Case for Christ (Not Strobel)

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Neither Rob nor I made an assertion about an infinitely evil god, merely about an evil god. You first introduced the term "infinite".

Why would a god who introduces a modicum of happiness into the lives of humans, because he enjoys taking it away again, not be an evil god?

You have no coherent answer to this assertion.

How could a God be anything but infinite? If he were not infinite, He would never have been in existence.

Besides, your "moderately evil god" is just a wild conjecture. It is difficult to defeat strawmen.

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes, God does the sending, in the same sense that a cab driver does the driving. Does the cab driver cause you to go there, or does he respect your wish to go there?

This is still ridiculous Darfius.

I have no wish to go to hell, even though I might wish to reject God (as you define Him). The fact that going to hell might be, according to you, a consequence of rejecting God, does not mean I wish to go to hell!

I mean, really, this is elementary stuff.

Suppose I didn't wish to eat grass. Then you said, unless you believe X, or you will have to eat grass. And when I didn't believe X, for whatever reason, you made me eat grass. Does it follow that I want to eat grass?

Sheesh!

Originally posted by Darfius
You're being illogical. It is more likely for a god to make something he could understand than not.

Wait. I have made every possible attempt to be considerate. I think I have been beyond considerate. I could very easily say your viewpoints are illogical to me but I am attempting to conduct a discussion. I don't think I have been illogical at all so if you are going to continue to state this to be the case, there's no point in going further with it and we can peacefully go our separate ways.

What perhaps I should have indicated more clearly is "why would God care about or interest himself in any value mankind believes him to be"? I never claimed he would not understand them. I am claiming there is no way to determine if he really cares or not?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
This is still ridiculous Darfius.

I have no wish to go to hell, even though I might wish to reject God (as you define Him). The fact that going to hell might be, according to you, a consequence of rejecting God, does not mean I wish to go to hell!

I mean, really, this is elementary stuff.

Suppose I didn't wish to eat grass. Then you said, unl ...[text shortened]... for whatever reason, you made me eat grass. Does it follow that I want to eat grass?

Sheesh!

Your analogy is weak because it has 3 independants.

Eating grass.
Denial of a position.
Want to eat grass.

Whereas hell is a result of choosing 1 of 2 things.

Existence with God.
Existence without God.

You choose existence without God. Are you asking for God to both respect your wishes and not?

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Wait. I have made every possible attempt to be considerate. I think I have been beyond considerate. I could very easily say your viewpoints are illogical to me but I am attempting to conduct a discussion. I don't think I have been illogical at all so if you are going to continue to state this to be the case, there's no point in going further with it a ...[text shortened]... ould not understand them. I am claiming there is no way to determine if he really cares or not?

Why would an indifferent being create anything?

I'm not attempting to be rude, if I came off that way, I apologize. I just enjoy being concise at times.

Originally posted by Darfius
How could a God be anything but infinite? If he were not infinite, He would never have been in existence.

Besides, your "moderately evil god" is just a wild conjecture. It is difficult to defeat strawmen.

These points are again irrelevant, Darfius. We are using the example of a subordinate god to illustrate a point.

Sure, maybe infinite attributes are built into the very definition of God with a capital G. But if God, is, as you claim, infinitely and perfecly loving, and the word "loving" has something remotely in common with the meaning of the word in the dictionary, then creating an imperfect world where, for example, innocent babies suffer--being the work God by commission [doing it himself] or omission [not doing anything to stop it if some lesser being causes it]-- is hard to reconcile with God's infinite and perfect love of us.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
These points are again irrelevant, Darfius. We are using the example of a subordinate god to illustrate a point.

Sure, maybe infinite attributes are built into the very definition of God with a capital G. But if God, is, as you claim, infinitely and perfecly loving, and the word "loving" has something remotely in common with the meaning of the word ...[text shortened]... some lesser being causes it]-- is hard to reconcile with God's infinite and perfect love of us.

God created a perfect world. Adam and Eve made it imperfect. Perhaps you should study what it is you debate?

Originally posted by Darfius
Why would an indifferent being create anything?

I'm not attempting to be rude, if I came off that way, I apologize. I just enjoy being concise at times.

Apology accepted 🙂

The point I am attempting to make is how is it possible to assign any understanding of the nature and will of a higher being? I don't know why an indifferent higher being would create anything and I think it is impossible to assign logic to its purposes.

I understand this is in direct contradiction to your beliefs, that the creator of all things is the Christian God who loves us completely. I have no desire to convince you that you are wrong. I couldn't even if I tried and it would serve no purpose.

