouldn't make any sense, you shouldn't really pray for anything like that. "God, please heal my sick mother." What if he does? What if it's just not the way you want it? Arrogance.

 

Ok, so what happens when a forest fire starts when lightning strikes a tree? That is not by choice of any animal or human. It is evil then to let a deer suffer for 5 days in the fire before it finally dies. That is obviously not good for the deer. Does any good come of it? You already have a definition of good (see Websters), apply it to this scenario.

 

Broaden your view of the pain point. You're looking at that one very narrowly. Pain does not need to be equal by type (e.g., the person who cannot feel physical pain) to achieve a lifetime equilibrium.

[Slowbalt]

Ok, then subscribe to a different definition of omniscient. Because there is free will, God cannot know what you will choose to do without a margin of error. There are many different takes on God's omniscience, I just picked the one I enjoy. How do you know their prayers are unanswered? How do they know? What if God answers prayers in a way we cannot see? This is another point of human arrogance. "God, please let me win the lottery." That wouldn't make any sense, you shouldn't really pray for anything like that. "God, please heal my sick mother." What if he does? What if it's just not the way you want it? Arrogance.

 

If God is ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL how can one say that "He makes mistakes or doesn't know what one might choose". That does not logically follow the premise. How do I know prayers are unanswered? 35,000 children die EVERY DAY from lack of money to pay for food and water. I'm sure some of them pray...... It always seems that miracles are always something that could have happened anyways.

 

Ok, so what happens when a forest fire starts when lightning strikes a tree? That is not by choice of any animal or human. It is evil then to let a deer suffer for 5 days in the fire before it finally dies. That is obviously not good for the deer. Does any good come of it? You already have a definition of good (see Websters), apply it to this scenario.

 

Luckily deer have the ability to avoid fire by simpy moving. Do some die a horrible, fiery death? Probably. Is this evil? Not in the slightest. Death is natural and is part of the natural cycle of life.

 

 

Broaden your view of the pain point. You're looking at that one very narrowly. Pain does not need to be equal by type (e.g., the person who cannot feel physical pain) to achieve a lifetime equilibrium.

 

I have no idea where you get the idea that I am not looking at pain broadly from the limited information you have but what I said is that pain is relative so how can someone say that thier pain is equal to my pain without them being able to FEEL my pain. To my knowledge it is possible to relate to someone elses pain but not to FEEL someone elses pain. I find it difficult to quantify and measure pain for comparison.

 

 

Why do you believe in the Christian god as opposed to any other of the thousands of gods that are not believed currently? What convinces you of God's existence?

[Guest Hal]

If God is ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL how can one say that "He makes mistakes or doesn't know what one might choose". That does not logically follow the premise. How do I know prayers are unanswered? 35,000 children die EVERY DAY from lack of money to pay for food and water. I'm sure some of them pray...... It always seems that miracles are always something that could have happened anyways.

There can be limitations of omnipotence and omniscience. For example, God is bound by the laws of logic. You didn't follow the premise to begin with or you just misunderstand the definition(s) of God. God is that than which there can be nothing greater. That's the typical Christian belief, whether they know that or not. I cannot think of a being that can defy logic (e.g., creates something so heavy that the creator cannot lift it). You can't change the rules mid argument by removing the confines of omnipotence and omniscience which can exist with limits, and adding in new terminology like "all knowing" and "all powerful".

 

You still haven't answered the question. How do you know their prayers aren't answered? Your example just says that they aren't answered the way arrogant humans expect. So again, how do you know?

 

Luckily deer have the ability to avoid fire by simpy moving. Do some die a horrible, fiery death? Probably. Is this evil? Not in the slightest. Death is natural and is part of the natural cycle of life.

 

So nature cannot be evil? Unnecessary suffering caused by nature is not evil? The natural cycle includes me killing and eating animals. Should I use inhumane ways to kill them? Maybe I should trap a cat and then light it on fire to kill it. I mean, that's not evil, it's natural. Evil is not necessarily a design of humanity or animals. Evil can exist within nature.

 

I have no idea where you get the idea that I am not looking at pain broadly from the limited information you have but what I said is that pain is relative so how can someone say that thier pain is equal to my pain without them being able to FEEL my pain. To my knowledge it is possible to relate to someone elses pain but not to FEEL someone elses pain. I find it difficult to quantify and measure pain for comparison.

You placed limitations of pain. Those limitations narrow your view. How can you say that pain cannot be equal simply because I can't feel every one of your headaches? That's a very narrow, arrogant, view. There can be balance without you knowing it.

 

My suggestion is that pain may be completely equal throughout an entire lifetime. It doesn't matter if you felt every time I broke my fingers, the suggestion has nothing to do with perception. Again, broaden your view.

