Sapper Redux said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Have you read any Aquinas?

---

City of God and Confessions.

---

You mean Augustine surely?

"Sorry. Read too quickly. Yes, I've read an abbreviated version of the Summa Theologica."

The Summa is a deep dive. Two volumes, +1.3 million words... impressed to find anyone that has read it cover to cover (even summas of the Summa).

"The Christian concept of a trinity and a God that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent simply don't hold up for me under scrutiny. I've reached this conclusion academically, through logical reasoning, and through my own experience with the problem of suffering and evil."

+++

If I may, I'd like to unpack this one by one, if only to better understand and not some attempt to convert. You have clearly given this some thought and even cited some of the brightest minds in Christian thought and come away unconvinced, so this not me trying to convince- just understand.

Here we go:

1. Can you give me your definition of "god" (little g) or big G?
2. What "academic" criteria did you scrutinize this concept of God?
3. You speak of a personal experience with "the problem of suffering and evil"- while suffering is a little more obvious, what is your definition of "evil"?

Thanks!

Sapper Redux said:

---

Ah, so because my own search for truth led me away from Christianity, I must not have done it right. Brilliant. No logical fallacy there.

---

Can you explain Saul/Paul's conversion? Saul went from an up and coming Jew with riches and fame to giving that all up to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. Endured years of prison and multiple beatings and eventual execution for a lie?

"omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent simply don't hold up for me under scrutiny."

That is the greatest argument against the existence of God. This is one of the most concise answers to that question.

So how did nature invent a valve?

Sure it's concise, but it's just hand waving. Ignoring that I find privation theory of evil wanting it's just based on the hope that god knows what he's doing. It never really attacks the fundamental logic of the argument it's meant to respond to.

That said I disagree that the biggest argument against god is the problem of evil. Its merely an argument against assigning a particular set of infinities to a being we know nothing about.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sure it's concise, but it's just hand waving. Ignoring that I find privation theory of evil wanting it's just based on the hope that god knows what he's doing. It never really attacks the fundamental logic of the argument it's meant to respond to.

That said I disagree that the biggest argument against god is the problem of evil. Its merely an argument against assigning a particular set of infinities to a being we know nothing about.

---

Conveniently avoiding my own best argument against God, I have to ask: what do you belief to be the best argument against?

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sure it's concise, but it's just hand waving. Ignoring that I find privation theory of evil wanting it's just based on the hope that god knows what he's doing. It never really attacks the fundamental logic of the argument it's meant to respond to.

That said I disagree that the biggest argument against god is the problem of evil. Its merely an argument against assigning a particular set of infinities to a being we know nothing about.

---

Conveniently avoiding my own best argument against God, I have to ask: what do you belief to be the best argument against?

---

The best argument against god is at the foundation. The issue without which most all other arguments would cease or never come to pass (the problem of evil being an exception). The argument from Divine hiddenness is the true heart of religious and philosophical debate. It's the reason for the question.

In a less formulaic and more intuitive way I think it's at the true heart of religious doubt. The universe simply looks as it should if a god at least a theistic one, doesn't exist.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sure it's concise, but it's just hand waving. Ignoring that I find privation theory of evil wanting it's just based on the hope that god knows what he's doing. It never really attacks the fundamental logic of the argument it's meant to respond to.

That said I disagree that the biggest argument against god is the problem of evil. Its merely an argument against assigning a particular set of infinities to a being we know nothing about.

---

Conveniently avoiding my own best argument against God, I have to ask: what do you belief to be the best argument against?

---

The best argument against god is at the foundation. The issue without which most all other arguments would cease or never come to pass (the problem of evil being an exception). The argument from Divine hiddenness is the true heart of religious and philosophical debate. It's the reason for the question.

In a less formulaic and more intuitive way I think it's at the true heart of religious doubt. The universe simply looks as it should if a god at least a theistic one, doesn't exist.

---

Interesting. Divine hiddenness is also my greatest issue, but I disagree with the last sentence. To say anything "should" look the way it does is fine, if it wasn't for the reality that "should" "shouldn't" exist at all. "Should" requires an intellectual perspective. I think it's fair to say an unintelligent universe "shouldn't" be capable of "should" statements at all.

If you made it through that rambling, I will say that my problem with divine hiddenness isn't that a God doesn't exist, but that He doesn't care as much as the Christian faith says He does. I've wrestled with it and feel comfortable with the answer I've found, but I get why people feel the way you seem to.

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sure it's concise, but it's just hand waving. Ignoring that I find privation theory of evil wanting it's just based on the hope that god knows what he's doing. It never really attacks the fundamental logic of the argument it's meant to respond to.

That said I disagree that the biggest argument against god is the problem of evil. Its merely an argument against assigning a particular set of infinities to a being we know nothing about.

---

Conveniently avoiding my own best argument against God, I have to ask: what do you belief to be the best argument against?

---

The best argument against god is at the foundation. The issue without which most all other arguments would cease or never come to pass (the problem of evil being an exception). The argument from Divine hiddenness is the true heart of religious and philosophical debate. It's the reason for the question.

In a less formulaic and more intuitive way I think it's at the true heart of religious doubt. The universe simply looks as it should if a god at least a theistic one, doesn't exist.

---

Interesting. Divine hiddenness is also my greatest issue, but I disagree with the last sentence. To say anything "should" look the way it does is fine, if it wasn't for the reality that "should" "shouldn't" exist at all. "Should" requires an intellectual perspective. I think it's fair to say an unintelligent universe "shouldn't" be capable of "should" statements at all.

