Image via WikipediaBrian Auten has posted an audio lecture by Dr. Alister McGrath based on his book Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty?
Great stuff!Alister McGrath on Why God Won't Go Away MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Friday, June 10, 2011
Alister McGrath on Why God Won't Go Away MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Image via WikipediaBrian Auten has posted an audio lecture by Dr. Alister McGrath based on his book Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? Great stuff!Alister McGrath on Why God Won't Go Away MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Purpose of Hell
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Purpose of Hell
Christianity Today on Adam and Eve | Bible.org Blogs
Christianity Today on Adam and Eve | Bible.org Blogs
ID.Plus: William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair
The descriptipm on the video from YouTube are also worthy of consideration:
Will Richard Dawkins finally engage in a scholarly one-to-one discussion with William Lane Craig when he visits Oxford? It would appear not, and even some fellow atheists seem to think he's making a big mistake. This is the story, so far, but what will come next?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-c...
http://www.premier.org.uk/craig
http://www.bethinking.org/craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org
http://www.richarddawkins.net
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/
Material in this video is incorporated either with permission or under Fair Use for independent, non-profit, educational, illustrative and documentary purposes. Happy to discuss with any parties about potential amendments or crediting. This video voices concerns - shared by both theists and non-theists alike - about impediments to the open exchange of academic thought.
ID.Plus: William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair
God's Gracious Gift to Humanity is the "Capacity of Free Will"
Since you believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does God not cause everyone to be saved?Good question. It's not just for the Arminian but also the Calvinist. Both agree that God is all-powerful and all-loving. I think Calvinism answers this question well, however I don't think Arminian salvific theology does as good a job. Kurschner is correct in writing:
I don't see how this can be argued against.
Instead, the Bible affirms that the human ability to resist God's grace is grounded in our sinful rebellious nature. God's grace effects Man to live righteously---not to provide us some anthropological "neutral will."
Glynn's answer doesn't really answer the question. The Bible is clear that without God we can't choose to love him. We are stuck in our hatred of God. And unable to come to Him on our own.
Glynn finally gets to answering my question: "Because He wants us to make a choice."
His answer demonstrates that the non-Calvinist couches the ultimate reason for their salvation in their own will.
“But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name–he has given the right to become God’s children –children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.” (John 1:12–13)
Next he writes: "This is the nature of love. If you love someone, do you force them to be with you, or do you want them to want to be with you? Hopefully the latter."
We love God because He first loved us - not because we thought it was a good idea at the time!
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44
18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. - 1 John 4: 18-20
I thought that this was a great article and I can't recommend it highly enough.
God's Gracious Gift to Humanity is the "Capacity of Free Will"
My Common Sense in Tingling: Debunking Christianity: God cannot know that he is omniscient
Theists, the world over, claim that God is omniscient. However, this is not an easy claim to make for a whole host of reasons, one of which is worth looking into here. I want to look at the idea that in many instances, you cannot know that you don’t know something. If there is a situation where you cannot know something, then if it is claimed that you are omniscient, this would invalidate that claim.
I'm grateful at least that Johnny P is not claiming that there are no instances where you don't know that you don't know something. His argument that we cannot always know when we don't know something. I think that any honest person would admit that sometimes we are ignorant of our ignorance. This is also why no sane human being would claim to be omniscient because the fact that there are a lot of things we don't know - even to the extent that we don't know that we don't know things - does indeed invalidate any claims to omniscience. I think most agree with this. The Bible agrees. It says we don't even know how to pray as we ought.
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. -Romans 8:26-30
For example, there could conceivably be something that God does not know. Conceivably, perhaps another dimension run by another God exists that does not coincide at all with this dimension. If one eternal God can exist, why not another in an entirely different dimension and unbeknownst to the first God? Now, it is unimportant as to whether this is possible or not. What is important is that God could not know that he did not know this by the very nature of not knowing it!
