Disprove the Bible

[jstnrgrs]

Okay, now I'm going to use poler analogies (and abandon my "God transcends logic" arguement for now).

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it be impossible for an all-good god to create beings capable of doing evil? If there is no evil in god, there logically can't be evil in things he creates.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of like saying a profitable poker player can't loose pots (or even put money into the pot). If he is profitable, how can he loose money?

God decided to give us free will (which creates the possibility of evil) because the good of having free will is greater than any evil that may result.

There are two type of worlds which God could create.
1. A world with no free will, and only good.
2. A world with free will, and good and evil.

Which has a greater net good? Evidently #2, because that's what God made.

[NotReady]

1) presuppose. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Inflected forms: pre·sup·posed, pre·sup·pos·ing, pre·sup·pos·es1. To believe or suppose in advance. 2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition....

Dictionary of Philosophy
presupposition

What is implicitly involved in making an assertion.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's exactly like that. God can't do the contradictory. He IS good, so what He says is the definition of good. He isn't subject to an abstract, impersonal standard. He IS the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am asking, what would you think if he told you to murder, to lie, to cheat, to steal, and to rape kittens and that those things would be good. You say he what he says is the definition of good. So, those things would be good. We're not subjecting to preconceived or abstract notions of what is good. He is doing this, on his own accord, by his own standards. How would you react?

Or, if you like, assume that he did 5800 years ago and that is what was passed down on Mt. Sinai and is in the bible. What would you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. If I say I'll kill kittens then you'll say that is absurd and I worship a God that may irrationally tell me to go kill kittens. If I say God won't do this then you'll say but then God isn't the arbiter of good and evil.

Surely you see that your argument is a little absurd no? What if God because He's God chooses not to exist anymore what would I do then? What if God went back in time and killed baby Jesus in the manger, how would that affect my beliefs? These types of arguments are silly. All of these things are contrary to the God of the Bible which I and all Christians believe.

Surely we can have a reasonable logical argument about Christianity within the parameters of the beliefs of the Bible, which is the point of reference for all Christians?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am beginning to sense that you are bothered by this discussion and perhaps you've stopped thinking about what I am saying.

I am willing to question my own assumptions and beliefs and I am open to any new ideas presented to me.


[ QUOTE ]
If I say I'll kill kittens then you'll say that is absurd and I worship a God that may irrationally tell me to go kill kittens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not say that at all. If you said that you would kill kittens then I would say, okay, you really do believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil. That bothers me, given the point I am trying to make, but it would be clear to me that I can't change your mind.

You see, I think that there are two possible reactions to my argument. One reaction is "I don't believe that God would do that." This means that you don't believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil precisely because these things that he would be telling you are going against what you believe is good and evil. The other reaction is "Okay, I guess my morals were wrong." This means that you do believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good and evil. I believe most people would choose the former reaction.

[ QUOTE ]
If I say God won't do this then you'll say but then God isn't the arbiter of good and evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point I am attempting to make.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you see that your argument is a little absurd no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Can you tell me why you think so?

[ QUOTE ]
What if God because He's God chooses not to exist anymore what would I do then?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pointless discussion. Our dicussion started as the origin of good and evil. This does not touch on that question, and I don't see any reasonable question that it touches on.

[ QUOTE ]
What if God went back in time and killed baby Jesus in the manger, how would that affect my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would make a good movie.

[ QUOTE ]
These types of arguments are silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they are at all, but I am beginning to sense that you are bothered by the point I am trying to make and reacting as such.

[ QUOTE ]
All of these things are contrary to the God of the Bible which I and all Christians believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am attempting to be contrary to what you believe. That's how arguments are made.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely we can have a reasonable logical argument about Christianity within the parameters of the beliefs of the Bible, which is the point of reference for all Christians?

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat. This discussion started when you stated that you believe that God is the sole arbiter of what is good. What if 5800 years ago God had said that murder was a good thing? Do you honestly believe that humans would be murdering each other left and right?

It's late. I just watched Sideways. I had a lot of wine tonight. I am probably rambling as such.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You are only willing to discuss that which can be argued logically.
2. You believe that if there is a God, he is bound by the rules of logic.
3. Therefore, you have a logical reason for believing God to be bound by logic.

Let's hear it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because in logic, the statement A and not A is absurd. If God could transcend logic, then A and not A would be possible. This is absurd. So God can't transcend logic. QED.

[NotInchoateHand1]

I believe this book is true.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

This is kind of like saying a profitable poker player can't loose pots (or even put money into the pot). If he is profitable, how can he loose money?

God decided to give us free will (which creates the possibility of evil) because the good of having free will is greater than any evil that may result.

There are two type of worlds which God could create.
1. A world with no free will, and only good.
2. A world with free will, and good and evil.

Which has a greater net good? Evidently #2, because that's what God made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Voltaire,

I just want to say I disagree with you. Why isn't another possibility that God created a world with free will but no evil? If he never introduced evil into the world, we wouldn't have the will to perform it. Thanks!

Jason.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to say I disagree with you. Why isn't another possibility that God created a world with free will but no evil? If he never introduced evil into the world, we wouldn't have the will to perform it. Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

How can God make you not sin and also give you free will?

Why do you think God introduced evil into the world? The Bible says otherwise - sin entered through Adam, see Romans.

[davelin]

Jason, believe me when I say that I am not at all uncomfortable with your argument or this discussion. I honestly believe this is a silly argument. You're asking me to make an arguement for something that is contrary to my beliefs, that God would go back and change His moral standard.

But you ask what if God whenever years ago instead of the Ten Commandments told Moses that killing kittens is the way to go. Okay, somewhat silly but fine, that is what God has decided/declared is what is good and evil. Fine. But just like my objections to your original argument, I don't believe after establishing that killing kittens is okay, would repeal His standard for good and evil and say killing kittens is not okay. Your re-insertion of the original standard of good and evil is an argument you put in later.

I don't know why me saying that I believe that God is unchanging in His moral standards means that He isn't then the arbiter of what is good and evil. He has declared what is good and evil and that won't change. But your first assertion is "what if God changed..." How am I to argue within that?

My arguments have failed to convince you that Christians believe that God is the sole arbiter of good and evil because I said God wouldn't repeal what is good and evil. In order to "win" this argument, you want me to admit that God is capable of lying, which is something I will not do. But again, back to your later argument, if God had originally declared that killing kittens was good, then yes I believe that killing kittens is good.

[felson]

I haven't been following the arguments too closely, but let me toss in a few thoughts, borrowed from this excellent book by philosophy professor Peter Kreeft.

Regarding God as the arbiter of good and evil, this is a question that dates back to Socrates, who asked "is a thing pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious?"

Let's replace "gods" with the God of the Bible (EDIT: and "pious" with "morally good"). Kreeft explains that giving either answer leads to philosophical problems. If you give the first answer, then you could have God endorsing the killing of kittens. If you give the second answer, then you deny God's moral authority.

Kreeft's solution, which I believe dates back to Aquinas, is that the answer is both. Kreeft explains it better than I could:

[ QUOTE ]
An act is good or evil both because of its nature and because of God's will. And God's will is rational, not arbitrary, because it flows from his nature. He is good. That's why he wills good for us, and that's why good acts are good. So there are really three things involved, three causes, in a sense: God's nature, God's will, and the nature of the act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, not all Christians are this sophisticated in their thinking. And maybe there are other ways to think about this problem. But I think Kreeft makes a good case.