Question to Christians

He chose cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If there is a God, he is not interested in virtue. This being either created or allows the existence of organisms which cause terrible suffering and death via disease, such as the smallpox bacterium, including to innocent children, on a mass scale.

There are only two options; you can either stop believing in a kind God, or you can continue to live your life with large amounts of cognitive dissonance.

Virtue comes from within ourselves (and I think that's a much more positive message than something outside of ourselves being the source of all good). We are rational beings and so we realise that we are all like, and thus to cause another person pain is wrong. We also have an innate sense of empathy from our ancestry; being kind to your neighbours helps to spread your genes, and so that gene became common. Psychopaths lack these genes and have no innate sense of empathy, and God doesn't seem to want to step in to replace it.

---

but free will and stuff

Free will would explain why a benevolent God would let us kill each other. It wouldn't explain why God himself actively causes pain and death, and allows pain and death to occur when humans have nothing to do with it and can't prevent it. It's a blatant contradiction of the concept of a benevolent God.

That's why whenever you bring it up, that type of religious person will ignore you and/or leave the conversation, without fail.

and here we go :facepalm:

God doesn't cause pain and death, for the umpteenth time :P

Okay, in which case God is neither omnipotent, and if he is a creator God then he isn't omniscient. So he's basically a bit rubbish.

Well at least you have that part right. God isn't omnipotent, at least not in the sense that He does everything but we've already went over this time and time again.

No, that isn't what omnipotent means, in any sense. Omnipotent means he has the power to do anything he wants, not that he has to actively do everything.

You've never completed this conversation with me.

I think we can all agree that Hell is Ne-yo and Xei "debating" in an inescapable R/S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

No, that isn't what omnipotent means, in any sense. Omnipotent means he has the power to do anything he wants, not that he has to actively do everything.

You've never completed this conversation with me.

---

God does with Power all that power can possibly do, this does not in any way imply that God does essentially everything. How much power do you think it takes for 2 + 2 to equal 5?

I don't get it Ne-Yo, you're capable of intelligent conversation everywhere else on the forum, yet you go into a totally different mode in R/S.

The distinction between omnipotence and 'doing essentially everything' is exactly the one I just made. Why are you repeating what I just said as if I said the exact opposite?

Anyway, hopefully you understand what the original post meant now. It's clearly logically sound, so either move along and address the conclusion, or else I'm not interested in further discussion; I don't want to get into pointless tangents as always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The distinction between omnipotence and 'doing essentially everything' is exactly the one I just made. Why are you repeating what I just said as if I said the exact opposite?

---

Right, and I just told you God doesn't do essentially everything, how is this repeating what you're stating? You're making the claim that if God is Omnipotent then this means God does essentially everything. This being the case, God is not Omnipotent in that particular sense. However, God does essentially everything that doesn't self-contradict His nature, whats so hard to understand about that? If someone has the ability to do anything and everything that justifies their self-will then that person is Omnipotent. God is Omnipotent because he does everything that He wills to do, it's just that simple. I know very well you understand this Xei, so I assume you must be bored or something :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're making the claim that if God is Omnipotent then this means God does essentially everything.

---

I never said that. In case you got the impression that I did mean to say that, let me be clear: I didn't.

By omnipotence I meant what I just said and you just said, which is the power to do anything one wills.

If that is what you meant then yes, God is surely Omnipotent.

So he has the ability to destroy bacteria which cause pain and death to innocents, and prevent natural disasters which indiscriminately do the same to thousands. Not preventing these things when it takes no trouble is patently a moral failing and rules out benevolence. In a court of law you'd be sent to prison for mass manslaughter.

Additionally if you believe in a creator God who at least some vague competence and idea what he was doing, it follows that he created the bacteria whose functions were to cause the disease, and he created a planet with frequent earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. In a court of law you'd be sent away for eternity for mass murder.

Why does it always have to be all or nothing with you Xei? Why do you feel that if a creator does indeed exist then that creator's ultimate responsibility is to hold our hand every step of the way throughout our lives? Is it not more beneficial to the species to do things for themselves in hopes of progress and acquired knowledge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So he has the ability to destroy bacteria which cause pain and death to innocents, and prevent natural disasters which indiscriminately do the same to thousands. Not preventing these things when it takes no trouble is patently a moral failing and rules out benevolence. In a court of law you'd be sent to prison for mass manslaughter.