Here is where Johnny P's logic falls out of the wagon and gets run over by the weight of Common sense. In order to apply this argument you have prove that there is something that God does not know. Here is what a theist means by "omniscience": What does God know? Everything. When did He know it? There wasn't a time God didn't know everything. One cannot prove that God does not know something when one does not know it either. Hypothesizing other dimensions (parallel and otherwise) is all well and good but we can't prove they exist. And if they do exist, what gives us a reason to assume that the God in this Dimension does not know about them? How do we know that He did not create them just as He created this one?! Here is the key point that Johnny P seems to be missing: "Omniscience" does not just mean knowing everything but also that there is nothing that the one who is omniscient does not know.
Where does this leave God? Well, God is in a situation whereby he cannot know that he knows everything. He might think he knows everything. Epistemologically speaking, though, he cannot know it. There's always a chance he's an experiment in an elaborate lab, programmed to think he's omnipotent and omniscient (yes, God could be plugged into the Matrix and he’d never know it!). There's a chance he's one of a trillion gods in a trillion different universes etc. etc.
Where does this discussion leave God? On the throne. Johnny P's speculation means that he redefines what "omniscient" means by pretending that there is knowledge that is hidden from God. Does he prove that there is something God does not know? No. Can he? No. The reason why we understand that God is the supreme being is because there is no one else higher than God. This "logic" does not apply to the God of the Bible because the god that Johnny P is discussing is not in the Bible and of course does not exist.
It only takes one thing you cannot know to invalidate omniscience. God cannot know that he knows everything.
Agreed that it takes only one thing you cannot know to invalidate omniscience, but Johnny P did not show that God cannot know everything. Arguments like these always amaze me because when people raise them they are tacitly saying "Okay, for the sake of arguments let's say your God exist and see if what the Bible says about Him makes rational sense." Then they talk about a god that isn't in scripture and then prance away thinking they have won an argument - but it was the wrong god. It's interesting that God does deal with the possibility of there being other gods in reality right in the scripture. 9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do. - Isaiah 46:9-11
So apparently God does know if there are any other gods that exist. And not just that, who is it that is running history and making all thing move towards His predetermined purpose? God.
3 I foretold the former things long ago,Recall that an idol is anything that you put ahead of your relationship with God. Atheists have idols too.
my mouth announced them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. - Isaiah 48:3
9 All the nations gather together
and the peoples assemble.
Which of their gods foretold this
and proclaimed to us the former things?
Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right,
so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me. - Isaiah 43:9,10
7 Who then is like me? Let them proclaim it.
Let them declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
9 All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
they are ignorant, to their own shame.- Isaiah 44:7-9
4 For the sake of Jacob my servant,
of Israel my chosen,
I summon you by name
and bestow on you a title of honor,
though you do not acknowledge me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:4-6
Debunking Christianity: God cannot know that he is omniscient
Debunking Christianity: When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses
Give an unbeliever or a heretic enough time, they immediately and never disappoint in refuting themselves. On Debunking Christianity today, TGBaker has really put his foot in his mouth in grand fashion. Again my comments are in red. As an atheist I often quote from the Jehovah's Witness New Testament. Why? Because their translators are not effected by certain doctrines like Trinity. They rely on the most likely version of the Greek text under consideration. Most believers look at John 1:1-4 to argue for Jesus as God.
Jehovah's Witnesses rely on a translation that the consensus of scholars is that it's poorly translated. It's called the New World Translation. And it is untrue that it is influenced the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the the opposite. The translators who were not experts in Kione Greek or Ancient Hebrew mistranslated the Bible is several instances differently than other great English translations like the Kings James Version so that they could dispense with things like the Trinity. The New World translation is inferior and it's like bringing a dull pocket knife to a gun fight in a scholarly debate.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.Here is where TGBaker shows some dishonesty. He extols the value of the New World Translation but he doesn't point out that it renders John 1:1 differently and side-steps the fact that most translations do not render it into English that way.
