Theism

[Hans Moleman]

Atheological objections to the belief that there is such a person as God come in many varieties. There are, for example, the familiar objections that theism is somehow incoherent, that it is inconsistent with the existence of evil, that it is a hypothesis ill-confirmed or maybe even disconfirmed by the evidence, that modern science has somehow cast doubt upon it, and the like. Another sort of objector claims, not that theism is incoherent or false or probably false, but that it is in some way unreasonable or irrational to believe in God, even if that belief should happen to be true. Here we have, as a centerpiece, the evidentialist objection to theistic belief. The claim is that none of the theistic arguments-deductive, inductive, or abductive-is successful; hence there is at best insufficient evidence for the existence of God. But then the belief that there is such a person as God is in some way intellectually improper-somehow foolish or irrational. A person who believed without evidence that there are an even number of ducks would be believing foolishly or irrationally; the same goes for the person who believes in God without evidence. On this view, one who accepts belief in God but has no evidence for that belief is not, intellectually speaking, up to snuff. Among those who have offered this objection are Antony Flew, Brand Blanshard, and Michael Scriven. Perhaps more important is the enormous oral tradition: one finds this objection to theism bruited about on nearly any major university campus in the land. The objection in question has also been endorsed by Bertrand Russell, who was once asked what he would say if, after dying, he were brought into the presence of God and asked why he had not been a believer. Russell's reply: "I'd say, 'Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'" I'm not sure just how that reply would be received; but my point is only that Russell, like many others, has endorsed this evidentialist objection to theistic belief.

[Andúril]

"What evidence would be sufficient for you to believe in God?"

I get that question often. About once a month.

Now, what is the object of the belief? The JC god.

What do we know about the JC god? Omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

Omniscient: God knows exactly what evidence is sufficient.
Omnipotent: If God wants to, he can meet these requirements.
Benevolent: God loves us all, and wants us to be happy.

Giving an illogical requirement is pointless. We could say that "a square circle hovering in mid-air" is sufficient evidence. But can this happen? No. We could say that God must create "a rock so big that he cannot lift it", and that would be sufficient evidence. But it is illogical, and cannot happen. Therefore, if we want to be fair, and allow for the possibility of the requirement being met, it should be something that can happen (however minute the chances of it happening are), which means it must be logical.

So, God, as an omnipotent being, is powerful enough to meet any logical requirements for belief.

Now we look to benevolence. A completely benevolent being wishes only "good" on others.

Here is where my thought lies. In Christian theology, after a person dies, they will end up either in Heaven, or in Hell. Now, Hell has been described as many things: eternal hellfire, or eternal separation from God, or eternal torture, etc. How it is possible for a completely benevolent being to want anybody to receive such a fate is beyond me.

To say that God does not want that (ie people going to Hell) would mean that nobody will go to Hell, because anything that is desired by God, is achieved (unless there is a greater desire - more on this later...). God desires, as a completely benevolent being, only "good".

To intentionally "send" one to Hell, is probably the most non-benevolent act that I can think of (assuming that Hell is what certain Christians say it [eternal torture]). If one understands Hell as a place that is separated with God, it would still be a non-benevolent act (although somebody needs to explain to me exactly what it would be like to be separated from God, because I cannot imagine a scenario different to the one we currently find ourselves in...).

However, as God is omnipresent, it is impossible to seperate himself from anywhere. If one says that he can create a place that he does not in any way inhabit, he would then not be omnipresent, and ofcourse this goes against his other characteristic - immutability.

But whatever concept of Hell is put forward, we can be sure that it is not a "good" place. Therefore, the intention to have one exist in such a place is a non-benevolent intention, which a completely benevolent being cannot possess.

Now we come to free will. It is argued that "God gave us free will" so that we may choose our fate. Now, if this is the case, it would mean that God takes a back seat, and allows the result of our use of free will to determine our future location. It would seem then, that God's benevolent desires are overridden by His desire to maintain the law with regards to the admission requirements (which he put forward in the first place). But maintaining, and applying the law is a desire of neutrality. Neither benevolent nor malevolent.

