Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

And what exactly makes you a judge of that? For example, how exactly is Uganda not judged obedient enough?
So, like I said: in your view prosperity is a consequence of god's beneficence, except when it isn't. Indeed they do: the ones that fit. Sorry, but you've said nothing to dismiss that view.

This is a tactic called an amplification of uncertainty. It is the intent to deny a claim by amplifying it's uncertainty many times beyond what it actually is, and then dismissing it.

This is very simple. The bible is probably more famous for exhaustively mandating what is right and what is wrong than maybe for anything else. It exhaustively lays out what we should do versus what we should not do. We should take care of the poor, we should be tolerant of others, we should support and encourage the church, we should grant life a sanctity it does not have without God, we should take men as equal under God (we can't do that by evolutionary means) we should pray often, defend freedom, etc... I find a US nation around the 40's and 50's that gives more to take care of the poor than any other, is tolerant of every lawful person (even those of opposing faiths or no faith), a nation with a huge church infrastructure (perhaps the largest ever), we routinely grant human life a sanctity and dignity it does not have any where else (especially in the traditional east), we consider all men equal under God and always have (some groups and people did not, so we had to fight a war and have riots to straighten this out and make it universal but it was always a part of our nations claims back to the declaration its self), we not only had national prayers but chaplains to congress and scripture carved into the capital, we have defended freedom more than any other nation in history. Now since we at one time met so many of the Christian mandates and have so tragically turned our backs on them starting in the 60's. We would be a good candidate for testing that promise. When examined we mirror the promise exactly. In general the more Christian a nation the more prosperous it should be, and (for Christian nations only) when those nations recede from those values we should see a general loss of prosperity and security. I see generally that exact dynamic in western nations.

Now if in general you find the more Christian a nation is the less prosperous it is or that the less Christian a once upon a time Christian nation is the more prosperous it is in general then your would have proven me wrong. MY claims unlike almost all of theoretical science is falsifiable. Yet you do not do what is necessary to falsify my claims. You wish to dismiss them all together by unjustifiable means. One way I can see that is your intent is this. I mentioned several promises (in fact thousands of them). None of them are significantly ambiguous, in fact almost all are exacting and specific. However you chose to pick on the one with the lest certainty involved (and even if you could not do so even with it) and reject all of them by inventing nonexistent faults in a single one. Anyone interested in truth looks for the best ways to test it. They do not invent false reasons to throw up their hands and claim it impossible.

 

[1robin]

So, no "blessings" for the US before 1948? And how exactly was the US punished for joining the USSR in forcing Israeli withdrawal from Egypt after the 1956 invasion? You are giving a masterclass in selecting evidence that fits your thesis.

I did not say a single thing you insinuate I did. I am only going to show the problems with the first one, you can extrapolate the same responses to the rest.

1. I said we have been Israel's GREATEST supporter since 1948. I did not say we did not support them before that.
2. We have always supported Israel. During the revolutions lowest point a Jewish group gave us 12 million (approx.) which changed the entire course of the war. We have always been friendly towards Israel for that reason and many others. Our history with Israel (or Jews) is more extensive than most realize.
3. However let's pretend that what you said actually had anything to do with truth and was correct. The promise I mentioned has a specific data set available for testing it. It includes nations that have blessed Israel or have cursed them in significant ways. If you were right and we had nothing to do with Israel before 1948 (and you were not) we would not have been part of the data set for that promise. You are really not getting this data set thing. IF I say significant heat and significant cold produce X medical problems, you do not look at people in temperate zones to examine the claim.
4. Not to mention the US was Christian prior to 1948 so could be just as blessed under that provision even if it had no claim under the Israel promise.
5. There are many other problems with only that single statement but this is getting silly.

I certainly hope you do not work for the statistical division of Obama care. Of course they have no need for anyone to derive data they simply invent, I guess.

 

[1robin]

Uganda is one of the most Biblically-obedient nations on earth. Just look at their anti-homosexuality laws.