1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. - John 1:1 (New World Translation)
But the much neglected verses of John 1:17-18 not only clarifiy these verses but point to how Jesus as a human teacher became a messiah and then became a god.
17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. 18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.We find here in these verses are an elevation of Jesus to a divine person that replaces the law. This is a teaching no different than of Paul. We see a shift from Paul's presentation of Jesus as Wisdom to a Hellenistic function of reason as an agent of creation (Logos). This is already known in Philo of Alexandria's work. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55625043/33/The-Logos-as-Agent-of-Creation
The Law was given through Moses, Grace and Truth came about through Jesus Christ, No one has seen God at any time, but the only begotten god which is in the bosom of god has made him known (exegeted him).
Where does this passage tell us that Jesus replaces the Law? It doesn't. Where does this passage tells us that any of Jesus' first followers considered him just a human teacher. From Matthew to Revelations, Jesus is presented as Messiah and Lord. I know about Philo of Alexander but his description of the Logos does not even compare to a personal being. Paul does not refer to Jesus as a living embodiment of Wisdom.
We also see this term identified as “image” by Philo of Alexandria. Christ as the “image of God” or “form of God” is a way pre-existence enters into the earlier Pauline writings. Verse 17 shows the comparison of the pre-existent Law with the pre-existent Messiah:
Pesachim 54a on the name of the Messiah "Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah... The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His [sc. the Messiah's] name shall endure forever, and has (Yanun) exited before the sun."The Jewish idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name combined with “image” that we see in Philo is a further opening for Jesus, a mortal soul, to be uplifted by metaphor of worship hymns to literal belief. The Name of the Messiah becomes the Image of God in the hymnal passages of Paul. Again we find Philo who equates the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 with Logos, Image and Spirit:
Proverbs 8:22-30 "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him..."I agree that metaphorically "Wisdom" in Proverb 8 can be mapped to Logos but TGBaker take the analogy much farther than what is warranted. By showing the the idea that the pre-existence of the Messiah was already a part of Jewish thought, shows that the Deity and Messiahship of Christ is not out of pocket in the slightest.
In this we can see a first begotten prior to creation. So the potential already resides in Judaism. The intensification of this belief and its rise to a literal per-existent entity that becomes flesh are readily identifiable elements in external literature. The only flaw of the Arians were they were more conservative theologically than the Trinitarians. They were more routed in the meaning of scripture than theological/philosophical speculation. Their motto, There was a time when He was not” point directly to the translation in the Jehovah's Witness and to there doctrine. Their scholars simply continue the second century line of thought:
I agree that Jehovah's Witness are just carrying on the 2nd Century heresies of the Arians and Gnostics. That is the problem. John 1 speaks against the idea that the Logos ever came into existence. The scriptures do not allow us the luxury of thinking that there was ever a time when the Logos was not and if Jesus is the Logos there was never a time when He was not! The other thing most Protestants, Jews, and Jehovah's Witness agree on is that Sirach is not scripture. Failure all around in this argument.
“Similarly, though Wisdom has had her own independent history within Israelite culture, she has already been identified with the Angel of the LORD long before early Christianity. This is clear from Sirach 24:4 where Wisdom takes up the position of the Angel of the LORD in the cloud of Exodus 14:19 and Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2, 18:15-16 where Wisdom, Logos and Angel of the Lord are equated. Wisdom and Logos, then, both point to the importance of angelic categories as the common denominator in Jewish mediatorial speculation.” http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-angel-christology-is-jesus-christ.html
Please do not misunderstand my usage of Watchtower research. I do not believe in their presentation of a god any more than normative Trinitarian Christianities. But they are not blinded by the presuppositions that trinitarian doctrine entails. The validity of their observations point to the source of their differences from normative Christianities. They like the Restoration Movement of The Campbell's and Barton W. Stone sought to have Christianity based only with what was in the Bible. Stone in fact debated Alexander Campbell for years contending that Trinity was non-biblical and espoused an Arianism long before the Jehovah's Witnesses existed. ( The Millennial Harbinger and The Baptist volumes). What this biblical research of “non-orthodox” Christian movements do is allow us to circumvent doctrines that have blinded many Biblical scholars unconsciously and see what is actually there in its native environment and original historical context.