This desire seems to be the greatest desire of God. But if so, God's character is not one of complete benevolence, but one of neutrality, in which he takes no position (ie lenient/vindictive) - he merely judges according to the rules as set (by himself).

So, it would now seem that there is either a conflict in the attributes of God, or his attribute of neutrality, being "greater" or "overriding" benevolence, takes precedence.

If we are to say that God is just (neutral), then we must once again look at what we know about this deity:

Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Just.

When examining the essence of this "justness", we must be aware that his actions are only classified as just, because God is defined as being just, and whatever God does is just. In other words, if God decides to shoot a lightning bolt at Jar Jar, it is a just action. Jar Jar deserved to be hit by lightning, multiple times. However the act looks to observers, it must be perceived as just, because whatever God does is just.

As you can all see, my little afternoon ramble is falling apart rapidly, partly because I can't remember what it is that I was trying to get across. Perhaps I'll remember it later.

Anyway, from what I have said, there are some useful conclusions, namely, God is not benevolent, because he is just, and benevolence requires non-neutrality. Or, if one still wishes to maintain that God is both benevolent and just at the same time (as equal magnitude characteristics), we have incoherency, it is the duty of that person to show how both attributes can be present simultaneously.

But just remember: If God is completely benevolent, he would not want anyone to experience a place such as Hell. It is that simple. And if benevolence takes precedence (over justness), then God would not have created any such place as hell in the first place, since the creation of said place is non-benevolent.

Umm, anyway, I'll run along now, and gather my thoughts. I cannot concentrate at all.

PS. Please, anyway, bring all inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, and nonsense in the above post to my attention. It will only help me.

[Blackheart]

BAh. Azathoth owns j00!

And that's my helpful contribution to this thread.

[Nariel Starfire]

Okay, yes, God is benevolent. But He is also just. Here's my explanation.

God put people on this earth in a paradise: Eden. He gave them one rule: DOn't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The penalty is eternal separation from God. The people ate: they screwed it up for themselves and everybody else. Now we must have a sacrifice in order to redeem ourselves. But God saw no need to cause all this death and suffering every year, so he sent an ultimate sacrifice: His Son. When Christ was sacrificed, all we had to do was accept the fact that we are hopelessly lost in our sin and cannot do anything to return to communion with God. Then, we realize that Christ allows us to do so.

Now, Hell is meant as separation not only from God, but from everything else as well. And yes, God is in Hell. He's the head honcho. Satan does not rule hell: he's just another prisoner.

As for the creation of hell, God made it as a punishment for the Angels (Lucifer and his one third) that defied him. It was never meant for people. But, when people disobeyed Him, God had to punish them. NOw this punishment may seem a bit harsh, but wouldn't you be harsh on a subordinate who broke the one and only rule you gave them?

As for the rest of what you said, well, GOd can be benevolent and just at the same time, because He's GOd. One mistake i see is that you're applying the human necessity to distinguish to an omnipotent God. For example.it is humanly impossible to understand exactly how Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. BUt he was. Now, when you've gathered your thoughts, you can ask me any questions you have.

[BeardofPants]

NOT this thread again... Okay, get ready for some serious ass whomping. I bite.

What I really want to know, is where is the archaeological evidence for this tree?

PS Nariel - What makes you so arrogant to assume that YOU'VE gathered your thoughts and we haven't?

[Shadowfax]

Archaeological record goes back much further than four thousand years (I am very interested in archaeology, and know this for a fact). "The earliest traces of human occupation in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley of southern Mesopotamia date to around 5500 B.C." - that's merely one example, 6500 years ago, and that civilization already had pottery, indicating a somewhat advanced state.

