Why I am non-religious

[Tanngrisnir]

Another nail in the coffin of Epicurus fans is the challenge to them to explain how they would create man with free will but not have them have the choice to do evil if man so chooses?

Want to play God for a moment and try to tackle that one?

Huh. Clearly you haven't thought this through very well. Let me help you out here:

P1. Free will requires a choice between multiple possible outcomes.
P2. When God designed and created the universe, he knew the exact series of events that would take place in the future.
P3. Got is omniscient and cannot be wrong about the future.
C1. Only one series of events was possible (P2, P3)
C2. Multiple outcomes were not, are not, will not be possible (C1)
C3. Free will is not possible (P1, C2)

 

[RAMOSS]

Nonsense. Your previous argument was already busted, and now you can't answer the question posed in Post # 221. BUSTED!!

I don't see that question as anything more than rhetorical, since it makes assumptions that do not match reality.

 

[Logicman]

Why should I bother to answer a deflection when you cant even answer the question Epicurus posed? Your argument of god's absolute law has been demolished time and time again.

In your dreams PoS. Get a new dog. Your pooch Epicurus didn't make it around the arena.

 

[Logicman]

I don't see that question as anything more than rhetorical, since it makes assumptions that do not match reality.

Ramoss, you're clearly out of touch with Biblical theology. You can push your failed liberal nonsense all you want, but it doesn't fly here.

 

[Logicman]

Huh. Clearly you haven't thought this through very well. Let me help you out here:

P1. Free will requires a choice between multiple possible outcomes.
P2. When God designed and created the universe, he knew the exact series of events that would take place in the future.
P3. Got is omniscient and cannot be wrong about the future.
C1. Only one series of events was possible (P2, P3)
C2. Multiple outcomes were not, are not, will not be possible (C1)
C3. Free will is not possible (P1, C2)

Horse manure.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Horse manure.

Nah. It's just irrefutable proof in answer to your question.

I accept your concession that it was answered to your satisfaction and you have no rational counter to it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ramoss, you're clearly out of touch with Biblical theology. You can push your failed liberal nonsense all you want, but it doesn't fly here.

Funny thing.. there are two things you fail to demonstrate. 1) The specific brand of Biblical theology that you provide is at all reasonble, or godly, despite your claims.
and 2) You have an actual understanding of the bible.

 

[the_recruit]

Another nail in the coffin of Epicurus fans is the challenge to them to explain how they would create man with free will but not have them have the choice to do evil if man so chooses?

I see this terrible argument cited as a solution for the problem of evil all the time. But it only appears to laypeople to be a sensible justification if they don't examine it closely. It quickly falls apart when you start to consider what it would mean to have the faculty of free will and what it would take to undermine having such a faculty.

What you'll see is that preventing someone from acting in some way has nothing to do with whether or not he/she has free will. When police stop a rapist from committing rape, for instance, what has been lost? The man's free will? If so, do you mean to say the man no longer has the ability to, say, shake his head of his own free will? Of course not. All that's been lost here is the freedom to rape. And losing this isn't a bad thing; not having the freedom to rape is not a bad thing. In fact, this is exactly what we try to achieve with our legal system.

Keep in mind that the problem of evil isn't an argument against the existence of god persay; it only places contraints on coherent conceptions of god (ie, that god cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent and omniscient). The only way "around" the problem of evil for believers is to accept and incorporate the limitation into their understanding of god.

 

[Logicman]

Nah. It's just irrefutable proof in answer to your question.

I accept your concession that it was answered to your satisfaction and you have no rational counter to it.

Malarkey.

What did the Lord say? "Choose life..." - Deuteronomy 30:19

That's right, YOU CHOOSE of your own FREE WILL.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Malarkey.

What did the Lord say? "Choose life..." - Deuteronomy 30:19

That's right, YOU CHOOSE of your own FREE WILL.

Thanks for playing.

So, again, you admit you cannot rebut my post. Good.

 

[Logicman]

I see this terrible argument cited as a solution for the problem of evil all the time. But it only appears to laypeople to be a sensible justification if they don't examine it closely. It quickly falls apart when you start to consider what it would mean to have the faculty of free will and what it would take to undermine having such a faculty.

What you'll see is that preventing someone from acting in some way has nothing to do with whether or not he/she has free will. When police stop a rapist from committing rape, for instance, what has been lost? The man's free will? If so, do you mean to say the man no longer has the ability to, say, shake his head of his own free will? Of course not. All that's been lost here is the freedom to rape. And losing this isn't a bad thing; not having the freedom to rape is not a bad thing. In fact, this is exactly what we try to achieve with our legal system.

Keep in mind that the problem of evil isn't an argument against the existence of god persay; it only places contraints on coherent conceptions of god (ie, that god cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent and omniscient). The only way "around" the problem of evil for believers is to accept and incorporate the limitation into their understanding of god.

I like Christian Ravi Zachariah's thoughts on evil:

“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias

Also,

"Free will. That’s another answer to the ‘why’ of evil. God created men and angels with free will, to do good or evil, so they can be free moral agents. This is for a limited time, until the final Judgment, or until God levies judgment on men or nations. God gave this free will because there is no true love without freedom to choose either God of Satan. He did this to allow men and angels to operate on their own accords – to test God’s ways, and see if their ways are better, so that in the end there can be a final comparison and determination about whose way was better. We actually see an illustration of this in the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Book of Job – God allowing Satan to challenge his ways." - The Righter Report

 

[Logicman]

So, again, you admit you cannot rebut my post. Good.

Don't bother me with your nonsense.

 

[devildavid]

Malarkey.

What did the Lord say? "Choose life..." - Deuteronomy 30:19

That's right, YOU CHOOSE of your own FREE WILL.

Thanks for playing.

