1hr long but seemingly irrefutable

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================

But if an atheist knows there is a God, let's say, in the same way he knows it is raining outside by the sound of raindrops on his roof, don't you think he would just as readily acknowledge God as he would the rain?

=======================================

No. There is a difference in the athiest's mind is the underlying thought. I don't think this is the thought they verbalize too often.[/b]

To put it simply, no, you're completely off the mark.

Originally posted by jaywill
3.) The thought of being subject to someone like themselves repulses them to the uttermost.

Actually, for me it is the thought of being subjected to someone who is not much like me at all - a 'loving' being who has no problem wiping out entire races of people, or torturing them eternally in hell.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Actually, for me it is the thought of being subjected to someone who is not much like me at all - a 'loving' being who has no problem wiping out entire races of people, or torturing them eternally in hell.

Nothing new there.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence"

Originally posted by jaywill
Nothing new there.

[b]"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence"[/b]

Nothing against God's will can happen.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Nothing against God's will can happen.

Let’s say that God is omnibenevolent, and “is not willing that any should perish...”.

However, God chose to grant humans (1) free will and (2) a choice-set that includes choices worthy of eternal condemnation.

The “evil choices” turn out to be seductive for many, who succumb to temptation. God, having granted free will cannot prevent this, so that granting is an act of self-imposed limitation on God’s omnipotence.

If God is omniscient, then God knows that many humans will succumb. God also presumably knows that those of us who, through exercise of our reason, self-examining integrity—and in “good faith”—make the wrong choice (disbelieving in even the existence of a God-being, or perhaps choosing the wrong religion) will also stand eternally condemned.

—For another spin, add in Satan, who presumably knows he’s headed for hell, and, as the great seducer, is going to try to seduce as many humans as possible to go along with him. An insanely Pyrrhic victory over God perhaps, but a victory nonetheless if God is, in fact “not willing that any should perish”.

Under this scenario, God desires and wills that all be saved, but fails to have his will carried out. That is, God wants and wills (the word is really the same in the Greek) to save all, but fails to save all—that is, if anyone actually perishes.

In the end, there are only three scenarios, all of which have been expressed within the Christian paradigm at one time or another:

—God does not want to save everyone;

—God fails to save everyone; or

—God saves everyone.

It has struck me for some time now how few theists seem to be willing to simply choose one of those, state it clearly, and then defend that position however they can. (There have been a few, however.)

The real question in this scenario (God fails to save everyone due to a self-imposed limitation on God’s omnipotence) is why an omnibenevolent, (originally) omnipotent and omniscient God chose to confront free-will humans with a choice-set that includes choices that will lead to eternal condemnation, and God’s failure to save? That is, the issue is not so much “free-will” ([(1) above], however one views that) as it is the available choice-set [(2) above]. Telerion, for one, has hammered at this over and over again.

After all, our existential choice-set is constrained in many ways: gravity, the continual need for food and drink to live, the fact that we are not omniscient, etc. To simply be born with clear knowledge that a God exists, and the nature of that God—or to have that knowledge “wired in” so that it is just there once the neuro-physiological structure of our brains is sufficiently developed—would not devastate “free will”. Nor would a choice-set that is morally, as well as physically and psychologically, constrained; we would not even be aware that is was so constrained.

_____________________________________

As for jaywill’s first post on the previous page, I admit that it describes fairly well, in general (with a few changes and caveats here and there), where I was once at—at least it seems that way when I look back on it. However, I have also known people who are the precise counter-point to that description of atheists—that is, people who are utterly repulsed, and perhaps terrified, by the notion that there may not be a perfect being who determines meaning for their life (so that that is not something they have to do for themselves), who will make everything right in the end, and who will overcome the awful fact of death. I am not saying that all theists fall into that category (I have also known those who do not). But for those who do, it also does not seem to be the thought that they verbalize too often—sometimes, though, it just slips out.

Originally posted by vistesd
Let’s say that God is omnibenevolent, and “is not willing that any should perish...”.

However, God chose to grant humans (1) free will and (2) a choice-set that includes choices worthy of eternal condemnation.

The “evil choices” turn out to be seductive for many, who succumb to temptation. God, having granted free will cannot prevent this, so that gra ...[text shortened]... s not seem to be the thought that they verbalize too often—sometimes, though, it just slips out.

