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.

Including both of us by the way. We were in no way trying to act superior to anyone.

Sapper Redux said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Out of curiosity, what is your biggest objection to there being a God?

---

If you mean any deity, period, my reading of history over the years, my admittedly limited knowledge of cosmology and my better knowledge of biology suggest either no god active in our universe or one so vastly different and removed from us that it doesn't make much practical difference. Admittedly, I could be wrong about that. I'm much less decisive about the existence of something we would call a god than I am that the human conceptions we currently have of God or gods does not exist. 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. And please don't sit here and assume I just haven't heard the right apologetics. I've read just about every reasonably modern (and plenty of ancient) figures you could name. From the more popular writers like Strobel to the inbetween like Craig to more academic writers like Swinburne.

---

This is my interpretation of what you've written:

"Nah God, raising from the dead, healing the sick, calming storms, walking on water, that's not enough for me to believe in your authority over creation, you gotta explain to me what I don't understand about suffering and evil first."



I believe god has given us all of the signs we need to believe in his authority and to place our faith in Jesus.

I don't think that we need no further elaboration on the order of creation to place our faith in Jesus. The gift of eternal life and forgiveness is already promised and offered to all mankind so long as we have faith in him, what objection could there possibly be regarding his love, mercy, or grace?

I agree our bias will impact how much evidence is required to convince us.

I find the authority of Jesus words convincing. That's backed up by miracles, and Old Testament prophecy.

To contrast Jesus and Mohammed for example, Jesus forgave sinners, an authority that comes from God, while Mohammed begged for forgiveness. In this way by their own actions, Jesus is more authoritative than Muhammed.

Unlike most charlatans, Jesus often instructed those he performed miracles for not to tell anyone. Would he do that if he were a charlatan seeking notoriety?

Another point being testimonials of close friends and family. My uncle had a near death experience he told me about directly. My Mother in law also witnessed an Angel when she was close to death on a hospital bed, though she never was clinically dead like my uncle was.

I once also experienced spiritual attacks after a long and deep prayer session. I was attacked in my sleep by demons twice.

All of my experiences, testimonials I've heard, and recorded human history, is consistent with the books of the Bible.

I know my experiences and the testimonials I've heard are unique to me, so others may not be convinced if they don't share that experience.

I do think the bit about how we should believe the miracles because it was later written he said not to tell anyone about them is not really as convincing as you think when you consider the sequence of events that must have led to it. Decades after the events are said to happen someone writes that Jesus performed a miracle that nobody ever heard about until that moment. If it were anyone else, I bet you'd agree the more likely interpretation is that the author was making it up and using the "Don't say anything!" part to explain why no one had heard about it.

I can't speak to your personal experiences, but I will say that I have certainly never seen anything that doesn't have a boring old natural explanation. I've seen lots and lots of people claim supernatural powers and evidence of the supernatural, but never any claims that hold up under scrutiny. Maybe that proof is out there somewhere, just hidden away. But if that's the case, I have to wonder why.

Most of the times he said to keep the healing secret, the person healed didn't keep it secret but instead went out and told everyone. That's what is recorded. So your inference that they didn't tell anyone at the time is wrong.

Rocag said:

---

I've never met an atheist or agnostic that actually believes Jesus did any of that. Christians usually trot out the defense that we should trust it because early Christians believed it and nobody went out of their way to try and disprove it, but that shows a misunderstanding of the culture in which Christianity grew out of. Lot of people claimed to be able to perform miracles at that time, and lots of people believed them. The was no first century James Randi going around exposing charlatans. The idea that some self proclaimed religious leader would also claim to be able to perform miracles would not have been at all surprising or out of the ordinary for this time and place.

It does raise the issue of what miraculous claims we choose to believe and which we don't. Do you, for instance, believe the miracles in the book of Mormon or Quran? If not, why? By what standard of evidence would we judge the claims of miracles found in the New Testament to be believable but not those of other faiths? What about modern claims of miracles? Do we judge those by different standards? If so, why?

---

Suppose your assumption is correct, and there were many charlatans in those days, why don't we have multiple biographies of them? And were they also crucified? Jesus was undeniably unique among individuals who may have performed miracles.

bmks270 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I've never met an atheist or agnostic that actually believes Jesus did any of that. Christians usually trot out the defense that we should trust it because early Christians believed it and nobody went out of their way to try and disprove it, but that shows a misunderstanding of the culture in which Christianity grew out of. Lot of people claimed to be able to perform miracles at that time, and lots of people believed them. The was no first century James Randi going around exposing charlatans. The idea that some self proclaimed religious leader would also claim to be able to perform miracles would not have been at all surprising or out of the ordinary for this time and place.

It does raise the issue of what miraculous claims we choose to believe and which we don't. Do you, for instance, believe the miracles in the book of Mormon or Quran? If not, why? By what standard of evidence would we judge the claims of miracles found in the New Testament to be believable but not those of other faiths? What about modern claims of miracles? Do we judge those by different standards? If so, why?

---

Suppose your assumption is correct, and there were many charlatans in those days, why don't we have multiple biographies of them? And were they also crucified? Jesus was undeniably unique among individuals who may have performed miracles.

---

Why should it be significant that Jesus was crucified? There's no objective value in that which we should think it is important. Religious significance was placed on it after the fact, but no one was going around before Jesus saying they should be on the look out for someone who would be crucified.

And the surviving histories do mention quite a few religious leaders said to have performed miracles in that time period. Why don't we care much about those biographies? Survivor bias. Christianity managed to stick around while other movements died out. Is that in of itself significant? If so, you have to place the same significance on every other major religion that managed to gain massive followings.