---

Did we not make great strides in science, medicine and technology throughout history as a result of these things that you've mentioned here? Do we not reside on a planet which constantly produces a slew of natural resources and natural remedies to help fight pathogens not to mention the good ones that dwell within us, which keeps most of the bad ones out. What would really constitute as mass manslaughter is not giving us the ability or resources to do anything at all. As a race of people on this planet we have fought and beaten every disease that has come to surface. There is currently no threat of global extinction (on any level) with regards to human-beings. I'd say someone's obviously looking out for us as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Additionally if you believe in a creator God who at least some vague competence and idea what he was doing, it follows that he created the bacteria whose functions were to cause the disease, and he created a planet with frequent earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. In a court of law you'd be sent away for eternity for mass murder.

---

Hurricanes and Earthquakes are very beneficial to the survival of the human-race (as a whole) we actually need those.

How?

And yes you're right, we have been able to overcome some of the ghastly things which God created. He created specific curses and we had to come up with solutions to them. Praise be. Under what moral code is mass murder justified by a greater good anyway? The people of Europe ultimately overcame the German fascists, and we learned a lot from that too. That makes the Nazis benevolent? Even if their actions were just a giant ploy to teach us some lessons about fanaticism, that would make them a moral bunch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is it not more beneficial to the species to do things for themselves in hopes of progress and acquired knowledge?

---

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't get it Ne-Yo, you're capable of intelligent conversation everywhere else on the forum, yet you go into a totally different mode in R/S.

---

If you're talking about logic, I would tend to believe that religious beliefs are independent from it. I actually have a family member that completed a PhD and Masters degree in Chemical Engineering in 3 years from a "Ivy League" Canadian university (Queen's) however she believes in some absurd religious beliefs such as Creationism that have absolutely no logical explanation at all. So clearly she's somewhat intelligent however, I guess she just chooses to make religion separate from logical explanation I guess.

Also I have a somewhat unrelated question for you Ne-Yo: Do you you believe in Creationism and if 'yes', why? Just out of curiosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

How?

---

Well for starters Hurricanes regulates the Earth's temperature and brings about a kind of counter-balance to the oceans predilection of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. If it wasn't for Hurricanes popping up yearly the planet will undergo a cataclysmic cooling resulting in extremely unfavorable conditions for human life globally. On the other hand Hurricanes bring an abundance of rainfall for many regions that usually lacks a significant amount of rainfall yearly. Regions typically like Japan where typhoons are a direct result of over half of Japan's rainfall on a yearly basis. Hurricanes also make conditions favorable for regions like the tropics. If there were no formations of Hurricanes to consume heat and deflect that heat away from the Earth's equator, the tropics would be far too hot. Hurricanes also prevents the ocean from trapping too much heat and dispersing that heart out globally to help circulate the Earth's greenhouse gases. As for Earthquakes, without them the essential nutrients we need to survive, would erode off the continent and accumulate in the oceans. The result of something like that, would be rapid starvation of ALL advanced species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

And yes you're right, we have been able to overcome some of the ghastly things which God created. He created specific curses and we had to come up with solutions to them. Praise be. Under what moral code is mass murder justified by a greater good anyway? The people of Europe ultimately overcame the German fascists, and we learned a lot from that too. That makes the Nazis benevolent? Even if their actions were just a giant ploy to teach us some lessons about fanaticism, that would make them a moral bunch?

---

So if you can discredit God then why can't you give credit to God for giving humans the ability to come up with solutions, enabling us with the ability to entertain abstract thought processes, in-which those direct thoughts are manifested into something physical? If all of this bad stuff, as you say came from God, then you have to equally accept every good deed, every solution, every achievement and every obstacle overcame as a direct result of God's grace upon his creatures globally. Also there was nothing remotely moral about the holocaust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

no

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quantiq

Also I have a somewhat unrelated question for you Ne-Yo: Do you you believe in Creationism and if 'yes', why? Just out of curiosity.