TGBaker is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are so blinded by their desire to reject the normative Christianity that they have gone as far as twisting scripture to support their ideas. They have not made valid observation about the Bible or scripture. They are blinded by other presuppositions. Their doctrines can't be found in the Bible. What the research of "non-orthodox" Christian movements does is further deceive and distort the truth.
2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. - 2 Timothy 4:2-4
Debunking Christianity: When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Answering Muslims: Nepali Women Victimized in Muslim Countries
Inevitable comment from GreekAsianPanda: "But what does the oppression of unbelievers, the sexual abuse of slaves, and the abuse of women have to do with Islam? Just because Islam promotes the oppression of unbelievers (Qur'an 9:29), the sexual abuse of slaves (Qur'an 4:24), and the abuse of women (Qur'an 4:34) doesn't mean that there's any connection between Islam and the behavior of Muslims across the Muslim world."Easy...it has everything to do with Islam!
Answering Muslims: Nepali Women Victimized iDavid n Muslim Countries
THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Another Great Republican Idea: Let's Pay Women On Welfare To Get Their Tubes Tied
THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Another Great Republican Idea: Let's Pay Women On Welfare To Get Their Tubes Tied
The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
The following argument could be taken as tongue-in-cheek, if it didn't seem so evidently true. At any rate, to escape the logic of it requires theists to commit to abandoning several of their cherished assumptions about God or Heaven. And no matter what, it presents a successful rebuttal to any form of Pascal's Wager, by demonstrating that unbelief might still be the safest bet after all (since we do not know whose assumptions are correct, and we therefore cannot exclude the assumptions on which this argument is based).
Bold claims about what Carrier is going to accomplish with is arguments. Can he do it?
Argument 1: Who Goes to Heaven?
It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven--unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.Dr Carrier may believe that it's reasonable to assume that only the morally good should populate heaven, but that isn't what the Bible tells us. There is no one who is good.
6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.- Isaiah 64:6
And that was written about theists! How much more worse off are unbelievers!? Hell is default. It is what we deserve without God's grace and mercy - it is an undeserved and unearned gift..
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.- Romans 3:21-26
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.- Ephesians 2:8-10
But only two groups fit this description: intellectually committed but critical theists, and intellectually committed but critical nontheists (which means both atheists and agnostics, though more specifically secular humanists, in the most basic sense). Both groups have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about god (for example) are probably correct, so that their beliefs about right and wrong will probably be correct. No other groups can claim this. If anyone is sincerely interested in doing right and wrong, they must be sincerely interested in whether certain claims are true, including "God exists," and must treat this matter with as much responsibility and concern as any other moral question. And the only two kinds of people who do this are those theists and nontheists who devote their lives to examining the facts and determining whether they are right.
I have to give Carrier a little credit here because the Bible tells us to test and question and search for truth.
20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. - 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. - 1 Corinthians 1:26-29
Argument 2: Why This World?
It is a common belief that certain mysteries, like unexplained evils in the world and god's silence, are to be explained as a test, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. After all, if no test were needed, then God could and would, out of his compassion and perfect efficiency, simply select candidates at birth and dispense with any actual life in this world, since God would immediately know their merits.Agreed some people think this way, but this isn't what the Bible teaches. God's hiddeness and unexplained evils are not tests to see who is moral enough to go to heaven.
Free will cannot negate this conclusion, since if God cannot know us because we might freely reverse ourselves, then God cannot fill heaven with trustworthy people: for anyone in heaven may through an unexpected act of free will become or do evil. And given an eternity, it is probable that most of the population of heaven will do something evil. After all, if free will prevents him, then God cannot predict who will or won't do evil and thus he can never select those who will be forever good from those who will not, except by some inductive test.
