• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gnostics versus Christians

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Regarding your response to the first article by Michael Patton - The Five Responses to the Problem of Evil and your statement that it avoids reason is noteworthy in light of the fact that he states: "The intellectual problem of evil attempts to address a logical problem in a world that has pain, suffering, and evil, yet has a good and all-powerful God who rules it." He then offers this rational question: "Therefore we begin to question God’s role in all of this. And we are brought to this dilemma. If God exists, if God is good and does not like evil, and if God is powerful enough to change things, why does evil still exist?"

Beginning with this syllogism:

The intellectual problem of evil attempts to address a logical problem in a world that has pain, suffering, and evil, yet has a good and all-powerful God who rules it. Let me define this problem using a syllogism:
  • Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
  • Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
  • Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Moving on to your worldview, the Atheistic worldview, he states: "Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there is so much suffering and evil in the world. If he did, he would eradicate this evil." offering this syllogism:
  • Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent) denied
  • Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent) denied
  • Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Patton refers to Genesis 50 where Joseph and his brothers attend the death of their father Israel. His brothers, because of jealousy, sold him to the Egyptians where, in time, he was cast into prison.

"When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!” 16 So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, 17 ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. 18 Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” 19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

In the Atheistic worldview pain and suffering have no purpose. In the Atheistic worldview, which denies the supernatural, the laws of logic or reason cannot be accounted for and therefore to apply to them in an argument is irrational.

Patton rightly states: "God meant it for good.” Therefore, the intellectual problem of evil can be dealt with without sacrificing intellectual integrity. In fact, as we look through the options, the Christian option is the option that makes the most rational sense."

His whole article dealt with "logic" and "reason" and your deliberate misquoting him - "the wonderfully useless conclusion (you can read it for yourself) that, while it is true that God is all good and all powerful, and God wants what is best for everybody, and still there is much suffering -- the reason is that "God has a reason, but you can't know it." fully demonstrates that your absurd argument must prevaricate to claim to win a rational debate. What was actually stated was:

"Conclusion: God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. He uses suffering and evil to accomplish a greater good, even if we never know exactly what that reason is." https://credohouse.org/blog/the-five-responses-to-the-problem-of-evil

Unlike Open Theism or Deism, in the Christian faith, "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." Ps.46:1

Not only that but when God the Son took on human nature (yet without sin) He, Himself suffered: Heb.4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was [h]pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.
I love the fact that you begin with by proposing syllogisms -- and end by ignoring totally the 6 (or 2 sets of 3 antithetical) premises that you propose, and fall away into telling stories from the Bible as if they happened exactly they way presented, even down to the quotes and the (impossible) presumption of what God's purpose was for all the things that happened.

You not only support my entire point -- you completely make it for me.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I love the fact that you begin with by proposing syllogisms -- and end by ignoring totally the 6 (or 2 sets of 3 antithetical) premises that you propose, and fall away into telling stories from the Bible as if they happened exactly they way presented, even down to the quotes and the (impossible) presumption of what God's purpose was for all the things that happened.

You not only support my entire point -- you completely make it for me.

First, since this between an Atheist and a Christian I presented only these two relevant opposing positions. At least I offered the website for any to view if they wish to verify my quotes and for further information.

Second, I offered further support for my position from what is the Christian's final authority - The Word of Truth. Your final authority is...?

