Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is claimed that he also controls nature but we all know how violent nature can be so why does a "loving god" use nature to bring about such deadly results even on his own devotees? Here's an example and a grand one at that (sad as it is):
As a theist I think I would like to restate your comment when you said "God controls nature." I'd like to restate that as "God can control nature." There are numerous constants in science that allow everything to operate as intended. My personal view is that it is similar to driving down the highway and putting things on cruise control. I CAN drive if I want to, but I don't have to.
That being said, I have no doubt that at times God does intervene, though I cannot speak to when and why. What I always find interesting (and I know this wasn't your original claim) is that anti theists will invoke a moral claim when using this argument. Essentially the concept of a god is attacked for making such a poor moral judgement. Why did God allow the Tsunami (or in the context of your statement CAUSE the Tsunami), etc. But isn't it interesting that the concept of theism is attacked by stating god makes bad moral judgements, yet it is our moral right to abort a baby? We can choose who lives and dies, yet god is somehow immoral by allowing some to live and some to die?
But isn't it interesting that the concept of theism is attacked by stating god makes bad moral judgements, yet it is our moral right to abort a baby? We can choose who lives and dies, yet god is somehow immoral by allowing some to live and some to die?
But abortions are considered out of fear, "mistakes," "oops" moments, pressure, threats, saving face, burden and so on I would say. Which of those does a god feel/endure?
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 09-14-2011 at 12:59 PM..
As a theist I think I would like to restate your comment when you said "God controls nature." I'd like to restate that as "God can control nature." There are numerous constants in science that allow everything to operate as intended. My personal view is that it is similar to driving down the highway and putting things on cruise control. I CAN drive if I want to, but I don't have to.
That being said, I have no doubt that at times God does intervene, though I cannot speak to when and why. What I always find interesting (and I know this wasn't your original claim) is that anti theists will invoke a moral claim when using this argument. Essentially the concept of a god is attacked for making such a poor moral judgement. Why did God allow the Tsunami (or in the context of your statement CAUSE the Tsunami), etc. But isn't it interesting that the concept of theism is attacked by stating god makes bad moral judgements, yet it is our moral right to abort a baby? We can choose who lives and dies, yet god is somehow immoral by allowing some to live and some to die?
Because God is claimed to be morally perfect, and pointing out moral imperfections demonstrates the flaws in that argument.
Atheist don't claim moral perfection, so whether or not abortion is moral it doesn't prove or disprove a tenant of atheism.
The conclusion is that the God claims of the Bible do not stack up and are not believable. Thus atheists argue that no reasonable person can honestly believe in the god depicted in the Bible.
True, but the fact is that God and the Bible are 2 different things.
You cannot capture the concept of love in a book; love is an action while a book is just mere theory (and a-priori inaction).
But abortions are considered out of fear, "mistakes," "oops" moments, pressure, threats, saving face, burden and so on I would say. Which of those does a god feel/endure?
I would venture to agree with you on some of those, but I would not go on to assume WHY everyone that chooses to have an abortion has one.
The other thing I would say is this... I believe God has the power to restore a life after it has been extinguished. Ending a life because I want to have a nice career and thus am not ready for a baby offers no hope, in the context of abortion, to restore life.
Because God is claimed to be morally perfect, and pointing out moral imperfections demonstrates the flaws in that argument.
Atheist don't claim moral perfection, so whether or not abortion is moral it doesn't prove or disprove a tenant of atheism.
And what would be the defintion of "moral perfection" for an atheist? What would be moral and what would be good? And where do these distinctions come from?
I would also venture to say whenever this argument is brought up it is in the context of how it affects a person or people. How it would affect you, me, and anyone else that would be exposed to, say, a natural disaster. In other words, the very point of raising the question implies and deals with intrinsic worth of personhood. With this in mind, I struggle to see how Atheism can be compatible with the idea that a person has intrinsic worth.
This question has been bandied about since Moby Dick was a minnow.
The religious fundamentalists will simply tell you that, since the Fall of Man--due to Adam & Eve eating thr Forbiden Fruit--we're basically on our own down here, at the whim and mercy of Evil and of Mother Nature, as well.
But see? If we believe in Him and His boy, JC, we will go to a good place after we die.