Uganda far and above anything else is tribal. There is nothing as anti-Christian as hating and killing your neighbors based on race or tribe. That is by far what characterizes Uganda more than anything. I have no doubt there is good Christian influences there but they are part of a common problem. Any nation that has centuries old tribal division, occult practices, and primitive superstitions has a hard time leaving them behind. As long as they hold sway the nation will never enjoy God's complete blessings. I just had a good discussion with a guy from PNG where he stated the same thing. Traditions die hard. Even a newly born again Christian has a hard time denying the practices his family have held for generations. Uganda reminds me of the new Christians described by Paul. They are still spiritual infants and can only handle the basic milk and meat as child might. Only with maturing do all the blessings of faith come about. So no Uganda is not an example of Christian obedience whether they have a few laws (which every nation on earth does) that agree with the bible. Even most of the laws in Stalin's USSR would be in common with both the bible and all other nations as well.


There are only a few nations I would say absolutely qualified (at times) for this Christian promise. England, Germany, France, and the US. Many more are borderline but as I am not God and can not know exactly where the line is I can not say for sure. I am also not omniscient and do not know every fact about every nation.

BTW what is your obsession with Uganda?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

BTW what is your obsession with Uganda?

Interesting place, among a hundred or so other countries which I enjoy following.

The (Christian) Hutu massacre which I mentioned to you was in Rwanda, by the way, not Uganda.

 

[1robin]

Interesting place, among a hundred or so other countries which I enjoy following.

The (Christian) Hutu massacre which I mentioned to you was in Rwanda, by the way, not Uganda.

I cannot believe I am about to say this. I think you are actually right about this.

What about Uganda or Rwanda is interesting enough to follow. I rarely hear them mentioned these days on the daily dose of the world's miseries the news service has become.

It is pretty bad when a claim that makes one of mine wrong is a relief from the norm. Why in the world can't you be that accurate about the other 99.9% of your posts. I actually like you but have grown to resent your posts insincerity and triviality. A lot more sincerity, relevance, and accuracy like this anomaly of a post (of yours) and me and you could bore one another daily. The topic's merit this type of post, not what you normally supply.

 

[adi2d]

It is pretty bad when a claim that makes one of mine wrong is a relief from the norm. Why in the world can't you be that accurate about the other 99.9% of your posts. I actually like you but have grown to resent your posts insincerity and triviality. A lot more sincerity, relevance, and accuracy like this anomaly of a post (of yours) and me and you could bore one another daily. The topic's merit this type of post, not what you normally supply.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Even when somebody shows you wrong and you admit you were wrong you write this. The arrogance is amazing

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I cannot believe I am about to say this. I think you are actually right about this.

Thanks. I'm right about lots of stuff which people think I'm wrong about. The nature of God. Proper forum etiquette. The motivation of strangers.

What about Uganda or Rwanda is interesting enough to follow.

Rwanda had a terrible genocidal massacre, but I was watching it before then. It's got gorillas in it, for example. Dian Fossey got murdered there while studying them.

Uganda had Idi Amin, of course. Entebbe was dramatic. Anyway, I'm interested in many other countries and have read international news for years now. NatGeo, too. Other stuff.

Why in the world can't you be that accurate about the other 99.9% of your posts.

I am. It's just that your incorrect beliefs make them look inaccurate.

I actually like you but have grown to resent your posts insincerity and triviality.

When I encounter a brick wall which pays me no attention, sometimes I throw spitballs at it. If you ever begin to listen carefully and think about the arguments of other debaters here, you'll find my messages a lot more sincere and non-trivial.

Sometimes the problems we see in others are actually just our own wrong way of viewing things.

 

[johnhanks]

If you were right and we had nothing to do with Israel before 1948 (and you were not) ...

You do know when the modern nation state of Israel was founded, don't you?

 

[johnhanks]

Uganda far and above anything else is tribal ... Any nation that has centuries old tribal division, occult practices, and primitive superstitions has a hard time leaving them behind. As long as they hold sway the nation will never enjoy God's complete blessings.