Third, your point was thoroughly refuted and in order for you to even enter into a logical debate you must borrow from the Christian worldview which alone can give an account of the laws of logic. You also have no foundation to make any moral judgments. Moral absolutes are governed by moral laws and laws are transcendent, universal, necessary, invariant, and immaterial so you have no rational justification, as an Atheist, for objecting to pain and suffering. But because you feel the discomfort of their existence (as a normal person would) you express your opinion and accept not that necessary knowledge of the truth that reconciles the problem.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
First, since this between an Atheist and a Christian I presented only these two relevant opposing positions. At least I offered the website for any to view if they wish to verify my quotes and for further information.
You mistake me if you think that I engage in "opposing position," especially between "Atheist and Christian." That's a useless place to be, for the simple reason that neither position has anything to go on other than its own belief system -- we can hurl beliefs at one another until the end of time and achieve nothing more than an interminable volley of useless lobs.
Second, I offered further support for my position from what is the Christian's final authority - The Word of Truth. Your final authority is...?
And it is the "the Word of Truth" because -- well, why actually? Because it says it is? Because you believe it is? Trust me, I can find you thousands of other "words of truth" that make just that claim for themselves. Do you believe them?
Third, your point was thoroughly refuted and in order for you to even enter into a logical debate you must borrow from the Christian worldview which alone can give an account of the laws of logic.
Surely you cannot mean what you said -- only the Christian worldview can give an account of the laws of logic? Those laws were invented before there were Christians (perhaps you've heard of the Greeks? Look them up -- they're quite interesting.)
You also have no foundation to make any moral judgments. Moral absolutes are governed by moral laws and laws are transcendent, universal, necessary, invariant, and immaterial ...
Okay, here's a great challenge for you: tell me one, single "moral absolute that is governed by a moral law that is transcendent, universal, necessary, invariant and immaterial." Then we'll see if I could have gotten there without God.
...so you have no rational justification, as an Atheist, for objecting to pain and suffering. But because you feel the discomfort of their existence (as a normal person would) you express your opinion and accept not that necessary knowledge of the truth that reconciles the problem.
What nonsense! I don't object to pain and suffering because I'm a rational atheist! I object to them because they hurt people! You may be so bound up in God-Grovelling that such a notion isn't important to you, but I wouldn't advise broadcasting that to the people around you. I don't personally think it's very edifying, and it certainly doesn't make you look good in my eyes.

And no, I do not see that anything you've said "reconciles the problem." You simply say, "stop thinking about it, because it's anti-faith."

The problem is not rectified, in my view, and I have still never seen a theodicy that I found even remotely convincing. I offer, as my opinion only, that if you have, then I think you have not thought about it carefully enough, having allowed your beliefs to set up roadblocks to your reason and humanity.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
You mistake me if you think that I engage in "opposing position," especially between "Atheist and Christian." That's a useless place to be, for the simple reason that neither position has anything to go on other than its own belief system -- we can hurl beliefs at one another until the end of time and achieve nothing more than an interminable volley of useless lobs.

And it is the "the Word of Truth" because -- well, why actually? Because it says it is? Because you believe it is? Trust me, I can find you thousands of other "words of truth" that make just that claim for themselves. Do you believe them?

Surely you cannot mean what you said -- only the Christian worldview can give an account of the laws of logic? Those laws were invented before there were Christians (perhaps you've heard of the Greeks? Look them up -- they're quite interesting.)

Okay, here's a great challenge for you: tell me one, single "moral absolute that is governed by a moral law that is transcendent, universal, necessary, invariant and immaterial." Then we'll see if I could have gotten there without God.

What nonsense! I don't object to pain and suffering because I'm a rational atheist! I object to them because they hurt people! You may be so bound up in God-Grovelling that such a notion isn't important to you, but I wouldn't advise broadcasting that to the people around you. I don't personally think it's very edifying, and it certainly doesn't make you look good in my eyes.

And no, I do not see that anything you've said "reconciles the problem." You simply say, "stop thinking about it, because it's anti-faith."

The problem is not rectified, in my view, and I have still never seen a theodicy that I found even remotely convincing. I offer, as my opinion only, that if you have, then I think you have not thought about it carefully enough, having allowed your beliefs to set up roadblocks to your reason and humanity.

You are a self-professed "Life long atheist" and you deny it? Your every response is that of an Atheistic worldview allowing your beliefs to set up roadblocks to your reason and humanity. Works both ways.

As far as looking good in your eyes:

"The mind swelled with self-conceit, says, the man should not stoop; the will, opposite to the will of God, says, he will not; and the corrupt affections, rising against the Lord, in defense of the corrupt will, says, he shall not." Thomas Boston

I don't expect anything more from you than what you have expressed. What I hope for is that for those who might view our interactions will evaluate them according to the rules of logical debate i.e. civil, direct, rational, pertinent, responses. Not by presenting logically fallacious arguments i.e. strawmen, red-herrings, ad-hominems, circular reasoning, non sequitur etc.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Many of the early Christians couldn't accept a God who made suffering of generations for one mistake, that he had knew would happen. Many of them were what are now called Gnostics.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You are a self-professed "Life long atheist" and you deny it? Your every response is that of an Atheistic worldview allowing your beliefs to set up roadblocks to your reason and humanity. Works both ways.