 

Why do you believe in the Christian god as opposed to any other of the thousands of gods that are not believed currently? What convinces you of God's existence?

 

I never said I believe in the Christian god or any other. The suggestion of other gods really doesn't matter either. The discussion relates to a supreme god (e.g., Zeus, God, etc...) not subordinates.

[Slowbalt]

There can be limitations of omnipotence and omniscience. For example, God is bound by the laws of logic. You didn't follow the premise to begin with or you just misunderstand the definition(s) of God. God is that than which there can be nothing greater. That's the typical Christian belief, whether they know that or not. I cannot think of a being that can defy logic (e.g., creates something so heavy that the creator cannot lift it). You can't change the rules mid argument by removing the confines of omnipotence and omniscience which can exist with limits, and adding in new terminology like "all knowing" and "all powerful".

 

It is difficult to have a discussion with undefined or unknown terms. Lets try to be a bit more clear with our discussion please.

 

Since when is God bound by the laws of logic? God created a woman out of a rib bone? A snake that talks? Listens to millions of prayers per second? Come on......

 

You can't take Anselm's wordplay tomfoolery as a proof or even as a description of God. Just because you can make a coherent sentence out of it, does not mean that it is true. If it were true, a God that could intervene in our lives would be greater than one who couldn't or wouldn't. You may say something like, "Well....how do you know he doesn't intervene in daily life? It would be arrogant to think that YOU know God's plan." Yet here you are telling me that you have access to what God IS???? I know he/she/it doesn't answer prayers because people pray for stuff ALL THE TIME. A person about to be tortured will pray to escape, a person in a wartime situation will pray to live, a person about to be raped will pray to escape, a person dying of hunger will pray for food. Many people have their prayers answered, many do not. The rate of answer always appears to be near the rate of chance. Answered prayers are always something that could have happened whether or not they were prayed for.

 

“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?”

 

 

 

So nature cannot be evil? Unnecessary suffering caused by nature is not evil? The natural cycle includes me killing and eating animals. Should I use inhumane ways to kill them? Maybe I should trap a cat and then light it on fire to kill it. I mean, that's not evil, it's natural. Evil is not necessarily a design of humanity or animals. Evil can exist within nature.

 

If evil is not a design of humanity or animals (whatever that means anyway) could you provide an example outside of the animal kingdom so I can understand what you mean by the word "evil"?

 

You placed limitations of pain. Those limitations narrow your view. How can you say that pain cannot be equal simply because I can't feel every one of your headaches? That's a very narrow, arrogant, view. There can be balance without you knowing it.

 

My suggestion is that pain may be completely equal throughout an entire lifetime. It doesn't matter if you felt every time I broke my fingers, the suggestion has nothing to do with perception. Again, broaden your view.

 

I placed no limitations on pain. I placed limitations on our understanding it and being able to measure it for comparison. Do you have any evidence or proof of this "equilibrium" of which you speak? I don't find it appropriate for you to tell me to "broaden my view" when you do not know it or understand it. That seems arrogant to me

I never said I believe in the Christian god or any other. The suggestion of other gods really doesn't matter either. The discussion relates to a supreme god (e.g., Zeus, God, etc...) not subordinates.

 

So are you saying that you do not believe in the Christian god? What exactly are you saying here? What do you believe and why do you believe it? Then we can begin an actual discussion instead of playing around with linguistic trickery.

[Guest Hal]

It is difficult to have a discussion with undefined or unknown terms. Lets try to be a bit more clear with our discussion please.

 

The terminology has been defined long before I started this thread. That's part of a historical knowledge of the argument.

 

Since when is God bound by the laws of logic? God created a woman out of a rib bone? A snake that talks? Listens to millions of prayers per second? Come on......

 

Your examples have nothing to do with laws of logic. Read my example again so that you grasp what that means.

 

You can't take Anselm's wordplay tomfoolery as a proof or even as a description of God. Just because you can make a coherent sentence out of it, does not mean that it is true. If it were true, a God that could intervene in our lives would be greater than one who couldn't or wouldn't. You may say something like, "Well....how do you know he doesn't intervene in daily life? It would be arrogant to think that YOU know God's plan." Yet here you are telling me that you have access to what God IS???? I know he/she/it doesn't answer prayers because people pray for stuff ALL THE TIME. A person about to be tortured will pray to escape, a person in a wartime situation will pray to live, a person about to be raped will pray to escape, a person dying of hunger will pray for food. Many people have their prayers answered, many do not. The rate of answer always appears to be near the rate of chance. Answered prayers are always something that could have happened whether or not they were prayed for.