Originally posted by Darfius
Your analogy is weak because it has 3 independants.

Eating grass.
Denial of a position.
Want to eat grass.

Whereas hell is a result of choosing 1 of 2 things.

Existence with God.
Existence without God.

You choose existence wi ...[text shortened]... God. Are you asking for God to both respect your wishes and not?

Darfius,

You are exasperating me. My analogy is not weak for any of these reasons.

Let me state this very clearly without resorting to analogy.

Hell involves eternal torment.
No human who understands what eternal torment is can wish to endure it.
No human wishes to endure hell.

Please tell me what could possibly be unsound about this argument.

However, humans can wish to reject your vision of God.

Now, just because they

(a) wish to reject your vision of God
(b) this entails God sending them to hell

does not mean that

(c) they wish to go to hell.

What are you incoherently tending towards asserting is that rejecting your vision of God and going to hell are the same thing. They are not the same thing. They cannot be, because the latter is the consequence of the former, and nothing that is the consequence of something else can be the same thing as it.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Apology accepted 🙂

The point I am attempting to make is how is it possible to assign any understanding of the nature and will of a higher being? I don't know why an indifferent higher being would create anything and I think it is impossible to assign logic to its purposes.

I understand this is in direct contradiction to your beliefs, that the creat ...[text shortened]... to convince you that you are wrong. I couldn't even if I tried and it would serve no purpose.

I have a desire to prove you wrong. Though it isn't sadistic, I assure you.

Now, don't you use logic to deny God. Why not use logic to assume He exists?

In other words, why the selective use of logic?

Originally posted by Darfius
God created a perfect world. Adam and Eve made it imperfect. Perhaps you should study what it is you debate?

Assuming biblical literalism, Adam and Eve could not have made the world imperfect if God had not created a situation where, if they behaved in a certain way, the consequence would be an imperfect world. God chose to create such a situation. He could have chosen not to, but instead He chose to. Moreover, at any time, God, being infinitely powerful, and creator and sustainer of the universe, could make the world perfect again. But He elects not to. In such a situation, it is perfectly correct to state that God (a) contributed to an imperfect world in the first instance and (b) keep contributing to it.

These are difficult facts to reconcile with His infinite love.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Darfius,

You are exasperating me. My analogy is not weak for any of these reasons.

Let me state this very clearly without resorting to analogy.

Hell involves eternal torment.
No human who understands what eternal torment is can wish to endure it.
No human wishes to endure hell.

Please tell me what could possibly be unsound about this argu ...[text shortened]... the former, and nothing that is the consequence of something else can be the same thing as it.

If it is not just my "vision", then you are denying God. To not want to be with God is to want eternal torment. They're synonymous. Your feelings have little to do with anything if in fact God is real and you choose not to be with Him.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Assuming biblical literalism, Adam and Eve could not have made the world imperfect if God had not created a situation where, if they behaved in a certain way, the consequence would be an imperfect world. God chose to create such a situation. He could have chosen not to, but instead He chose to. Moreover, at any time, God, being infinitely powerful, and ...[text shortened]... (b) keep contributing to it.

These are difficult facts to reconcile with His infinite love.

On the contrary, His infinite love shows in His constant need to give us a choice. They chose to have an imperfect world. He granted their choice.

Originally posted by Darfius
I have a desire to prove you wrong. Though it isn't sadistic, I assure you.

Now, don't you use logic to deny God. Why not use logic to assume He exists?

In other words, why the selective use of logic?

After I respond, I will be away for awhile doing work for once 😉

I believe your sincerity to prove me wrong for what you believe is good and not sadistic. I think you are earnest in that.

I suppose I use some logic to deny the Christian God but I never claimed to deny a higher being altogether. I think the distinction is important. I think the belief of a god can be considered illogical by many.

I don't use logic to assume the Christian God exists because, for me, it does not logically make sense. I think any logic embraced by someone has to be somewhat selective otherwise it would not be logical for that person. The reasons you present for your case that Jesus Christ is the Christian God are not logical for me as my reasons are not logical to you.

(Case for Christ) I would venture to say there are many reasons why I believe in god(Christ) but could I prove 100% to everyone no. I can state reasons why I believe. Historically for example there is enough evidence to prove a man named Christ lived. A whole religion/faith was founded on this man is proof in and of its self that he lived. I believe it is what we do with this man called Christ. There is no doubt that Mohameed lived or the Budda lived as far as I know and there is no dispute about them. If nothing else it causes me to examine what I believe much more so thanks for that people if nothing more. Menace71 (Manny)