---

Yes I do believe in the creationism and my belief's are based off faith. Why do you believe in the molecules-to-man theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well for starters Hurricanes regulates the Earth's temperature and brings about a kind of counter-balance to the oceans predilection of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. If it wasn't for Hurricanes popping up yearly the planet will undergo a cataclysmic cooling resulting in extremely unfavorable conditions for human life globally. On the other hand Hurricanes bring an abundance of rainfall for many regions that usually lacks a significant amount of rainfall yearly. Regions typically like Japan where typhoons are a direct result of over half of Japan's rainfall on a yearly basis. Hurricanes also make conditions favorable for regions like the tropics. If there were no formations of Hurricanes to consume heat and deflect that heat away from the Earth's equator, the tropics would be far too hot. Hurricanes also prevents the ocean from trapping too much heat and dispersing that heart out globally to help circulate the Earth's greenhouse gases. As for Earthquakes, without them the essential nutrients we need to survive, would erode off the continent and accumulate in the oceans. The result of something like that, would be rapid starvation of ALL advanced species.

---

So why didn't God design it differently?

Quote:

---

So if you can discredit God then why can't you give credit to God for giving humans the ability to come up with solutions, enabling us with the ability to entertain abstract thought processes, in-which those direct thoughts are manifested into something physical?

---

Which is no more moral than building a concentration camp and then giving spades or rifles to some of the prisoners.

Quote:

---

If all of this bad stuff, as you say came from God, then you have to equally accept every good deed, every solution, every achievement and every obstacle overcame as a direct result of God's grace upon his creatures globally. Also there was nothing remotely moral about the holocaust.

---

So if I gave enough money to charity, that would eventually neutralise the negative moral standing I had built up from mass murder? Again, nobody finds this idea remotely acceptable for a human, let alone God.

The proposition is that God is benevolent. This is contradicted by a single evil deed. It is not proven by any number of good deeds. In the same way that 'swans are white' is disproved if you see a single black swan, no matter how many white ones you've seen.

And what you said isn't even true. You yourself just said that God's omnipotence doesn't necessitate him being behind every action. Humans have free will to contradict God's intentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yes I do believe in the creationism and my belief's are based off faith. Why do you believe in the molecules-to-man theory?

---

Ah, you mean evolution right? Well at the moment I believe evolution is probably the most accurate model we have currently as to how the universe has actually begun scientifically. However, to consider evolution as the only model and consider it 100% accurate I would believe to be a bit ignorant so I'm open to different opinions and beliefs. However, because evolution is the most widely accepted model we have currently, I accept evolution as fact.

I don't need any convincing either by the way. I've heard all of the creationist arguments from the 'limited carbon dating' argument to the 'half an eyeball' argument. But I guess you have heard all of the pro-evolutionist arguments as well so I won't try to convince you either. However, I'm actually quite surprised that your beliefs on 'creationism' are faith based. Most creationists I would tend to believe try to push scientific fallacies with evolution to give credibility to creationist arguments. Faith based arguments for creationism I believe are much more credible than scientific fallacies. :)

Anyway, I guess you could call it the molecules to man theory but I like to emphasize the fact that it is a 'model' which doesn't mean it is 100% accurate either, but possibly still the best model we have to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So why didn't God design it differently?

Which is no more moral than building a concentration camp and then giving spades or rifles to some of the prisoners.

So if I gave enough money to charity, that would eventually neutralise the negative moral standing I had built up from mass murder? Again, nobody finds this idea remotely acceptable for a human, let alone God.

The proposition is that God is benevolent. This is contradicted by a single evil deed. It is not proven by any number of good deeds. In the same way that 'swans are white' is disproved if you see a single black swan, no matter how many white ones you've seen.

And what you said isn't even true. You yourself just said that God's omnipotence doesn't necessitate him being behind every action. Humans have free will to contradict God's intentions.

---

You're assuming the mainstream view of theism. Apparently, 'God' is a tangible man in the sky with a long beard that sits on a cloud and watches humanity through a telescope. This scenario is extremely improbable. If 'God' does exist, I would argue that it is a metaphysical intangible being at a level which the human cannot perceive due to limits in human knowledge and brain capacity.

Just for the record I'm an agnostic, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quantiq

You're assuming the mainstream view of theism. Apparently, 'God' is a tangible man in the sky with a long beard that sits on a cloud and watches humanity through a telescope. This scenario is extremely improbable. If 'God' does exist, I would argue that it is a metaphysical intangible being at a level which the human cannot perceive due to limits in human knowledge and brain capacity.

---

I stated the types of God I was talking about at the very beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So why didn't God design it differently?

