Atom Smasher
If you believe that God is not all-loving, my original question becomes invalid. Because if he doesn't care about all human beings equally, then it makes sense that he'd have no reason not to create Lucifer.
Danger
Danger said:
You wanting my opinion on it so that you can further debate shows that you are not looking for knowledge, but moreso looking to debate.
Exactly. I've made that clear several times.
However, knowledge can come from understanding what people believe and why they believe it. That's what I like about debate. It's not necessarily the knowledge gained from discovering facts concerning the topic being discussed, but learning about how people approach it and respond.
Danger said:
You suggest using an unknown as a refutation to an argument is a cop-out. I say using the unknown to refute an argument is only a cop-out if one side is looking for an argument.
This is a discussion/debate with people who believe in the Bible and those who do not. Therefore, do not both sides have an argument? And if so, doesn't that, by your own admission, still make it a cop-out?
Danger said:
Like it or not, you have to recognize that your entire argument rests on the premise that God's number one goal is for humans to be perfectly happy with no problems whatsoever. You then use this assumption in an attempt to disprove God. That is one very large assumption for you to make.
I gave you a reasonable answer. Your argument is based on the presumption you know what God wants......I point this out and then you in turn want me to give a presumption based on no evidence whatsoever.
Instead of trying to disprove God (which we simply cannot do), I recommend you use this information to say "If there is a God, what is he trying to accomplish".
I realize that my original question rests on the premise that God's number one goal is to satisfy humanity. That's what I meant by all-loving. I even stated this in the OP, that I assumed God is all-loving and all-knowing, and that if anyone disagrees with this to bring it up... because it invalidates the question.
I didn't make that connection earlier.
Yet according to Christians, isn't the Bible viewed as evidence? Isn't that where your beliefs come from? So how can you say there's no evidence? Or are you just refusing to use it because you know that agnostic/atheists don't share in its validity?
Finally, you suggested I ask: "What is God trying to accomplish?"
But according to your reasoning, isn't that generally the same as asking: What is God's primary goal?
Or at least the same evidence or lack of evidence is required to draw up an answer?
Please clarify.
But like I mentioned above, if you don't believe God is all-loving -- or that humanity's best interests are not a priority for him -- my original question is invalid. And there's nowhere left for this discussion to go.
Darth
I don't see how God being out of time and space changes the structure of logic.
Aside from introducing the unknown, the other cop-out I dislike is "we're not intelligent enough to understand God's reasoning." Isn't that essentially what you're saying? We're not sophisticated enough to comprehend God's motives because he's more evolved than us.
The reason I say this argument is invalid is because logic can't change. If it is changed, it's no longer logic. Instead it becomes illogical by the very definition of logic and rationality.
To say we cannot understand God's motives, but then when we inspect them logically and are forced to conclude that they are illogical, doesn't that make them irrational?
For example, God wanted to free the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. But the Bible states that is was him who hardened Pharaoh's heart, causing him to refuse God's demands time and time again.
How can anyone claim that we aren't equipped to comprehend his motives when by the definition of logic, his decisions and behavior are irrational and contradictory?
It's like in order to reconcile God's choices we have to abandon reason and logic in an attempt to get closer at making sense of it. Isn't that strange?
Warrior74
I agree with you.
In fact, I would take it a step further, and say you can't tell a proper story -- and have it endure and be passed through the generations -- unless it
also has a strong antagonist, who raises the stakes HIGH. And, well, the concept of Hell and the possibility of eternal torment is raising the stakes about as high as it's possible to take them in a story!
However, directly proclaiming a disbelief in the Bible isn't the point of this thread. It's to discuss theology by viewing it through a Christian perspective, and then apply logic to that perspective.
taiyuu_otoko
How can you claim there's no concrete definition of love, when the Bible has many passages defining it? Many of which I agree with.
Certainly you're familiar with "Love is patient. Love is kind." etc. Or "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends." That's fairly concrete. Do you disagree with Jesus?
Wouldn't you agree that these a pretty good, concrete definition of love? I would.
taiyuu_otoko said:
You can go round and round for days, thinking you've "won" because the other side hasn't "proven" their point.
Who said the point was to "win". Debate is like a game. Sure, some play games to win. But others play for enjoyment and the fun of it.
How do you know I'm not carrying on with this thread because I enjoy debating and find it to be a good exercise of reason in forming arguments?
Fatal Jay
Fatal Jay said:
Forcing someone to do something is not love.
But casting people into Hell to be tormented forever, because they rejected God, is love?
Isn't that like a parent throwing their kid into a cage in the basement for the remainder of their life, poking them with a burning hot iron whenever possible and feeding them oats and water just because the kid didn't love the parent?
Would you call that love?
Sure, a person can make the claim of discipline. But certainly there's a difference between punishment for the
purpose of correction versus unrelenting vindictiveness aroused by personal insecurities.
Eph
Eph said:
Allowing evil to exist allows us as humans to continue to evolve (spiritually and morally). It is the bad in life that makes us grow. For example, most of us on this site are here for a variety of reasons: bad breakup, bad with women, etc. The good that came from it, isn't that we are now (or becoming) good with women. Its the fact that we won't allow ourselves to be disrespected, put down, taken advantage of, etc.
Isn't that like saying the reason the mechanic destroyed his car was so that he could fix it?
It's irrational. The motive doesn't logically match the results and their consequent actions. Who breaks something (or allows it to happen) just to fix it? Unless of course we're dealing with someone who has too much time on their hands and is bored, like samspade mentioned.
A person can claim learning. But what's the point of learning something that's unnecessary? Who learns to fly a plane knowing full well they will never enter a ****pit again?