No where does the Bible say human beings have free will especially how Carrier defines it. God knows what we will do in any and all situations. He is critiquing "Open Theism" and most Christians are not Open theists! The Bible tells us a lot about how we come into knowledge of God..
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17: 24-31
We are all, each one of us, put in the most optimal place, time, and circumstances for us to best find God.
Since those who will be forever good must naturally be rare in comparison to the set of all those people appearing to be good up to their deaths, it follows that, lacking a reliable inductive test, most of the population of heaven will not be genuinely good. It follows that a god who wanted better results would probably distinguish the genuinely good, and thus deserving, from the untrustworthy and undeserving, by subjecting all candidates to a reliable test, and it would be reasonable to conclude that this world only exists for such a purpose.
If God only wanted deserving people in heaven, then not one of us would ever go. God does not look for righteousness in us, he imputes it to us. Strike two.
Argument 3: No God or Evil God
If presented with strong evidence that a god must either be evil or not exist, a genuinely good person will not believe in such a god, or if believing, will not give assent to such a god (as by worship or other assertions of approval, since the good do not approve of evil). Most theists do not deny this, but instead deny that the evidence is strong. But it seems irrefutable that there is strong evidence that a god must either be evil or not exist.The Bible does not tell us that only genuinely good people believe in a good God.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.- James 2:18-22
If demons know it, and they are evil, then of course evil people can recognize the fact of God's existence.
For example, in the bible Abraham discards humanity and morality upon God's command to kill his son Isaac, and God rewards him for placing loyalty above morality. That is probably evil--a good god would expect Abraham to forego fear and loyalty and place compassion first and refuse to commit an evil act, and would reward him for that, not for compliance. Likewise, God deliberately inflicts unconscionable wrongs upon Job and his family merely to win a debate with Satan. That is probably evil--no good god would do such harm for so petty a reason, much less prefer human suffering to the cajoling of a mere angel. And then God justifies these wrongs to Job by claiming to be able to do whatever he wants, in effect saying that he is beyond morality. That is probably evil--a good god would never claim to be beyond good and evil. And so it goes for all the genocidal slaughter and barbaric laws commanded by God in the bible. Then there are all the natural evils in the world (like diseases and earthquakes) and all the unchecked human evils (i.e. god makes no attempt to catch criminals or stop heinous crimes, etc.). Only an evil god would probably allow such things.
Why did Abraham go along with the idea of sacrificing Isaac? Abraham knew that the promises of God was contingent on Isaac living, so he obeyed God knowing that God was going to work it out. It was not an issue of evil; or good. The issue was "Can I trust God to keep his promises?" It was for this that Abraham was called "righteous".
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. - Hebrews 11:17-19
As for Job, there was a reason why Job went through what he went through. Job grew closer to God.
1 Then Job replied to the LORD:Strike Three.
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.” - Job 42:1-6
Argument 4: The Test
Of the two groups comprising the only viable candidates for heaven, only nontheists recognize or admit that this evidence strongly implies that God must be evil or not exist. Therefore, only nontheists answer the test as predicted for morally good persons. That is, a morally good person will be intellectually and critically responsible about having true beliefs, and will place this commitment to moral good above all other concerns, especially those that can corrupt or compromise moral goodness, like faith or loyalty. So those who are genuinely worthy of heaven will very probably become nontheists, since their inquiry will be responsible and therefore complete, and will place moral concerns above all others. They will then encounter the undeniable facts of all these unexplained evils (in the bible and in the world) and conclude that God must probably be evil or nonexistent.Again there is no evidence that God is evil or does not exits. Without God, how do you even know what "evil" is? How do you know how "good" you are?
