If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[QED]

coz God is mercifull.....

Hello Creed-X welcome to the Debating forums. I know that this is your first post here but I have to point out that one liners are frowned upon as mentioned in the Forum Intro and Rules. Please join in this debate by giving us your opinion and your evidence for it, or show where you disagree with the opinion of others.

[harvey1]

Excuse me, but by your own admission "God has made a world with sharp knives with good reason". No amount of prayer will protect us from them and no amount of divine love will prevent them causing tragedies.

I disagree. God does provide protection as it is God's will to do so.

You agree that it's up to us do this for each other so why on Earth should we pray to something that is not on the other end of the line?

Because God is on the other side of the line, and God can and will protect us if it is God's will to do so.

This much is plain for all to see. Not once have these hopeless remedies been effective for mankind so the only rational conclusion is that whatever made the world is totally indifferent to its content.

That's what you consider true from your conceptual framework. I disagree with it. I think God does prevent horrible things from happening and God is involved in healing.

Now, you raise this notion of a new age -- a new world where none of this bad stuff happens -- what relevance does this have to the real world that we live in now?

Well, it means that this world is temporary and whatever happens, happens to the flesh. But, God can save the soul, and that world is relevant for that very reason.

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious but it's all too easy for you to concoct such a fantasy and at best it would only serve as a palliative, not a cure for the real condition which is our obvious mortality in the here and now.

Of course you see it as a fantasy, but you are in denial of the miracles in the world, and therefore your mind is not appreciative of God's interaction in the world (without which you wouldn't exist).

If we talk in terms of fitting data to theories all the evidence points to us operating within a vast unattended machine. The machinery turns and we come and go. Nothing is hovering over the 'emergency stop button' and if things go wrong the machinery just keeps on turning. This is not just an atheist 'spin' on things -- it's what awaits us all if we are daft enough to stick our heads out the window of a moving train.

Well, you are putting an atheist spin on things. Nonetheless, there is no denying the natural order of things in this world, but like I said, I deny that this natural order of things is permanent. I think God will overthrow the natural order for a world that is not struggling with pain, suffering, and death.

I cannot believe that you could be the least bit satisfied with your account of things on this score.

I cannot believe that you could be the least bit satisfied with your account of things. It seems to me that your beliefs are unable to come to grips with the extreme amount of order and, quite frankly, miraculous events that have shaped our world. Therefore, from my perspective, you are in denial and it does your life no good by seeing life as meaningless as you do. Fortunately your numbers are small, in larger numbers I fear what this view of a meaningless existence would mean for society.

Bear in mind that the construct of Christianity has been channeled through the fallible minds of theologians for millennia for many different human motives and has, as its essential ingredients, key concepts that are beyond validation.

I realize it that you see it that way, however I see it quite differently. I see the Christian religion as inspired and the minds of the past were in contact with God's revelation. Many of these concepts look self-evident to me, so I don't struggle or snear at them as someone holding the premises that you hold would do.

You seem to disagree with this observation but have yet to offer any workable tests to refute my claim.

I've refuted your premises a number of times. Unfortunately you seem not to be the kind of person that reacts to contradictions in your view, hence you continue on believing that your premises are valid when they are not.

And so you shouldn't because ultimately, in common with everyone including me, all you really have is faith... well, here you have at least one thing that ought to give it a violent shake.

Faith is something that we all must share when knowing something is true. There's always a fallibilistic element to any knowledge, and faith is that element that keeps the fallibilism from turning into complete skepticism. So, yes I have faith, but no I do not think that I have blind faith.

[QED]

Excuse me, but by your own admission "God has made a world with sharp knives with good reason". No amount of prayer will protect us from them and no amount of divine love will prevent them causing tragedies.

I disagree. God does provide protection as it is God's will to do so.

How do we know this other than that it is presumed to be God's will? I hope you're not going to suggest that this accounts for all the bullets that narrowly miss people. I think we can chalk this one up as another one of those unprovables, one of those untestables...

In the following exchanges I think we will find that each of your statements is also of the type that can be made all too easily with no possible way for anyone to prove or disprove them:

I think God does prevent horrible things from happening and God is involved in healing.

This is to say that all sorts of horrible things haven't happened because God prevented them. An outstanding example of the sort of things a believer can say with total conviction. And if God's involvement in healing is essential we can chalk up another.