If you made it through that rambling, I will say that my problem with divine hiddenness isn't that a God doesn't exist, but that He doesn't care as much as the Christian faith says He does. I've wrestled with it and feel comfortable with the answer I've found, but I get why people feel the way you seem to.

---

I think we are more on the same page here than you think. Note I said a theistic god. The universe looks as it should if there is no theistic god. The universe could very well look like this with a deistic god.

In that you've identified the best argument for god. Which is the teleological argument.

Rocag said:

---

Google must have been watching my Texags posts because a day after I reply to another topic on this guy it recommends this video critiquing him.

---

So you are not saying, "there is no god" you are saying you don't know if there is one or not- would that be a correct understanding?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Ah, so because my own search for truth led me away from Christianity, I must not have done it right. Brilliant. No logical fallacy there.

---

Can you explain Saul/Paul's conversion? Saul went from an up and coming Jew with riches and fame to giving that all up to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. Endured years of prison and multiple beatings and eventual execution for a lie?

---

People believe things happen to them. There are people in India who are absolutely, 100% convinced they are the reincarnation of so-and-so and have proofs for it. I'm willing to bet many of them would die for their Hindu faith based on their experience. Paul, to whatever extent the biblical narrative is an accurate history, is not somehow a unique story. One could write a similar narrative about Joseph Smith or another early Mormon leader. It doesn't make the underlying belief more accurate.

---

None of those people went from persecuting those people to joining them and becoming persecuted. Those comparisons don't hold up. Paul gave up everything for a brutal life of beatings, imprisonment and eventual death. Paul is absolutely a unique story.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

Similarly, I think Jordan Peterson is getting there too. He's so close, but knows his whole life changes once he proclaims Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

---

JP just released a book titled "We that wrestle with God".

He is very much a believer, but doesn't take that lightly. The reality is, if you really believe in Christianity, it requires a completely different outlook on life that many are not willing to take on.

If you search, you can find a YouTube clip where JP states plainly that he believes that Jesus is the son of God and was born to a virgin. But, JP understands that if he really believes that the Bible is true, then his life is not reflecting a Biblical life appropriately. The truth is, that is where every believer stands.

I also think that JP is much more likely to be a Bayesian when it comes to religion. He likely has in mind a certain probability that the Bible is true. But, what do you do with that?

The answer is that you really have two choices: make that leap of faith, and try to align your life and priorities with a belief that the Bible is true even in the face of doubt, or decide that you don't believe in God enough to change your behavior, and continue to live your life. You kind of have to make a decision on whether to believe or not, and go with that route 100%,

Believing the Bible is true but not following it 100% is hypocrisy. But, everyone is a hypocrite to some degree.

it seems to me that the statement "believing the bible is true" is so underdefined that it is impossible to couple it to any particular way of life or being in the world. i'm not sure where you stand to apply the lever of hypocrisy based on that alone.

The reality is, if we really believed and incorporated what Jesus taught, many Christians would live quite a bit differently. The proper response to salvation is to make Christ your only real priority, and everything else in life follows from that.

As for what belief in the Bible means, in this context, it is generally true. Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, and Jesus' teachings are the best way to live your life.

i don't disagree with your premise. i'm point out that there is a massive variance in outcomes based only on sincere belief of the bible and Jesus' teaching and what each person understands that to mean. you're already starting that by making a value judgment on the fact that Christ should be your only real priority, which is a second-order conclusion that is itself pretty vague.

Zobel said:

---

i don't disagree with your premise. i'm point out that there is a massive variance in outcomes based only on sincere belief of the bible and Jesus' teaching and what each person understands that to mean. you're already starting that by making a value judgment on the fact that Christ should be your only real priority, which is a second-order conclusion that is itself pretty vague.

---

I'm focused on JP's response here, though.

Based on my extensive review of his material, I believe that JP thinks that, after a lot of study, God is real, and that scares the living *hit out of him.

On whether the "Bible is real", I agree that there is a lot of variance here, more likely to be fleshed out better in the religion board. One can believe that the Truths of the Bible are 100% real, without believing that the history depicted in the OT is the same as the history we see depicted of say, the civil war.

BusterAg said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

Similarly, I think Jordan Peterson is getting there too. He's so close, but knows his whole life changes once he proclaims Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

---

JP just released a book titled "We that wrestle with God".

He is very much a believer, but doesn't take that lightly. The reality is, if you really believe in Christianity, it requires a completely different outlook on life that many are not willing to take on.

If you search, you can find a YouTube clip where JP states plainly that he believes that Jesus is the son of God and was born to a virgin. But, JP understands that if he really believes that the Bible is true, then his life is not reflecting a Biblical life appropriately. The truth is, that is where every believer stands.

I also think that JP is much more likely to be a Bayesian when it comes to religion. He likely has in mind a certain probability that the Bible is true. But, what do you do with that?

The answer is that you really have two choices: make that leap of faith, and try to align your life and priorities with a belief that the Bible is true even in the face of doubt, or decide that you don't believe in God enough to change your behavior, and continue to live your life. You kind of have to make a decision on whether to believe or not, and go with that route 100%,

Believing the Bible is true but not following it 100% is hypocrisy. But, everyone is a hypocrite to some degree.

---

Completely agree and I've seen all those clips. I was just talking to a pastor at my church about what he said about it changing every aspect of your life to believe the Bible is true and we were saying we wish more Christians understood the magnitude that JP does.