One analogy they often use that I find particularly appealing is that God watching over us but unable to intervene in our affairs or tribulations may be likened to the scenario of a father at home looking out of an upstairs window while his children play in the front yard down below.
One of the kids runs out in the street to chase a basketball, a car comes along, ka-BAMM!
See: the dad loved his kid, but alas, was still unable to do anything.
All clear now?
Yeah......me neither.
And what would be the defintion of "moral perfection" for an atheist? What would be moral and what would be good? And where do these distinctions come from?
I would also venture to say whenever this argument is brought up it is in the context of how it affects a person or people. How it would affect you, me, and anyone else that would be exposed to, say, a natural disaster. In other words, the very point of raising the question implies and deals with intrinsic worth of personhood. With this in mind, I struggle to see how Atheism can be compatible with the idea that a person has intrinsic worth.
There is no commonly agreed upon definition of "moral perfection" among atheist, or even an agreement that such a concept has a valid meaning.
Whether or not atheism is compatible with the idea that a person has intrinsic worth, the argument still exposes the internal inconsistancy of the "loving god" theory - which is why it's employed
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that atheism is incompatable with the idea that a person has intrinsic worth; regardless of how unpalatable you may find that conclusion, as a matter of logic it does not support the conclusion that there is a loving god. One can not argue from adverse effects.
There is no commonly agreed upon definition of "moral perfection" among atheist, or even an agreement that such a concept has a valid meaning.
Whether or not atheism is compatible with the idea that a person has intrinsic worth, the argument still exposes the internal inconsistancy of the "loving god" theory - which is why it's employed
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that atheism is incompatable with the idea that a person has intrinsic worth; regardless of how unpalatable you may find that conclusion, as a matter of logic it does not support the conclusion that there is a loving god. One can not argue from adverse effects.
Fair enough, I agree with you in that it still brings into question the concept of a moral god. I am looking at the deeper meaning of my question though, not just the logical meaning.
In other words, if someone is an atheist, the best case scenario is to prove god is not morally perfect, but it does nothing to prove god does not exist. So... we're left with a god that can be a jerk sometimes, and other times is a nice person, but still may exist. So if there is still a possibility for the existence of god, and if your question implies intrinsic worth AND your worldview butts heads with these ideas (god and intrinsic worth), why ask the question? To me it self destructs.
I would also state I still do not think one can come to the conclusion that god is not loving if god chooses not to stop every bad (depends on what you consider bad) thing from happening. I will be the first to admit, as a theist, that I struggle with this. When I see repeats of 9/11 it BEGS the question. But I am also careful with just saying "See? God didn't do anything, so he does not love." To me the question is so much more complex than that.
In other words, if someone is an atheist, the best case scenario is to prove god is not morally perfect, but it does nothing to prove god does not exist. So... we're left with a god that can be a jerk sometimes, and other times is a nice person, but still may exist. So if there is still a possibility for the existence of god, and if your question implies intrinsic worth AND your worldview butts heads with these ideas (god and intrinsic worth), why ask the question? To me it self destructs.
But that is not the sum total of all atheist arguments. That is only meant to leave the traditional theist in a hobbsons delima, to try to force them to admit that their God can not be omnipotent and morally perfect in a world in which he allows (or even creates) evil.
There are other arguments that go directly to the existance of an omnipotent God itself, and in my view one should be presuaded by the logic of those arguments independent of whether the conclusion is something they personally enjoy. (Though not eveyone agrees with that. Some say that most important aspect of the religious experience is how it makes you feel, and even if it's not actually true, more is to be gained from believing the lie then believing the truth.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baylorguy
I would also state I still do not think one can come to the conclusion that god is not loving if god chooses not to stop every bad (depends on what you consider bad) thing from happening. I will be the first to admit, as a theist, that I struggle with this. When I see repeats of 9/11 it BEGS the question. But I am also careful with just saying "See? God didn't do anything, so he does not love." To me the question is so much more complex than that.
An omnipotent God COULD have chosen to create a world without evil.
A morally perfect God Would have chosen to create a world without evil, if he were able.
There is evil in the world.
So if there is a God, he is either not omnipotent or not morally perfect.
(I would use the term "suffering" here, but evil will suffice in my opinion if were not going to get into semantics.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, but the fact is that God and the Bible are 2 different things. 