Astonishing. You admit that Uganda is a country you hardly ever hear anything about, but to suit your agenda you high-handedly dismiss it as a place riven with "occult practices and primitive superstitions". The arrogance is breath-taking.

 

[1robin]

You do know when the modern nation state of Israel was founded, don't you?

May 1948. Since you asked an obvious question I am expecting some kind of revisionist history in response.

 

[1robin]

Astonishing. You admit that Uganda is a country you hardly ever hear anything about, but to suit your agenda you high-handedly dismiss it as a place riven with "occult practices and primitive superstitions". The arrogance is breath-taking.

Being that I knew little about it I looked up several sights on it. They all agreed that tribal sectarianism defined it as much as any other cultural force. There is this new thing called the internet that stuff can be looked up on. Give it a try.

 

[1robin]

It is pretty bad when a claim that makes one of mine wrong is a relief from the norm. Why in the world can't you be that accurate about the other 99.9% of your posts. I actually like you but have grown to resent your posts insincerity and triviality. A lot more sincerity, relevance, and accuracy like this anomaly of a post (of yours) and me and you could bore one another daily. The topic's merit this type of post, not what you normally supply.

Wow. Even when somebody shows you wrong and you admit you were wrong you write this. The arrogance is amazing[/quote]Me and the person I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING TO have a history. I have long been trying every trick I have to force them into being relevant and sincere. I have had little success. My comment reflects information that (since you do not posses it) disqualifies you from making informed judgments. I went out of my way to illustrate I wish very much that posts relevant and sincere be given even if it proves my wrong occasionally. Where exactly is the foul? In a place where almost no one would ever concede the slightest point at any cost, I do so the instant I found a mistake in my claims and you cry foul. That probably explains why very few people do so.

Appropriate, inappropriate, hostile, offensive, whatever ......... it was certainly not arrogant. There is nothing arrogant in anything I stated.

 

[adi2d]

Wow. Even when somebody shows you wrong and you admit you were wrong you write this. The arrogance is amazing

Me and the person I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING TO have a history. I have long been trying every trick I have to force them into being relevant and sincere. I have had little success. My comment reflects information that (since you do not posses it) disqualifies you from making informed judgments. I went out of my way to illustrate I wish very much that posts relevant and sincere be given even if it proves my wrong occasionally. Where exactly is the foul? In a place where almost no one would ever concede the slightest point at any cost, I do so the instant I found a mistake in my claims and you cry foul. That probably explains why very few people do so.

Appropriate, inappropriate, hostile, offensive, whatever ......... it was certainly not arrogant. There is nothing arrogant in anything I stated.[/QUOTE]


When you post on an open forum tou aew actually talking to whoever reads it

I have read enough of your posts to reach a judgement. Temporary and subject to change

Being sure that you hold the truth IS arrogance. IMO

 

[johnhanks]

If you were right and we had nothing to do with Israel before 1948 (and you were not)...

You do know when the modern nation state of Israel was founded, don't you?

May 1948. Since you asked an obvious question I am expecting some kind of revisionist history in response.

OK, would you like to describe for us the US's relations with the state of Israel prior to 1948?

 

[johnhanks]

Being that I knew little about it I looked up several sights on it. They all agreed that tribal sectarianism defined it as much as any other cultural force.

And tribal sectarianism is identical to "occult practices and primitive superstitions"?

There is this new thing called the internet that stuff can be looked up on. Give it a try.

Oh, robin: that you should resort to schoolyard sarcasm is a profound indicator of your desperation.

 

[1robin]

OK, would you like to describe for us the US's relations with the state of Israel prior to 1948?

Not really, and who is us by the way? You got a team of people in your pocket? I said the US had a relationship with Israel since the revolutionary war when they gave us millions at the time we needed it to continue the fight. It is an obscure subject and it does not matter anyway, that is why I said I even if I granted that we had no relationship (which is false) with Israel prior to 1948 it would not help your case at all.