Coincidentally, I had your "God fails at salvation?" thread in mind when I made [edited?!] my reply to jaywill. Since I missed my chance to join the discussion then, I'll take this opportunity present my arguments against some of the theist positions you describe.

However, God chose to grant humans (1) free will and (2) a choice-set that includes choices worthy of eternal condemnation.

My response to 1): most Christians contend that the saved in heaven have free will, yet do not sin. A God who truly willed that none perish would have started us all out this way, if it is at all possible.

For 2), I argue that nothing done within a finite life is deserving of an infinite punishment. Say a serial killer murders 100 people. He serves 100 years in hell for each life he has taken. Yet, after 10,000 years in hell, his sentence is still just starting. Mathematically, 10,000 years is still 0% of infinity. No matter how many years he serves, he is still just starting to serve his sentence. It does not get more sadistic than that.

The “evil choices” turn out to be seductive for many, who succumb to temptation. God, having granted free will cannot prevent this, so that granting is an act of self-imposed limitation on God’s omnipotence.

Limited omnipotence is an oxymoron.

If God is omniscient, then God knows that many humans will succumb. God also presumably knows that those of us who, through exercise of our reason, self-examining integrity—and in “good faith”—make the wrong choice (disbelieving in even the existence of a God-being, or perhaps choosing the wrong religion) will also stand eternally condemned.

This part veers from the usual course Christians take. They tend to deny that the damned make their choice in "good faith". They quote the usual verses that point out that man is without excuse for failing to believe in God. If they're feeling generous, they may admit an exception for say, a primitive islander with no contact with other societies [and thus no knowledge of the Christian God], or an infant who dies in accident before he has the chance to choose, or reject, God.

—For another spin, add in Satan, who presumably knows he’s headed for hell, and, as the great seducer, is going to try to seduce as many humans as possible to go along with him. An insanely Pyrrhic victory over God perhaps, but a victory nonetheless if God is, in fact “not willing that any should perish”.

And a victory over an "omnipotent" being, to boot! May I add "bizarro-omnipotence" to my bizarro collection?

That is, the issue is not so much “free-will” ([(1) above], however one views that) as it is the available choice-set [(2) above]. Telerion, for one, has hammered at this over and over again.

Yes. The "free will in heaven" argument above is one version.

After all, our existential choice-set is constrained in many ways: gravity, the continual need for food and drink to live, the fact that we are not omniscient, etc. To simply be born with clear knowledge that a God exists, and the nature of that God—or to have that knowledge “wired in” so that it is just there once the neuro-physiological structure of our brains is sufficiently developed—would not devastate “free will”. Nor would a choice-set that is morally, as well as physically and psychologically, constrained; we would not even be aware that is was so constrained.

Exactly. The Christian concept of free will tends to be tragicomic; its main purpose is to ensure that we screw up sooner or later.

As for jaywill’s first post on the previous page, I admit that it describes fairly well, in general (with a few changes and caveats here and there), where I was once at—at least it seems that way when I look back on it.

I could not relate to the characterization. Even when I was a Christian, God was still not like me. He was perfect, and all of us were flawed.

But for those who do, it also does not seem to be the thought that they verbalize too often—sometimes, though, it just slips out.

As I told whodey in another thread, I would hope that there is no God like his, who will sentence so many to hell. However, it could be possible. Maybe God is just a really powerful being who takes vengeance on those who bruise his ego by rejecting him. Perhaps the Bible's claims that he is compassionate and just are simply false.

If Christ was born of a virgin, how could he be a descendant of the house of David? I thought it was through Joseph he got his linneage through and not Mary.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
For 2), I argue that nothing done within a finite life is deserving of an infinite punishment. Say a serial killer murders 100 people. He serves 100 years in hell for each life he has taken. Yet, after 10,000 years in hell, his sentence is still just starting. Mathematically, 10,000 years is still 0% of infinity. No matter how many years he serves, he is still just starting to serve his sentence. It does not get more sadistic than that.

That is assuming 'an eye for an eye' is the perfect justice. Surely that is just an assumption? Maybe since God is infinite even the smallest of sins against him by a finite being such as you deserves infinite punishment in return?