Well, it means that this world is temporary and whatever happens, happens to the flesh. But, God can save the soul, and that world is relevant for that very reason.

So God's infinite mercy is only guararnteed to work for this thing called the soul which, unfortunately, is another one of those slippery things that have evaded scientific scrutiny. Chalk up another.

Of course you see it as a fantasy, but you are in denial of the miracles in the world, and therefore your mind is not appreciative of God's interaction in the world (without which you wouldn't exist).

And another.

Well, you are putting an atheist spin on things. Nonetheless, there is no denying the natural order of things in this world, but like I said, I deny that this natural order of things is permanent. I think God will overthrow the natural order for a world that is not struggling with pain, suffering, and death.

This revolution sounds like it's a good way off in the future so that's another thing I'll have to take your word for.

I cannot believe that you could be the least bit satisfied with your account of things. It seems to me that your beliefs are unable to come to grips with the extreme amount of order and, quite frankly, miraculous events that have shaped our world.

From all our past discussions it seems to me that there's room for one 'miracle' at most. Now that leaves me in no less awe at the beauty of nature, but it does not compel me to see each product of the natural world as a miracle in itself. Indeed I can relax and be at one with a world that does not present me with an array of unprovables. I know for sure that when protection is needed it is we that are responsible for protecting each other and that horrible things will happen if we do not do our best to prevent them.

So to paraphrase you, from my perspective, you are in denial and it does your life no good by seeing life as being by divine command as you do. Unfortunately your numbers are great, and I fear that this view of a divinely inspired existence means that you won't behave so responsibly in the world because you're sure God made it for you and is always there to look after you.

I realize it that you see it that way, however I see it quite differently. I see the Christian religion as inspired and the minds of the past where in contact with God's revelation. Many of these concepts look self-evident to me, so I don't struggle or snear at them as someone holding the premises that you hold would do.

God's revelation being that it is his will to create and provide protection, that he prevents horrible things from happening and is involved in healing, that he can save things called souls and that his interventions (miracles) are really what makes our existence possible fro example?. Are these the sort of concepts that look so self-evident to you that you don't sneer at them? Surely you must understand the enormous problem I have with all this Harvey. It is obviously all a gigantic leap of faith on your behalf.

I've refuted your premises a number of times. Unfortunately you seem not to be the kind of person that reacts to contradictions in your view, hence you continue on believing that your premises are valid when they are not.

This angers me quite a bit. I'm really not sure what other matters you might be referring to -- to me it seems that you've made this statement on the grounds of what is in reality an ongoing discussion in which, after three pages already, everyone but you finds your premise to be faulty. I think your haste to draw the premature conclusion that you do let's you down badly. So when you say...

Faith is something that we all must share when knowing something is true. There's always a fallibilistic element to any knowledge, and faith is that element that keeps the fallibilism from turning into complete skepticism. So, yes I have faith, but no I do not think that I have blind faith.

...I do seriously wonder about your faith being blind. After all, it is not me who is jumping to conclusions and talking about wrecking-balls and the like. I think your choice of language betrays you somewhat.

[harvey1]

Hello QED,

This angers me quite a bit.

First off, I apologize. I don't want to piss you off in anyway. I didn't think about how those words would sound. All I meant to say is that I'm frustrated that you do not seem to respond to what I consider straightforward conclusions. When dealing with our conceptual schemes, I'm sure this is how many of us see other people's limitations. Somehow I have to find words that convey my frustration without making some unnecessary insult. I have enormous respect for you and Spetey, and I realize that my words sometimes have that pissing off effect. Nothing personal. Please forgive me.

How do we know this other than that it is presumed to be God's will? I hope you're not going to suggest that this accounts for all the bullets that narrowly miss people. I think we can chalk this one up as another one of those unprovables, one of those untestables...

It seems your question is how do I know God is good, is that right? Goodness means something. In my view, goodness brings a kind of meaning to life. That is, we are good because we equate being good with what we find meaningful.

So, is there reason to think that an intelligent God would seek meaning from its creation? I would say that must be the case since intelligence is the process of attributing meaning to ones environment. If you don't find something meaningful in the environment, it's hard to be considered intelligent.