I think you meant to say "What did Moses say?" You know, the mythical man Moses? I don't think he was referred to as "the Lord". His name was Moses and he was just a man. At least according to the storybook.

 

[soylentgreen]

I like Christian Ravi Zachariah's thoughts on evil:

“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias

A few unexplained jumps in logic there. Since when does considering a morality make it a law? And if i am the one considering the good or evil then i am the one thinking of the morality. The creator then, is me, not some higher force.

 

[devildavid]

I like Christian Ravi Zachariah's thoughts on evil:

“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias

Also,

"Free will. That’s another answer to the ‘why’ of evil. God created men and angels with free will, to do good or evil, so they can be free moral agents. This is for a limited time, until the final Judgment, or until God levies judgment on men or nations. God gave this free will because there is no true love without freedom to choose either God of Satan. He did this to allow men and angels to operate on their own accords – to test God’s ways, and see if their ways are better, so that in the end there can be a final comparison and determination about whose way was better. We actually see an illustration of this in the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Book of Job – God allowing Satan to challenge his ways." - The Righter Report

There are moral laws created by men. Men judge human behaviors to be good and evil. There is no "problem of evil" nor is there "free will", except as abstract concepts. Morality only exists in human societies based on whatever those societies deem acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Natural events have no moral code attached to them. Floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease, etc. are not events with any morality attached to them. The universe does not operate based on a moral code. So outside of man's behavior in societies, there is no moral code governing anything.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Don't bother me with your nonsense.

It's OK that you have no substantive reply to what I posted. On the off chance that you didn't actually understand it, what can I help clear up for you?

Or we might address it by asking a few questions.

For example, did this god we're speaking about create the universe and everything in it, including the rules by which souls are judged?

A simply 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

 

[RAMOSS]

I think you meant to say "What did Moses say?" You know, the mythical man Moses? I don't think he was referred to as "the Lord". His name was Moses and he was just a man. At least according to the storybook.

He was , actually referred to as Elohim .. in exodus 7:1. But, that is more like 'a position of authority' rather than God.

 

[the_recruit]

I like Christian Ravi Zachariah's thoughts on evil:

“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias

This is so full of pseudo-reasoning and leaps of logic that I don't have the patience to dress it down line by line. It's already been pointed out in this thread that most academic philosophers who are moral realists are also atheists. In no way is the existence of God necessary for there to be good in the world. Not only that, but the existence of God does not even serve as a resolution to the metaethical questions he supposes it does here (see the is-ought problem and euthyphro's dilemma). In the same way that the existence of God cannot serve as a resolution to certain metaphysical questions (for instance, 'why does god exist').

You should know, btw, there are much more cogent Christian apologetics out there than this garbage.

 

[Logicman]

This is so full of pseudo-reasoning and leaps of logic that I don't have the patience to dress it down line by line. It's already been pointed out in this thread that most academic philosophers who are moral realists are also atheists. In no way is the existence of God necessary for there to be good in the world. Not only that, but the existence of God does not even serve as a resolution to the metaethical questions he supposes it does here (see the is-ought problem and euthyphro's dilemma). In the same way that the existence of God cannot serve as a resolution to certain metaphysical questions (for instance, 'why does god exist').

You should know, btw, there are much more cogent Christian apologetics out there than this garbage.

LOL. Nice try. Sure, atheists can be what they contend is 'moral,' but they have no objective basis for their morality. In addition, man's concept of morality is often different than God's. Man's 'morality' is subjective. It changes like people change their shorts, over time and over cultures. It has little in the way of an enduring legacy.

God is real, he is the source of objective moral values, and in the end moral relativism will disappear down the commode.

 

[Logicman]

It's OK that you have no substantive reply to what I posted. On the off chance that you didn't actually understand it, what can I help clear up for you?

Or we might address it by asking a few questions.

For example, did this god we're speaking about create the universe and everything in it, including the rules by which souls are judged?

A simply 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Wonder about it.

 

[Logicman]

There are moral laws created by men. Men judge human behaviors to be good and evil. There is no "problem of evil" nor is there "free will", except as abstract concepts. Morality only exists in human societies based on whatever those societies deem acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Natural events have no moral code attached to them. Floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease, etc. are not events with any morality attached to them. The universe does not operate based on a moral code. So outside of man's behavior in societies, there is no moral code governing anything.

You can believe that, but I don't.

 

[Logicman]

A few unexplained jumps in logic there. Since when does considering a morality make it a law? And if i am the one considering the good or evil then i am the one thinking of the morality. The creator then, is me, not some higher force.

Reminds me of what we read in Isaiah 14:14 - "I will make myself like the Most High."

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Wonder about it.

It's OK that you have no rational answer and seem quite afraid of answering.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

LOL. Nice try. Sure, atheists can be what they contend is 'moral,' but they have no objective basis for their morality. In addition, man's concept of morality is often different than God's. Man's 'morality' is subjective. It changes like people change their shorts, over time and over cultures. It has little in the way of an enduring legacy.

God is real, he is the source of objective moral values, and in the end moral relativism will disappear down the commode.

Breaking: all morality is subjective.

 

[Quag]

LOL. Nice try. Sure, atheists can be what they contend is 'moral,' but they have no objective basis for their morality. In addition, man's concept of morality is often different than God's. Man's 'morality' is subjective. It changes like people change their shorts, over time and over cultures. It has little in the way of an enduring legacy.

God is real, he is the source of objective moral values, and in the end moral relativism will disappear down the commode.

That is a statement based on belief not fact, beliefs are subjective.
Not that it matters even if God exists and has arbitrarily decided upon a set of morals (ie it is subjective to them) then we have no way of knowing with any certainty what they are and use our own subjective opinions to decide upon them, thus they become subjective.