As far as looking good in your eyes:

"The mind swelled with self-conceit, says, the man should not stoop; the will, opposite to the will of God, says, he will not; and the corrupt affections, rising against the Lord, in defense of the corrupt will, says, he shall not." Thomas Boston

I don't expect anything more from you than what you have expressed. What I hope for is that for those who might view our interactions will evaluate them according to the rules of logical debate i.e. civil, direct, rational, pertinent, responses. Not by presenting logically fallacious arguments i.e. strawmen, red-herrings, ad-hominems, circular reasoning, non sequitur etc.
I am only going to say this: you say you want civil, direct, rational pertinent responses in debate, and yet you have not responded to a single point I've made in a whole series of posts, and instead have accused me of having "roadblocks to [my] reason and humanity" and "a mind swelled with self-conceit."

'Nuff said. You're preaching, and I'm not in the choir.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I am only going to say this: you say you want civil, direct, rational pertinent responses in debate, and yet you have not responded to a single point I've made in a whole series of posts, and instead have accused me of having "roadblocks to [my] reason and humanity" and "a mind swelled with self-conceit."

'Nuff said. You're preaching, and I'm not in the choir.

Actually it's called apologetics.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Actually it's called apologetics.
I know that -- but normally, apologies are reserved for what is wrong. Nobody apologizes for being right.

(Before you embark on a tirade over that bit of tongue-in-cheek, trust me I can disambiguate between apologetics and apology. But let it also be clear that ἀπολογία actually means "speaking in defense of," and our laws show a long tradition of lawyers speaking in defense of the guilty -- not trying to prove them innocent, but of getting them off regardless.

It would not take an ἀπολογία to get Donald Trump off a charge of groping in the elevator at Trump Tower at 11:00 this morning -- it would take the wealth of evidence provided by the television cameras, radio, hundreds of direct witnesses, etc., that he was busy addressing the UN and threatening to annihilate other nations. Apologia seems to be reserved for things for you don't have any evidence for, but want believed anyway.)
 
Last edited:

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I know that -- but normally, apologies are reserved for what is wrong. Nobody apologizes for being right.

(Before you embark on a tirade over that bit of tongue-in-cheek, trust me I can disambiguate between apologetics and apology. But let it also be clear that ἀπολογία actually means "speaking in defense of," and our laws show a long tradition of lawyers speaking in defense of the guilty -- not trying to prove them innocent, but of getting them off regardless.

It would not take an ἀπολογία to get Donald Trump off a charge of groping in the elevator at Trump Tower at 11:00 this morning -- it would take the wealth of evidence provided by the television cameras, radio, hundreds of direct witnesses, etc., that he was busy addressing the UN and threatening to annihilate other nations. Apologia seems to be reserved for things for you don't have any evidence for, but want believed anyway.)

You're funny.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I did read it, and found it somewhat less than useful. Just for example, the first resource that you gave me comes up with the wonderfully useless conclusion (you can read it for yourself) that, while it is true that God is all good and all powerful, and God wants what is best for everybody, and still there is much suffering -- the reason is that "God has a reason, but you can't know it."

In other words, just one more thing that you have to accept on faith even though everything that you can reason about it says it is false.

This is not an argument -- it is the use of too many words to appeal to those who haven't the patience to read them thoroughly and understand that they're being duped by a charlatan who wouldn't know logic if it bit him.

I have read more theodicies than you imagine -- and have found every single one of them, without exception, to eventually find some way to avoid reason and appeal to belief in despite of reason. And that (you may be surprised to hear me say it) is unreasonable.

Furthering a rational discussion of the validity of making moral judgments as an Atheist and its inconsistency with the Atheistic worldview:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore God exists.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore God exists.
If God acts immorally, is God the perfect standard of Objective moral values?

Belief in God also does not equate to belief in objective moral values or the other way around.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
If God acts immorally, is God the perfect standard of Objective moral values?

God cannot act contrary to His nature.

Belief in God also does not equate to belief in objective moral values or the other way around.[/QUOTE said:
Yes it does. If not then where does "objective" moral values originate?
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
So I suggest a compromise -- if, of course, we have to accept "creation" at all: maybe our universe was created by a totally evil being that was a dozen or so percentage points short of omnipotent, and thus not entirely effective. That would fit the "facts on the ground" better, in my opinion.