Let me ask this: If I showed the US did have a relationship with Israel prior to 1948 will you concede the point? Since it does no affect my claims at all I need so justifiable reason to look it up.

This is why it does not matter, Again:

1. The US qualified for blessing under the Christian obedience promise.
2. It would still have been eligible for blessings even if it had not helped Israel.
3.Only in the case where we were not eligible for the former promise but were condemned by the second would this be relevant. If you can prove that then it would matter. Good luck.

 

[Quirkybird]

Israel is a country just like any other, and should not have special privileges just because some believe: the Biblical deity, whose existence is in doubt, was crazy enough to have a chosen people!

 

[1robin]

And tribal sectarianism is identical to "occult practices and primitive superstitions"?
Oh, robin: that you should resort to schoolyard sarcasm is a profound indicator of your desperation.

No which is probably why I did not claim they were equal. It was no less true for it's not being identical. Almost all nations have a deep rooted past associated with either shamanism, paganism, Gnosticism, pantheism, warrior cults, and many other cultish practices. All of them took a while to move away from that into a Christian faith. It is very hard to turn on your ancestors beliefs. Now then: it all comes down to several factors as to how Christian a nation has become.

1. The length of time they had adopted Christianity.
2. The prevalence and proportion of Christianity within a culture.
3. The same concerning the former faiths that are still being followed.
4. The type of culture it is. Tribal cultures have more problems assuming a general belief that unified cultures do.
5. The level of advancement in a culture. For instance when Japan stopped retaining it's old customs and allowed foreign influence and technology in old military cults died fast after having held sway for thousands of years.
6. Many other factors like foreign occupation, technology, the actual specific beliefs Christianity is taking the place of, etc.. are all involved.

All kinds of things affect how pervasive Christianity becomes. Uganda is certainly not high on the list for any of them.

So please stop distorting my words and appealing to motivations you have no access to in an effort to defend the indefinable. If you only knew how corrosive to credibility making claims about my motivation (which you cannot know and which I know better that anyone) which are complete garbage are, you would cease making them. I would hope anyway. Stick to the subject and get off the personal commentary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are always good for a laugh. Labeling the being more associated with freedom, love, benevolence, charity, and morality as a dictator is proof of everything I find wrong with your position and arguments. Dictators dictate they do not request and allow freedom to choose. This is so transparent it is just appalling. Instead of propaganda lets use appropriate terminology.

I don’t associate the being you believe in with love, benevolence, charity and morality. I’ve actually read the Bible. You’ve used your own sense of morality to judge that this god is good; certainly that can’t have escaped your attention.

Your god does not actually allow freedom to choose by the very definition of the word “freedom”. You are supposed to follow his dictates, or else face eternal torture and punishment. If someone’s holding a gun to my head saying, “Give me your wallet or I will kill you” are you actually committing suicide by saying no? I don’t choose to go to hell any more than I choose to commit suicide in the given situation.

1. If I perceive or believe in a realm of right and wrong as almost everyone does.
2. I must have an objective (at least from our perspective) and transcendent moral law by which to distinguish, know, or even have moral truths to begin with.
3. Humans cannot produce the law or standard. We can only mandate ethics and call them morals and we even do this so inconsistently that it is meaningless.
4. Nature cannot produce moral truths.
5. Only a transcendent personal being (like God) can produce actual moral truth to begin with.
So without God existing morals have no relationship to truth. They are simply opinion based contrivances used to do a bad job filling a whole where actual morality should be. Since we have thoroughly covered this obvious fact I can only assume you will not let go because you (emotionally) do not like the conclusion.

Morality deals with the principles concerning distinctions between right and wrong and good and bad behavior.