My argument of course is that no punishment for punishments sake is either just or loving or any of the other words that may be used to justify Gods dishing it out. In fact many Christians simply cannot explain the purpose of said punishment and the very few willing to actually tackle the issue invariably try to characterize it not as punishment at all but some sort of 'separation' from God or self inflicted punishment by the sinner. Of course that too raises so many difficult questions...

=====================

Nothing against God's will can happen.

============================

So you don't want to be subject to a supposedly evil will yet nothing can happen against that will.

So you cannot be not subject to the evil will of a god who you charge wipes out races and tortures people forever?

So then you cannot resist that will? So why boast that you would not be subject as if it is some superior moral decision on your part?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================

Nothing against God's will can happen.

============================

So you don't want to be subject to a supposedly evil will yet nothing can happen against that will.

So you cannot be not subject to the evil will of a god who you charge wipes out races and tortures people forever?

So then you c ...[text shortened]... why boast that you would not be subject as if it is some superior moral decision on your part?[/b]

It was a hypothetical, jaywill. Still, let's examine your statements.

So you don't want to be subject to a supposedly evil will yet nothing can happen against that will.

Most people do not want to be subjected to tyranny.

So you cannot be [b]not subject to the evil will of a god who you charge wipes out races and tortures people forever?[/b]

"My" charges are taken directly from the Bible. [The Bible is quite possibly the best argument for atheism!]

So then you cannot resist that will? So why boast that you would not be subject as if it is some superior moral decision on your part?

I didn't. You need to re-read the thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is assuming 'an eye for an eye' is the perfect justice. Surely that is just an assumption? Maybe since God is infinite even the smallest of sins against him by a finite being such as you deserves infinite punishment in return?

My argument of course is that no punishment for punishments sake is either just or loving or any of the other words that m ...[text shortened]... inflicted punishment by the sinner. Of course that too raises so many difficult questions...

Maybe since God is infinite even the smallest of sins against him by a finite being such as you deserves infinite punishment in return?

This argument ought to work in reverse. We're not all-knowing. We go wrong because we cannot see clearly at times. We're led astray by our emotions. We have valid excuses for not being morally perfect. Considering this, our sentence should be more lenient, not ultimately harsh.

In fact many Christians simply cannot explain the purpose of said punishment and the very few willing to actually tackle the issue invariably try to characterize it not as punishment at all but some sort of 'separation' from God or self inflicted punishment by the sinner. Of course that too raises so many difficult questions...

...like, why does the Bible speak of everlasting fire if hell is merely separation from God?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Coincidentally, I had your "God fails at salvation?" thread in mind when I made [edited?!] my reply to jaywill. Since I missed my chance to join the discussion then, I'll take this opportunity present my arguments against some of the theist positions you describe.

[b]However, God chose to grant humans (1) free will and (2) a choice-set that includes c him. Perhaps the Bible's claims that he is compassionate and just are simply false.

[/b]May I add "bizarro-omnipotence" to my bizarro collection?

Of course! I have cited your collection more than once.

You are really expanding my arguments here (when have we really disagreed?). My thrust was that some theists (whodey comes to mind) have made the argument that I outlined.

I could not relate to the characterization. Even when I was a Christian, God was still not like me. He was perfect, and all of us were flawed.

I forgot to add to my comments there that if someone says “X is a person”, then where do I look to understand what a “person” is? Nevertheless, I too, think I assumed that God was perfect, without understanding what that might mean.

Your points are, of course, well taken.

Originally posted by vistesd
You are really expanding my arguments here (when have we really disagreed?). My thrust was that some theists (whodey comes to mind) have made the argument that I outlined.

[b]I could not relate to the characterization. Even when I was a Christian, God was still not like me. He was perfect, and all of us were flawed.

I forgot to add to my comments ...[text shortened]... perfect, without understanding what that might mean.

Your points are, of course, well taken.[/b]

You are really expanding my arguments here (when have we really disagreed?). My thrust was that some theists (whodey comes to mind) have made the argument that I outlined.

Understood. My intent in rebutting the theist arguments was to supplement yours. I liked the way you connected and organized the typical theist arguments, and decided to borrow your structure for my usual counter-arguments.