I'm not sure how much of a compromise this is, given that a fair few Gnostics held/hold this belief (myself included).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Furthering a rational discussion of the validity of making moral judgments as an Atheist and its inconsistency with the Atheistic worldview:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore God exists.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. What I find so fascinating about it is that it seems to state -- clearly and unequivocally, that if you did not have God, you would have zero way of knowing whether or not torturing babies for your own amusement is moral or not.

My question is this (and by the way, I would consider that to be "an objective moral value" that it is always wrong to torture babies for your own amusement -- even if there are very sick people who might find it amusing): what does God have to do with making that an objective moral evil? What is it that babies -- all by themselves, helpless, vulnerable -- lack that makes it possible, without God, to suppose otherwise? I don't require God to tell me that killing people is wrong -- even though religion, in the name of God, has killed millions. (Yes, I know, lots of other humans have killed lots of other humans, with or without God as motive. That speaks to us, not to God.)

So, as you can clearly see, I reject utterly your first premise, that "if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist." For me, the only thing required for a huge number of "objective moral values" is the object of those values alone -- as in my example above. Babies being the object, the moral value being the result. God not required.

And may I also point out (though I'm not going to list them) the number of things that various scriptures have claimed are morally imperative -- in the very name of God. Such as stoning girls for chastity failures, or killing innocent children just because you want their parent's territories.

I reject utterly the moral argument for God. It is a huge failure in my view.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
God cannot act contrary to His nature.
Then I think you should consider what "His nature" is more carefully. Try doing so in the story of David, Bathsheba, the killing of Bathsheba's husband Uriah to hide David's sin, and the eventual punishment of David through the death -- not of himself, for his crime -- but of his and Bathsheba's innocent child. I'm sure you know 2 Samuel, Chapters 11-12.

So yeah, tell me about "objective moral values" and "God's nature."
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
God cannot act contrary to His nature.
Does that mean that "He" could not resist immoral acts that were in "His" nature or that it's difficult to find better solutions that don't require going at things the hard way, that's suffering for all.

Yes it does. If not then where does "objective" moral values originate?
There are many objective moral systems based on tradition, religions(some with gods, some without) and honor codes. Of course the utilitarian or what is best for the most of people is superior in providing good for people and honor codes are the strictest, though there is some overlap with fundamentalist religions that act like honor codes.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
the utter silence of God for 2017 years strikes me dead in my tracks. today's the day God speaks, and instead nothing.

any kind of creator, and all you get is Cmbr.

as Kahn would say, let them eat static.

would a personal appearance of the creator violate the taboo of having faith in the unseen.

only inner experience of the creator is revelation of God to all the people.

you people sure do shed light on just how poorly written the bible is. I mean killing the first born children of Egypt without explanation.

i dont know , perhaps an explanation of justification would help a non believer to see the light.

God is god, isn't an justification for all God's actions in the O.T.

wieldly execution of omniscient power without explanation, and then the silence of many years.

how far must I go to believe in this God?

what type of trust can a gentile develope this way?

where is god evidenced in nature? the food chain. komodo dragons. hurricanes. tsunamis.

somehow justice is served by the actions of nature. and I am guilty of shutting God out. and somehow God's existence is obvious.

ahh to see things wanted, and not see things none desirable.

and the bible , a looking glass filter to see the world as it is?

to me, if creator is, than the creator is brute, indifferent, violent, reckless , primitive, crude, desparate, enjoys art, and doesn't care one bit. stone hearted, and cunning, and of alien intelligence.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Being a little bit tongue-in-cheek here, so please don't take me too seriously.

Christians today generally believe that our universe was created by a perfectly good and perfectly strong God. Is this not so?

Now, the Gnostics (presumably heretically) believed that our material universe was actually the work of an evil "demiurge" -- not quite God, but still very powerful and perfectly evil.

To my way of thinking, the universe that it has been my privilege to observe for the past 69 years (and especially our little corner of it here on Earth), simply does not look as if either of those assumptions are true. The arguments that can be made by simply gathering evidence from everything we know says otherwise.

So I suggest a compromise -- if, of course, we have to accept "creation" at all: maybe our universe was created by a totally evil being that was a dozen or so percentage points short of omnipotent, and thus not entirely effective. That would fit the "facts on the ground" better, in my opinion.
The big difference between the regular Christians and Gnostics is Gnostics know that stuff is a myth and dare go beyond the typical bible canon.
 
Top