In other words, to accept such evils without being given a justification (as is entailed by god's silence) indicates an insufficient concern for having true beliefs. But to have the courage to maintain unbelief in the face of threats of hell or destruction, as well as numerous forms of social pressure and other hostile factors, is exactly the behavior a god would expect from the genuinely good, rather than capitulation to the will of an evil being, or naive and unjustified trust that an apparently evil being is really good--those are not behaviors of the genuinely good.
Actually Carrier's position is not "courage to maintain unbelief in the face of threats of hell or destruction, as well as numerous forms of social pressure and other hostile factors, is exactly the behavior a god would expect from the genuinely good". It is capitulation to one's self. It is turning your back on the one who made you and love you. This is not genuinely "good" but it is "stupid".
Therefore only intellectually committed but critical nontheists are genuinely good and will go to heaven. Therefore, if a god exists, his silence and allowance of evil (in the world and the bible) are explained and justified by his plan to discover the only sorts of people who deserve to populate heaven: sincere nontheists. And this makes perfect sense of many mysteries, thus explaining what theists struggle to explain themselves.
Strike four. The Bible is proof that God is not silent. God does not tempt anyone for evil nor does evil. So He does not test us the way Carrier is suggesting.
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.- James 1:13-14
- God's hiddenness is necessary on this account, since his presence would inspire people to behave as if good out of fear or selfish interests, not out of courage or compassion or a sense of personal integrity.
- A false, evil image of God in the bible is necessary in order to test whether the reader will place morality or faith first, so this tests moral courage in the face of assertions, threats and promises of reward. It also tests cognitive trustworthiness, since it is wrong to trust what someone merely wrote, over scientifically established truths and the direct evidence of reason and the senses.
- Natural evils and unchecked human evils are also necessary on this account, since only in such a way can a god "demonstrate" that no moral power is behind the universe, that there is no custodian, and by that means lead a rational, compassionate observer to conclude there is no god. If the universe were well-ordered, with inherent moral enforcement and the containment or restriction of evils, observers would conclude there is a god and thus, again, might act as if good out of fear or hope of reward.
Just because things aren't meted out the way you think they should be and things happen you cannot explain does not mean that God is not running things. If God eradicated all evil now, he would have to destroy all of us. In stead He decided to save some of us because Her wanted to.
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 1920 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.- Romans 8:18-25
Carrier failed to show that the test for being good enough to go to heaven is contingent on choosing morality over faith. The Bible does not say that. Carrier could deny that the Bible is true, but he based his whole argument on what Christians believe. Therefore the Bible is relevant. It's not about being genuinely good. We are morally good and live holy lives through God's grace.
Conclusion
Since this easily and comprehensively explains all the unexplainable problems of god (like divine hiddenness and apparent evil), while other theologies do not (or at least nowhere so well), it follows that this analysis is probably a better explanation of all the available evidence than any contrary theology. Since this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of every form of Pascal's Wager, it follows that Pascal's Wager cannot assure anyone of God's existence or that belief in God will be the best bet.It does not explain theodicy or divine hiddeness at all. If you start from the Christian viewpoint, as Carrier does, then you have to agree that God has revealed Himself to humanity. .Unbelief is not a sure bet.in the slightest because if there is a God holding us accountable for what we do, not one of us can meet that standard. Only one worldview, Christianity, offers a way for dealing with your sin which must be dealt with. Sorry, but Pascal's Wager is still on the table.
The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
Debunking Christianity: Sam Harris On the Brain Vs. the Mind
This was from a two-on-two debate with Dr. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on one side and Rabbis David Wolpe and Bradley Artson Shavit on the topic of what we do and do not know about the afterlife. The full debate can be found at:
I'm not impressed by Dr Sam Harris' rhetoric at all. His basic argument is that there may be conscious life after death but it can't possibly like anything religious texts say and perhaps some time in the future science will be able to confirm or deny an after life. Christopher Hitchens denied the possibility of life after death completely and instead bemoaned the fact some unscrupulous people use the fear of death to control others cloaked in religion - forgetting that the Bible condemns such action.The Bible refers to them as "wolves in sheep's clothing.