 

Why not? Anselm put into words what the Christian god is. Should I use other definitions? How about saying God is a supremely perfect being. I'm not telling you what God is, Christianity did that for me.

 

You don't find your comments arrogant? You are claiming to know that prayers go unanswered because we don't see the answers. You have not given a single reason why this is not true. If you want to continue to argue that point, try not contradicting yourself. Regardless of chance, you have just stated that people's prayers are answered.

 

If evil is not a design of humanity or animals (whatever that means anyway) could you provide an example outside of the animal kingdom so I can understand what you mean by the word "evil"?

If you want to know what I mean by certain words, use a dictionary. I don't twist the meanings to suit me. I gave you an example of the fiery death that had nothing to do with a animals or humans. You didn't like that one because it is the circle of life. That doesn't excuse extreme suffering.

 

I placed no limitations on pain. I placed limitations on our understanding it and being able to measure it for comparison. Do you have any evidence or proof of this "equilibrium" of which you speak? I don't find it appropriate for you to tell me to "broaden my view" when you do not know it or understand it. That seems arrogant to me:)

You have placed limitations on the definitions of pains by claiming that because pain isn't as bad to some people, there cannot be anything equal. I need no evidence to support my suggestion because I don't claim it is true. I am simply saying it is a possible reason for the pain we go through daily.

 

I understand everything you wrote. Try being more clear if you don't mean what you say. You are trying to limit the argument based on pain as a relative term. Again, read what I said vs what you said. Your arguments don't fit.

 

...Pain is relative so how can someone say that thier pain is equal to my pain without them being able to FEEL my pain. To my knowledge it is possible to relate to someone elses pain but not to FEEL someone elses pain.

Right here you are showing a narrow point of view. I pointed that out before. Broaden your view so you can stop being limited by your perception of how pain feels to each person. The difference in tolerance is not the question. Maybe people with a higher tolerance will experience a greater quantity of painful experiences.

 

So are you saying that you do not believe in the Christian god? What exactly are you saying here? What do you believe and why do you believe it? Then we can begin an actual discussion instead of playing around with linguistic trickery.

I didn't say that either, did I? What I believe is irrelevant. There is no prerequisite of ideology for this discussion. I haven't used linguistic trickery either. I've been consistent through this thread, maybe you just didn't read it all.

[Slowbalt]

There is no point in continuing this discussion when you just resort to calling anything I say contradictory and arrogant. If you would like to have a real discussion with concrete terms I would be happy to do so but you sir come off arrogant when you just plopping what people say without giving any examples of why it is incorrect or contradictory. Your example of evil involved deer, which last time I checked is considered an animal. I asked you to provide an example OUTSIDE of the animal kingdom. You also seem to claim that humans are not animals, they are. Nothing I have said is contradictory so if you have a hard time following, maybe you should ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions. Im bored with your nonsense. If you want a real debate, let's have one but until then, im not going to waste anymore of my time.

[Guest Hal]

There is no point in continuing this discussion when you just resort to calling anything I say contradictory and arrogant. If you would like to have a real discussion with concrete terms I would be happy to do so but you sir come off arrogant when you just plopping what people say without giving any examples of why it is incorrect or contradictory. Your example of evil involved deer, which last time I checked is considered an animal. I asked you to provide an example OUTSIDE of the animal kingdom. You also seem to claim that humans are not animals, they are. Nothing I have said is contradictory so if you have a hard time following, maybe you should ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions. Im bored with your nonsense. If you want a real debate, let's have one but until then, im not going to waste anymore of my time.

 

Oh, u got mad, bruh. Good luck having any debate when you just get mad every time someone says you're wrong.

 

You contradicted yourself and your comments just exude human arrogance. I even highlighted where you contradicted yourself and expanded upon it. I also said why your comments were arrogant. Maybe you are having trouble following along. You do realize that philosophy is not concrete?

 

I gave you an example of evil that is not controlled by animals (i.e., outside of the animal kingdom). Want something that doesn't involve any living being? Ok, you're just a photon, trying to get out of the Sun's core to give energy to Earth. Much to your dismay, you cannot get out of your fiery hell for hundreds of thousands of years. Every time you think you're going in the right direction, you bump into another damn neutron. Maybe you're a planet, just happily orbiting in peace. All of a sudden, a wild black hole appears. You're gone.

 

If you want to try again, read what you say before posting. You contradicted yourself, rehashed points I had already successfully countered, and you think way too concretely to have a real discussion of philosophy. Try to keep up if you want to continue this.

 

P.S. I'm a nice guy. I'm going to throw you a bone and do what you should have done. Stay tuned.