Humans can produce the closest thing to moral truths, as we are the ones who care about our morality to begin with. Some of this can be done objectively, as previously discussed, but it isn’t all as black and white as you make it out to be (which we’ve also discussed before too, with examples of moral quandaries that don’t necessarily have a clear right or wrong answer to them). We can (and do) look at things that occur in the natural world, as the result of our actions and make determinations about what is a right action and what is a wrong action based on such observations. This is how we know battery acid is bad for one’s health, even if health itself is something that requires some subjective input. In other words, the system of morality we actually use is data-driven and subject to change. Which is what we see over the course of human history and what we would expect to find if morality does in fact come from ourselves. So, without god, existing morals can have relationship to truth. The truth about moral interactions with other human beings isn’t based solely on individual opinion or a single mind, rather it’s based on the collective evidence that human beings have accumulated throughout the course of our interactions during the history of our time on this planet. And we’re still learning.

Your model of morality (if you can even call it that) is not data-driven, as it is merely a system of obedience to an authority figure who decides FOR US what is right and what is wrong with no explanation. It basically amounts to “Because I (god) said so.” I still don’t see under that method, how you are actually exercising any kind of morality and how you do not consider that subjective, based on the whims of your god at any given moment. You still haven’t addressed this. Never mind the suppposed fact that your god ultimately only really cares if we believe in him, over whether or not we actually carry out moral behaviors or not. That kind of puts a wrench in your argument, don’t you think?

And the words moral and ethical are not separate things. They go hand in hand; they’re practically synonymous.

Have you ever stopped to think that YOU might be emotionally invested in your position? I’ll tell you a little secret: We all are, to some extent. As I’ve pointed out before, if the area of our brain which regulates emotion is damaged, we become incapable of making moral decisions.

No we can not. We can contrive what good means (usually by self interest or speciesm) and see if the results produce more of it. What we cannot do is know that happiness, human flourishing, or whatever else is arbitrarily coughed up without any possible way to know if it is true reflects anything actual or true. They are equally valid unless on group decides to make their opinion the standard. No matter what label you assign your position in the end it will be morality mandated by popularity and/or might makes right. No matter what label you apply to God (for pure effect) morality, if he exists can be factual and common systems made on the basis of a brother hood of man, equality of man, dignity and sanctity of human life, the existence of the soul, actually exists and can united those wiling under actual truth.

Sure we can. I don’t even know how you can dispute that. We can know whether something is good for human flourishing based on whether or not humans flourish if we carry out a particular action. If morality is about anything, it’s about well-being, and if we’re talking about morality in the first place, we’ve kind of already conceded that. There’s nothing arbitrary about it. There is, however, something arbitrary about following the commands and/or whims of some far-removed deity.

And for the 900th time without a response, YOUR position is the one that might makes right. God is the mightiest, so he’s right, despite whatever we may think.

I just showed that we can demonstrate that certain things are good or bad based on the results they produce where I discussed the results of drinking battery acid. It doesn’t matter what someone’s opinion is on the matter, ingesting battery acid is harmful to one’s health. And we can say that despite the fact that “health” is a fairly subjective thing.

So the only possible objective foundation for morality has been reduced to a plantation owner through terminology who's sole goal is effect. No I am not debating against preference and desire at all. I do not care whether a single person on earth knew one moral fact or not. It still remains true that only with God does moral truth even exist at all. You get rid of God and moral truth is impossible regardless of constant appeals to epistemology in a ontological debate. I never said an atheist cannot perceive moral truth. I said they have no means to ever know it was true. I believe that all men have a God given conscience that enables apprehension. My foundation is consistent with my world view. Your does not exist at all.

And you have no means to ever know if what you think god wants is true. Whether you can see it or not, it’s still subject to your own opinion, as I’ve pointed out before. You have a 2000 year old book that declares it so (a book that is far removed from the society we currently find ourselves living in). So what?

You really didn’t even respond to my claim here, which was this:
You are saying that any conclusion we can make is invalid unless it comes directly from the boss man.
You are saying that, right?


Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Morality comes in two flavors. Ethics and crimes against truth. You can generate ethics (by fiat), you do not have any method to develop moral truths without God. You can produce a system of Mallum prohibitum that is known to be a contrivance for convenience sake, you cannot found anything concerning mallum in se' (which is truth based). Before I bomb a nation, take out millions of human lives in the womb, or restrict a billion peoples actions I need a foundation your system just does not possess.