---

Differently like how? You think God should have placed an entirely different set of natural laws to govern our physical universe? Perhaps maybe he should have excluded gravity as one of the fundamental forces that governs the universe. This way, when earthquakes occur things wouldn't fall on people resulting in death. Maybe perhaps the covalent bonding of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom would produce more of a rubbery substance instead of liquid. This way, people wouldn't drown when consumed by an abundance of it, they'll just simply bounce off of it. To me it appears the laws that were set in place to govern this universe are apparently good for the continuance of life because tweaking them will only result in a universe unstable for advanced life chemistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Which is no more moral than building a concentration camp and then giving spades or rifles to some of the prisoners.

---

Then by definition this particular scenario you gave would not be the considered a concentration camp now would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So if I gave enough money to charity, that would eventually neutralise the negative moral standing I had built up from mass murder? Again, nobody finds this idea remotely acceptable for a human, let alone God.

---

Funny it appears everyone including yourself finds the idea of automobiles, airplanes and boats acceptable modes of transportation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The proposition is that God is benevolent. This is contradicted by a single evil deed. It is not proven by any number of good deeds. In the same way that 'swans are white' is disproved if you see a single black swan, no matter how many white ones you've seen.

---

I haven't seen any evil deeds done by God, so what do you have for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

And what you said isn't even true. You yourself just said that God's omnipotence doesn't necessitate him being behind every action. Humans have free will to contradict God's intentions.

---

I don't understand your point here. I never said humans could not disregards God's intentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quantiq

Ah, you mean evolution right?

---

No, I don't mean evolution. I meant exactly what I stated. Why do you believe random chemical reactions over millions of years suddenly kick-started life, resulting in the diversity of life we have on the planet today? If you're claiming this is the best model, in support of your belief's then, what evidence is there which confirms this process as the best model?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quantiq

I don't need any convincing either by the way.

---

Neither do I, but you came to me, did you not? So you're obviously looking for something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quantiq

Just for the record I'm an agnostic, obviously.

---

If you're agnostic then your views are completely inconsistent with your 'so-called' agnostic position and you may need to re-evaluate what your real views are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Differently like how? You think God should have placed an entirely different set of natural laws to govern our physical universe? Perhaps maybe he should have excluded gravity as one of the fundamental forces that governs the universe. This way, when earthquakes occur things wouldn't fall on people resulting in death. Maybe perhaps the covalent bonding of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom would produce more of a rubbery substance instead of liquid. This way, people wouldn't drown when consumed by an abundance of it, they'll just simply bounce off of it. To me it appears the laws that were set in place to govern this universe are apparently good for the continuance of life because tweaking them will only result in a universe unstable for advanced life chemistry.

---

So you're saying God is unable to. Again, see the very beginning where I specifically specified omnipotence.

Quote:

---

I haven't seen any evil deeds done by God, so what do you have for me?

---

If you don't think creating organisms designed to cause suffering and death is evil then fine, your God can still be benevolent in your eyes. In the eyes of what I regard as any moral person, he is not.

Quote:

---

I don't understand your point here. I never said humans could not disregards God's intentions.

---

You said that if God was behind the creation of, for instance, smallpox, then it follows necessarily that God is also behind people finding a solution to smallpox. This is not true, because overcoming smallpox was a human action, and you already specified that the actions of people can be of their own free will, and not God directly "doing essentially everything".

Not that this would be relevant anyway because God still created smallpox.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Bangladesh.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So you're saying God is unable to. Again, see the very beginning where I specifically specified omnipotence.

---

What I said was this...

Quote:

---

However, God does essentially everything that doesn't self-contradict His nature,

---

God deemed His works and the completion of our physical universe as good. Meaning, the natural laws that govern our universe needs nothing more added nor anything taken away. To redo or redesign the fundamental laws which govern's our survival, would ultimately contradict the very nature of His work as good and complete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If you don't think creating organisms designed to cause suffering and death is evil then fine, your God can still be benevolent in your eyes. In the eyes of what I regard as any moral person, he is not.

---

Well let me ask you something Xei. Would it be more feasible to you if God created humans to be immune to any organisms that would cause suffering and death to species? Would a benevolent God do something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You said that if God was behind the creation of, for instance, smallpox, then it follows necessarily that God is also behind people finding a solution to smallpox. This is not true, because overcoming smallpox was a human action, and you already specified that the actions of people can be of their own free will, and not God directly "doing essentially everything".

---

Everything within our being is a product of God indirectly. The ability to actually reason, process and determine an appropriate counter-action or solution to unfortunate circumstances by the use of advance complex cognitive skills is because God created his creatures to have these particular abilities. It's not because man created these abilities.