As for the Rabbis, I was really disappointed. The only thing they seemed to disagree with the Atheists about is that religious metaphors of an after life are not harmful. They failed to defend the validity of our own scriptures and stand for the sovereignty of God. Instead they seemed way more secularized and often agreed with the atheists.Becuase they failed tto stand for God, Hitchens and Harris won this one hand down.
Debunking Christianity: Sam Harris On the Brain Vs. the Mind
Answering Muslims: Speaker's Corner: Women in Islam
This was interesting open-air preaching and dialogue at its best. I'd like to know what is Muslim response to this. I have not heard a good response.
Answering Muslims: Speaker's Corner: Women in Islam
Responding to Used Tampons ~ ExChristian.Net
Years ago when I was still at church, the pastor was thinking of adding a big addition. No one knew he was thinking about this at the time. He began grooming young couples in the church to take on leadership roles. One Easter, one of the young men was teaching Sunday morning bible study before Easter.
eveningmeadows ~ does not realize how much of a blessing it is to have a pastor who wants to groom young people to take on leadership roles! Not all churches do that, but they should!
A few things brought this story to mind. One was a comment by some of the posters on this site that the writers of the bible seemed to be preoccupied with women’s biological functions. Then Easter came along, and I remembered this guy and his Sunday school class.
He did the usual boring study on the easter story, how jesus died on the cross, how he was nailed and suffered for our sins. He brought up the bible verse, Isaiah 64:6, that our righteous acts are like filthy rags. He went on to explain that “filthy rags” were menstrual rags that women used for their monthly periods. I had never heard that before, and it stayed in my mind.
6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away. -Isaiah 64:6
Two things. First, if this person thinks that Jesus' work on the Cross is boring, it makes me wonder what this person thought about that when they were in church? Also makes me wonder if they understood what sin is and what Jesus really did for us. Second, I hadn't always known about the cultural context of the passage, but I have known about it for about 15 years. And what this little bit of information drives home just how little of our selves are responsible for the good that we do manage to do. It's a striking and jarring image and I too immediately thought of a used Tampon.
I, of course, have grown up where our “feminine hygiene products”, are discreetly packaged in nice pink or blue boxes. Some packaging is more snappy than others, but it’s all made to be very low key so as not to draw attention to the real purpose of what’s in the box. They’re arranged by an absorbency rating, by plastic for comfort, or cardboard applicators for those with a green streak. One should be able to quickly run up and grab what you want without drawing too much attention to oneself while in the feminine hygiene isle. The only complicated aspect of the whole thing is whether to go generic or name brand, the difference being cost.
Age of wonders, eh?
Back to the story. Around Easter, this bible study came to mind, and as I have a lot of empty time driving the kids around, I started to dwell on this “filthy rags” aspect of the whole study. I had heard this verse forever, and had even used it as a witnessing tool to explain how sinful we are by nature. But, I finally put the filthy rags part together with the feminine hygiene part. Was god actually saying that our righteous acts are nothing more to him than used tampons?!
Yup, that is exactly what I think the verse is saying. We are really that bad. We are really that far off from where we are supposed to be. OF course it's not talking about our ontological value to God just the way we live our lives.
You can imagine my shock and dismay at my discovery after being a bornagainer for twenty years, and out of the church for almost ten. Why had I never put this together before?
I'm not sure. But I am amazed at how a mind controlled by the nature Isaiah is describing processes this information. You can't become unborn again no more than a baby's natural birth can be undone.