Thus, an all-intelligent God would seek the most amount of meaning it could. It seems to me that meaning for God would have to be something objective and not subjective since my view of God is one in which God is the omniscient interpreter who equates truth in the world. The objective meaning God discovers would be one in which God discovers truth and establishes meaning in the universe totally consistent with that truth.

I would call such a being all-good because it seeks all-meaning in the world. If an event occurred that we consider to be bad (e.g., a tsunami), some of us might see that if God existed that God would be bad or negligent for allowing it if God had all-power to stop it. However, if God is seeking meaning for the Universe as a whole, then God is seeking Goodness for the world because of it. Similarly, if God allows naturalistic principles to exist, then God is seeking objective meaning for the world using those naturalistic principles.

This is to say that all sorts of horrible things haven't happened because God prevented them. An outstanding example of the sort of things a believer can say with total conviction. And if God's involvement in healing is essential we can chalk up another.

QED, we both sit on opposite sides of the fence. I too see your views as offering "outstanding example[s] of the sort of things a believer can say with total conviction." The difference is that you believe in what you say because it naturally follows from what you believe with regard to atheism, and I believe what naturally follows from my theism. We won't get anywhere by saying the other person is saying what naturally follows from their beliefs. What I must do, and what you must do, is show how those beliefs are in conflict such that something is wrong with our beliefs. This is what I think I have done to your beliefs. For example, our whole conversation as to why we live in a universe that brings forth structures that are too complex to program was an issue that I never received a response from you. You just asked that we accept on faith that this is how the universe was, but you couldn't provide a reason as to why the universe is so sophisticated in its self-extraction nature such that we cannot program anything remotely like it. All of our self-extraction programs (e.g., cellular automata) have nowhere near the complexity of our universe. Your answer was that it had to be this way because it was the only way to account for your beliefs about the world. I gave a very logical and simple explanation that suggests that causation requires a satisfaction relation, and that relation requires an omniscient interpreter (OI), hence the universe will have this OI otherwise there could be no cause and the universe must abide by a principle of causation (since if it didn't this would be a causal principle by default). Thus, God must exist in this universe. You came up with no such argument for atheism. It was based on your observations of the natural order, and with that you just assume that the universe is extraordinarily complex at its origin.

I point this out because when you mentioned that we are currently having a conversation where no conclusions have been reached, I get frustrated because it seems that you ignore our previous discussions completely. Please understand, I see this skipping over of my arguments as a failing on your part. Rightly or wrongly, I've come to the conclusion that few atheists really give much thought about these issues, and instead focus on naturalistic principles and never question that God would naturally use naturalistic principles (even the author of Genesis one recognized that!).

From all our past discussions it seems to me that there's room for one 'miracle' at most. Now that leaves me in no less awe at the beauty of nature, but it does not compel me to see each product of the natural world as a miracle in itself. Indeed I can relax and be at one with a world that does not present me with an array of unprovables. I know for sure that when protection is needed it is we that are responsible for protecting each other and that horrible things will happen if we do not do our best to prevent them.

We live in a naturalistic order, but I don't think material atheism accounts for this naturalistic order as well as theism. With theism, there are very good reasons why God would use a naturalistic order, but on what basis can you say there is a naturalistic order with regard to your material atheism?

I fear that this view of a divinely inspired existence means that you won't behave so responsibly in the world because you're sure God made it for you and is always there to look after you.

The world has demonstrated that it is safer under theist governments (at least Christian-Buddhist based theism) than atheist ones. In fact, it is yet another atheist regime that is threatening the world with North Korea producing nukes which they might sell to the highest bidder. You scoff that this has anything to do with atheism, but from my perspective it has everything to do with atheism.

[Curious]

The world has demonstrated that it is safer under theist governments (at least Christian-Buddhist based theism) than atheist ones. In fact, it is yet another atheist regime that is threatening the world with North Korea producing nukes which they might sell to the highest bidder. You scoff that this has anything to do with atheism, but from my perspective it has everything to do with atheism.

And I thought the main threat was the islamic fundamentalist terror networks. These are the people we need to worry about. If an atheist government gets nukes they know that the world would become uninhabitable for everybody so they show restraint. Give these nukes to a government who believe that their deaths lead to paradise... well, you get the picture.

[Arch]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

Acording to believers nothing is beyond GOD's powers. So he must rather have people die in a battle then to just destroy evil himself!