We’ve already discussed this, and how your definition isn’t exactly accurate, and I’ve touched on it above, so I’m leaving it alone here.

I use judgment, revelation, a God given conscience, and reason to interpret revelation and things comprehended about an objective moral realm my world view includes. You do the exact same thing concerning moral truths your system annihilates. Of course reason is involved but I am reasoning about truth, your reasoning within a system that can't produce it.

The only thing you’re adding to the equation that I’m not using is your interpretation of the supposed words of a deity that is assumed to exist. I can determine what is in accordance with fact and reality, same as you can (and everyone else).

1. With God murder without justification is actually wrong. I must use reason to establish what could or could not justify killing using a world view that includes that possibility.

Okay, so you’re employing your own moral judgment, same as everybody else.

2. You must invent a basis for claiming murder is actually wrong (usually by simply redefining morality as being equal to an arbitrary goal). You must then evaluate a contrived wrong by contriving even more unjustifiable rules concerning justifications.

We don’t have to invent anything and there’s nothing arbitrary about it as the word arbitrary indicates random choice, free from reason. Every person, by virtue of being alive has an understanding of the value of life and why they don’t want it lost. There is nothing random about that.

What we need here is:
1. A reasonable foundation for establishing actual human value. I have it, you do not.

I have it. The only difference being that you think your foundation comes from a divine authority.

2. We need reasons like the soul and a foundation for the sanctity of life. I have it, you do not.

We need an idea of a soul to form a foundation for the sanctity of life? I think not.

3. We need a reason to suggest slaughtering pigs is ok but slaughtering human sis wrong. I have it, you must use speciesm and in addition simply assert that human life has sanctity without any justification for claiming so.

Some people think slaughtering pigs is wrong. And that’s based on the fact that pigs can apparently feel pain and suffer, and have some demonstrable level of intelligence. That’s called reasoning.

I don’t think we have to imagine that life has some holy or divine component to understand that life has value. Especially considering that life is all we have and without it we are nothing.

4. We need a transcendent code which makes murder actually wrong. I have it, you do not.

We only need to understand that life is all we have. We know for sure that we get one life to live on this planet. That’s more than enough to go on.

5. If we both claimed murder was wrong we were both right. However I do so with justification and you did so without it. Before I sentenced a man to death I would desire the former and resent the latter.

Everyone else does so with justification as well. You can’t see it because you’re stuck adhering to this obedience to authority mentality.

I don’t think we have the right to sentence people to death for committing crimes. I also see it as somewhat hypocritical to declare that since a person has taken a life, we should take his life in retaliation. If we’re talking about a war zone or something, it’s more a matter of self-defence than anything else and so the reasoning would be different.

Well this is just completely wrong. Here was the original statement. With God morality potentially comes directly from him. In Christianity if the Bible is correct morality is not only revealed by mandate and with the foundations that establish it but it is also planted into every human's conscience. IOW if God exists (and theistic God) then we potentially have direct access to moral truth. The fact some people without an actual God claim to speak for him does not have any ability to counter it.

So then morality is not objective, as you keep trying to argue. It’s subject to the opinions of the god you worship.

I don’t think the Bible is particularly moral either. And I don’t think your defence of the immoral actions contained within the Bible is moral. In fact, I find it somewhat disconcerting.

I did not say that. I said in fact much that was the opposite. I said Christians which comprise the vast majority of those that make claims to experiencing God have a similar core to their claims but many different secondary details. I never said anything about my experience defining reality in any way.

You said the collective experience of all of these people (who you are in reality imposing your own experience upon) indicates that they are onto something. That it is evidence for the existence of the god you worship.

Contrary to what you believe, this world is exactly what we would expect to find if morality weren’t all based on absolute, objective truths. We would see nuance, we would see morality change over time, from person to person and from culture to cultures. There are some aspects of morality we consider objective and universal but it isn’t all black and white as you seem to be claiming. That’s why you have people protesting the death penalty, for example.