God sees our righteous deeds before salvation as used tampons. Why don’t we have a problem with this kind of comparison in the bible? If we were to hear that our kids were told by their teacher that all their efforts to get a decent grade in their class, were nothing but dirty tampons to this teacher, we would be down at the school in an instant talking to this teacher and the principal. If we were being reviewed at work for a pay raise, and we were told that our efforts to do our job to the best of our ability were nothing but dirty tampons, we would be very upset. If others heard that our spouse was calling us dirty tampons, we would consider that verbal abuse. And we would never use that description when talking in polite company. And yet, we hear this again and again in church, over and over throughout the years, and never really think about what the teachings in the bible are really telling us. We are all nothing more than dirty tampons. Something disgusting, something of no worth. Just something headed to the garbage. The verse has been sanitized so the original meaning isn’t clear to us anymore. We just read it over, and think of course we’re sinners, and don’t even blink.
eveningmeadows ~ used to be in the reformed church so I am confused by the objection being raised. It's a given in the Reformed tradition that everyone is going to hell by default. If God does nothing to change your heart, hell is your destination - yup, Gehenna. It's not abusive. Look at where the mind goes and misses the conclusion that the Bible draws. Although our good acts are a stench in the nostrils of God, God still condescends in the person of Jesus Christ to left those who put their faith in Him out of that garbage heap and in His Mercy and Grace and out of Love bestows us gifts that we do not deserve. Although we are THAT bad, God is THAT good. I'm not sure if I would use the blunt language such as "On your best day, your righteousness is worth no more than a used tampon." over the pulpit because there are much less crude ways of saying it.
I read this now and think how could I have allowed myself to be verbally bashed again and again, told what a horrible person I was, and just shrug it off as biblical truth? It’s the constant year in and year out brainwashing that allows us to read verses like this and read about abuse towards women and children and never think about it or question it. We’re horrible, retched [wretched] sinners, deserving of never ending hell fire simply because we don’t follow a certain belief system that claims it has “the truth”. It’s okay to look at others and their efforts to be decent people and see their efforts as used tampons. If we follow this belief system, we, of course, are better than all those people.
I think that is why the "used tampon" image is so useful because it catches one attention and can't just be brushed aside. The Bible does describe abuse against women and children but it never tells us that you are righteous because you abuse women and children. If the good you do equates to a used tampon, what do you think of the value of the bad you do? The verse eveningmeadows ~ is pretty clear. It's not just talking about some of us. It refers to all of us...even those who are born-again believers. That is why Jesus had to come and die. He is the only one worthy enough to pay for our sins. None of us can do enough good to repay the debt our sin demands.
I’m sure that there are other interpretations to this verse. I really don’t care, that’s not my point. It’s the idea that we can become so numb to the abuses in the bible, that we just gloss over the whole thing. In order to keep believing the story so we can be saved from never ending hell fire, we have to overlook many horrors in the bible. We have to shut our brains off, and never question or say that just doesn’t seem right.
I think eveningmeadows ~ has interpreted the verse rightly, but misses some of the conclusions that must follow. There is no need to turn off your brain or question if this is true. Let's try that for a minute. Look at your own life. Can anyone of us say that we have never lied or even thought about lying. Have we ever failed to do what we knew was right? Have we ever failed to be kind to another person when it was in our power to do so. Okay, if you say you are without sin, you are lying and you know you are lying. If you ever disobeyed your parent(s) or speeded while you are driving you have failed to meet the standard that the Bible says - regardless of if you think the Bible is the word of God or not.
After all these years, I’m still shocked by what I simply overlooked as truth in the bible.
Therefore, if you know you have transgressed the law and it doesn't really matter if you think there is a God to hold you accountable or not because what you have to answer is "Should you get a way with the wrong you have done?" You know you have made mistakes. You know you have done wrong. You have hurt people. Should you get away with them? People have hurt you. Should they get away with it? Some of this has happened despite the best of intentions. Should you get off? Deep down we know that if we want others to pay for harming us, we can't expect to not pay for hurting others ourselves. So what are you going to do? Without Jesus, what propitiation can you possible hope to offer to satisfy your debt to your creator? This is a truth that eveningmeadows ~ has obviously overlooked and considering that on our best day our good works count no more than a used tampon, its a dangerous truth to overlook.
Used Tampons ~ ExChristian.Net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)