I'm not sure who posted this, but it was a while back. First of all, the Tigris-Euphrates river valley, is where I (and most of my Christian friends - and I've heard others say this too) believe that the Garden of Eden was.
And someone else posted something about how do we know how old or young the earth really is, and what I believe is that from the time God created the earth to the time it was said that Adam & Eve (the created humans) sinned and ate the forbidden fruit, that time period could have been anywhere between one and one hundred trillion years - or more! I am a Christian and believe all that the Bible says and yet I have no problem with the scientest who think the earth is billions of years old! Humanity and civilization may have only been recorded back about 7000 years, but before that, who know how long people had lived on earth - or how long earth was extant?

Now, Hell is meant as separation not only from God, but from everything else as well. And yes, God is in Hell. He's the head honcho. Satan does not rule hell: he's just another prisoner.

I have a question for you: what has led you to believe that God is in Hell as well as Heaven? I have never heard of that before. (not trying to bash you) My understanding of Hell is that it is total and eternal separation from God and all things that are good - it is not a specific physical "place", but more of a spiritual place where you are separated from God.
And if God is perfect and cannot be able to be near sin, how can he "rule" over all of the sinners, and Satan who is the ultimate representation and manifestation of sin? If God is ruler over Hell, then how can he enjoy eternity in Heaven with his believers and faithful servants? Wouldn't God want to not have to worry about evil after the final judgement?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
Humanity and civilization may have only been recorded back about 7000 years, but before that, who know how long people had lived on earth - or how long earth was extant?

Nope. "Humanity" has been recorded earlier than that. Approximately right on the civilisation front though, so I'll concede that. However, I would like for you to outline what "civilisation" means to you. How would you define it? What are the criteria? Population numbers? etc.

I, or any other poor b*stard, will give further evidence if required, for an older "humanity". At the moment, I can't be arsed, I've already given tonnes of evidence on the anti-theist thread.

[Cirdan]

Why o why is this thread still open? Flogging the poor dead thing when it's evil twin, the anti-theist thread was laid to rest is just not right. What more could possibly be said that hasn't already? You could spend days just reading the two threads.

[BeardofPants]

Some people like overly flogging the beast, I guess. I'll do the yard work if I have to, but I'm hoping for some fresh ideas/imput, and I'll only do it in those conditions. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned, this thread can die a horrid death like it's evil twin.

*mutters something about sex and drugs and rock and roll...*

[Andúril]

Nariel:
He gave them one rule:

Therefore his benevolence takes a back seat to the power and authority of his "rule", which is what I said previously:

Me:
...his attribute of neutrality, being "greater" or "overriding" benevolence, takes precedence.

Can you not see why benevolence and justness cannot operate on the same level? As an example, take a judge in court. Will he make sure that the criminal receives harsher punishment than is deserved, less harsh punishment, or the exact punishment deserved (according to law)? I'm sure that you will say: the exact punishment deserved. Therefore, the judge witholds his own emotion, and uses the law to determine the punishment. He is just, which is neutral.

Now, you are saying that benevolence and justness can operate at the same time:

Nariel continues:
GOd can be benevolent and just at the same time

So, let's go back to the judge. Say the punishment according to law for some crime was fine X. As a neutral judge, fine X is his ruling. Not X-Y (as a lenient judgement). Not X+Y (as a harsh judgement). He is just.

However, if the judge is lenient (benevolent), he will judge that the criminal owes X-Y. Because he is lenient, the fine will always be less than is deserved.

So, what you are telling me is that the judge will fine the crimal X and X-Y at the same time. I hope you can see the problem.

By putting the authority of the law above his benevolence, God, as the judge, therefore fines the criminal X. Additionally God cannot be benevolent, because there will always be justness that God must adhere to.

Nariel continues:
Now we must have a sacrifice in order to redeem ourselves

Why?

Nariel continues:
But God saw no need to cause all this death and suffering every year...

God caused death and suffering. Definitely not evidence of benevolence...