[smokinHawk1647545499]

There is no point in continuing this discussion when you just resort to calling anything I say contradictory and arrogant. If you would like to have a real discussion with concrete terms I would be happy to do so but you sir come off arrogant when you just plopping what people say without giving any examples of why it is incorrect or contradictory. Your example of evil involved deer, which last time I checked is considered an animal. I asked you to provide an example OUTSIDE of the animal kingdom. You also seem to claim that humans are not animals, they are. Nothing I have said is contradictory so if you have a hard time following, maybe you should ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions. Im bored with your nonsense. If you want a real debate, let's have one but until then, im not going to waste anymore of my time.

 

you dont get the premise of the thread, it is just here to debate, not to decide.

[Guest Hal]

1. Yes. The God of the Bible doesn't change your ideas, you have the freedom to pick what you do. That freedom of choice can be seen throughout the Bible.

 

Understandable, but if God knows what you are going to do before you do it how can you say it is not planned? Your version of free will lacks the major points of nature vs nurture. If nature wins (i.e., God already knows what's going to happen, nurture doesn't change it), free will is a completely human idea just to attempt to explain what we cannot actually explain.

 

2. You just asked the question of evil that you previously said you cannot answer. What argument do you want? Are we arrogant to believe that there is no good cause for those evil acts? We can't see it, but we are definitely arrogant if we think we can conceive of everything that an omnipotent being knows. Is God like a parent? He could have motives that we simply don't understand.

True, perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm really trying to suggest that if God, as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, allows evil to exist, he really cannot be what Christianity says he is. Sure, we may not be able to know why things happen, but why should there need to be an evil counter to what is good?

 

Must evil exist as a counter to good? Can we know pleasure if we never know pain?

I really just addressed this. No, I don't believe it does. The only argument I can see for a necessary existence of evil is that Christianity is based solely on faith. Why would anyone ever need to question faith is nothing evil ever happened?

 

Does free will extend beyond arrogant humans? Is there a sort of cosmic free will? That would be able to explain all evil acts.

 

Is there an equilibrium of pain in life? Will all the pains in my life equal all the pain in the life of another person who may have been a victim of murder or rape?

 

I don't think it does. We cannot say that there is a cosmic free will as most things are governed by the laws of nature. If anything, I believe this suggestion lends credence to the idea that God is not a part of our lives. If there is a God, he simply set the rules and watches things happen.

 

Based upon the Bible, that doesn't make sense. Christianity does not require a measure of pain as a toll into Heaven. I think this is kind of a moot point in an argument about a Christian God.

Ok, then subscribe to a different definition of omniscient. Because there is free will, God cannot know what you will choose to do without a margin of error. There are many different takes on God's omniscience, I just picked the one I enjoy. Now, if you want to take my more absolute Idea, God does not lay out a plan for you. I think an omniscient being can simply see all possibilities and can know which road you will take given any choice. That does not mean that you don't make your decisions, it simply means God would be prepared for all of them.

 

That's not actually a different definition. Theists have long said that God cannot do absolutely anything. You're just using the true definition for God here. The rest I agree with, if free will exists God cannot know everything without a margin of error. Does this discount the idea of the Christian God? I don't know that.

 

How do you know their prayers are unanswered? How do they know? What if God answers prayers in a way we cannot see? This is another point of human arrogance. "God, please let me win the lottery." That wouldn't make any sense, you shouldn't really pray for anything like that. "God, please heal my sick mother." What if he does? What if it's just not the way you want it? Arrogance.

I can logically say that if a man lives his entire life in pain, praying for it to end for years, his prayers have not been answered. This is an arrogant point of view, but it's the only one we can really substantiate through experience. This Christian man suffers while an atheist is simply granted a quick end to his painful existence (death). Is it fair? I think that's a fundamental issue that Christianity has been unable to answer. Is it all a test of faith? If so, how is that an act of benevolence?

 

Ok, so what happens when a forest fire starts when lightning strikes a tree? That is not by choice of any animal or human. It is evil then to let a deer suffer for 5 days in the fire before it finally dies. That is obviously not good for the deer. Does any good come of it? You already have a definition of good (see Websters), apply it to this scenario.

 

Broaden your view of the pain point. You're looking at that one very narrowly. Pain does not need to be equal by type (e.g., the person who cannot feel physical pain) to achieve a lifetime equilibrium.

 

I don't think any good comes from it. This is a good argument against God's existence. You kind of shot yourself in the foot with that example, even though you do touch on human arrogance again. Is it really arrogance if it's all we have to go on?

 

The pain point I addressed earlier. It doesn't really help or hurt this argument.