Nariel continues:...so he sent an ultimate sacrifice: His Son

Two things:

1) Sacrificing your son is not benevolent.
2) Jesus was God incarnate. What exactly was it that God sacrificed? Is it something that God can never get back?

Nariel continues:
Now, Hell is meant as separation not only from God, but from everything else as well. And yes, God is in Hell.

Err, if Hell is seperation from God, how can God be in Hell? Or, if God is omnipresent, how can he be separated from anything/anywhere?

Nariel continues:
As for the creation of hell, God made it as a punishment for the Angels (Lucifer and his one third) that defied him. It was never meant for people. But, when people disobeyed Him, God had to punish them.

Nonsense. God is omniscient, you know. God created Hell with complete knowledge of who would be inhabiting it. If it was never meant for people, and God is omnipotent, then people don't go there.

Nariel continues:
...because He's GOd.

That doesn't answer anything. What is it about God that allows for him to be both lenient and just at the same time?

Nariel continues:
For example.it is humanly impossible to understand exactly how Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. BUt he was.

Says who? God?

Shadowfax:
And if God is perfect and cannot be able to be near sin...

Except that God is omnipresent. Which means that he is near all sin...

Or, he is not omnipresent, in that he is not in Hell. But he is still near the sin on Earth...

Also, sin occured in Heaven.

[afro-elf]

well we can just spam and go off topic are claim discrimination because this thread was open and the anti-theist thread was closed.

[Andúril]

Nariel:
NOw this punishment may seem a bit harsh, but wouldn't you be harsh on a subordinate who broke the one and only rule you gave them?

I think you are playing down the harshness of the punishment.

For instance, the average human (sucking this out of my thumb) lives to be about 70.

If you are sent to Hell, you are there for eternity. Not 1000 years, not even 100000000000000 years. If you could take a 1, and put as many 0's as you think atoms make up the earth, that would not be anywhere NEAR to eternity. In fact, even if you take this number to the power of itself 999 gazillion times, this number, even if it represented eons, would not be a fraction of itself of eternity.

Eternity in Hell is harsh. Just a bit.

Or, you could say that there is no time in Hell. Kind of like a static place. I wonder how one's senses can operate in a static environment...

[BeardofPants]

Did somebody say SPAM?! Or we could join hands and sing the sperm song... Oh the sacriledge!

[Cirdan]

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every spam is sacred.
Every spam is great.
If a spam is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:
Every spam is sacred.
Every spam is great.
If a spam is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each spam that can't be found.
CHILDREN:
Every spam is wanted.
Every spam is good.
Every spam is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
MEN:
Every spam is sacred.
Every spam is great.
WOMEN:
If a spam is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.
PRIEST:
Every spam is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every spam is good.
NANNIES:
Every spam is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!
CHILDREN:
Every spam is useful.
Every spam is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!
NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each spam that's spilt in vain.
EVERYONE:
Every spam is sacred.
Every spam is good.
Every spam is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every spam is sacred.
Every spam is great.
If a spam is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

[BeardofPants]

Sacriledge! You spam-idised it!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Sacriledge! You spam-idised it!

I haven't shaved for a few days... may be getting more evil.

Oh, by the way, I am god. Question me and you will burn for enternity.

I have spoken.

[BeardofPants]

Waitaminute. I thought I was God. Can it be a pantheon of gods, or are you going to be possesive and illogical about this?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Waitaminute. I thought I was God. Can it be a pantheon of gods, or are you going to be possesive and illogical about this?

Right. I warned you now, didn't I?

*thinks... a goddess would be nice*

OK, but your it. Everyone else...

ON YOUR KNEES!

[BeardofPants]

You heard the man! On your knees! Worship me in my heavenly manifestation.

[Cirdan]

Behold!

I annointest thy head with petroleum!

I enlighten thee with the radience of my cathode ray tube!

I fill the lands with great cathedrals of fabulous merchandise!

I uploadeth thy soul into the holy data haven!