Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

> Are dynamism and free will not necessary for the ultimate good in your eyes?

Dynamism and free will are necessary for the ultimate good, but they are also part of the picture for where evil comes from.

> If they are, and evil is an inevitable consequence, then how can evil be considered evil?

Evil is evil because it is the depraved choice of free agents. It exists because free and moral agents choose to oppose what is good and right.

> There's plenty of excess that is unproportional and unbalanced.

I'm not sure I agree. For every horrific act we can find many of morality and nobility. For every evil person on the planet we can find many of amazing goodness.

> Ultimately though, I'm talking about humans in relation to God, particular those that are virtuous and haven't heard of Christianity.

It was not clear to me that this was your focus.

Christianity speaks of "common grace" that God has built into the system: He has made all humanity in His image and imbued us with dignity and value. He also showers gifts on all humanity regardless of their religious persuasion: reason, health, beauty, food, sun & rain, etc.

> Likewise, how can you deduce that God is responsible for the good, if some atheists and agnostics are virtuous as well?

As I mentioned just above, God has gifted all of humanity with common graces. Secondly, many atheists borrow capital, so to speak, from Christianity, though without a foundation to do such. They assume things like morality, reason, and love, though from a strictly naturalist viewpoint these qualities are difficult to explain. Third, many of us are socialized to be good people, and so we live that way.

> Damning people to eternal torture. You can say all you like that God treats everyone fairly, but that is an unsupported assertion.

It's not unsupported. Ps. 9.4; 2 Cor. 5.10; 2 Tim. 4.8; Ps. 7.11; Rev. 20.13, to name a few.

> People are treated unfairly all the time.

Of course they are. The Bible is quite clear that the world doesn't work according to the Retribution Principle (good people have good lives; bad people have bad lives).

> There's also millions of situations where this doesn't happen.

Of course there are. In my long post about "the problem of evil," there is no requirement that God intervene in every evil situation to omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. But there are also many ways that God can be involved in and intervene in situations that are not obvious. What you would have to prove to make your case, I assume, is that all evil is unjustified or that there is more evil in the universe than good, and that's not a possible case to make.

[Book Mitten]

> Are you saying that people should just be able to get away with whatever? That there are no fair consequences?

No. That's why I can't love God. He doesn't intervene when excesses of evil occur.

> there are spiritual forces at work to deceive and derail humans.

Why doesn't God do anything about this?

> Arguments don't cure blindness, and I often find on this forum that arguments—even persuasive ones—don't persuade.

If they don't persuade, they aren't persuasive.

> Nor does the accumulation of evidence or compelling personal testimony.

My personal opinion is that resurrection accounts might be fabricated memories, dreams, hearsay, embellishments, or a combination of all of those. I say might be because I'm unsure.

> Any judge is there to reward innocence and punish guilt. Without that, there would be no such thing as justice, and only chaos and mayhem.

There's chaos and mayhem anyway. Just look at the world. Besides, my whole argument is that humanity is innocent before God if evil is necessary for good. (I argue that it is not. If it is not, then why does it exist?)

[jimwalton]

> He doesn't intervene when excesses of evil occur.

How do you know? God works through processes and people.

> Why doesn't God do anything about this?

He does. He does a lot about a lot of it.

> My personal opinion is that resurrection accounts might be fabricated memories, dreams, hearsay, embellishments, or a combination of all of those.

Well, we'd have to talk about the resurrection, then.

> my whole argument is that humanity is innocent before God if evil is necessary for good

I haven't been aware of this argument. I don't remember reading it in your posts or having this discussion with you.

[Book Mitten]

>> Why doesn't God do anything about this?
> He does. He does a lot about a lot of it.

Could you give me an example? I honestly search for truth and cannot bring myself to embrace Christianity, (or atheism for that matter). If I'm being deceived despite this, I dread to think of how much others will be.

> Well, we'd have to talk about the resurrection, then.

Sure. We can go into that. It's probably worth tackling evil first though, as I could believe the resurrection to be real and still not be a faithful Christian.

> How do you know? God works through processes and people.

He doesn't when prolonged torture, rape, disease, etc occur. Sorry, I didn't want to repeat it, but maybe being specific is better here. There's cases of people giving assistance, but there's many cases of people being unable to do so, and cases where people are on their own.

[jimwalton]

Let me ask you an honest question. How would you recognize and admit that God had intervened to protect someone from torture, rape, disease, etc? What are you looking for that would be a clear-cut thing for you to say, "Wow, God did that"?

I'm serious. If the rapist suddenly ran away, would you say, "Oh, that was God!" I'm not sure you would. If the rapist suddenly died on the spot? If the girls reported that an angel came from heaven and killed the guy, would you believe her? I'm honestly wondering: what is this proof that you want that God "did something about it"?

[Book Mitten]

> > my whole argument is that humanity is innocent before God if evil is necessary for good
> I haven't been aware of this argument. I don't remember reading it in your posts or having this discussion with you.

I don't think I mentioned it before. I'm just summarising it in connection with my previous contentions in our discussion.

[Book Mitten]

> It's not unsupported. Ps. 9.4; 2 Cor. 5.10; 2 Tim. 4.8; Ps. 7.11; Rev. 20.13, to name a few.

Most of these verses are just statements that God is just. There's not much in the way of fleshing out a justification for saying so. In some of them they mention drunkards and gluttons for sure. I don't think such people belong in eternal torment however. Neither do non believers

[jimwalton]

Yes, most of them say God is just, but the others say God will be perfectly fair and only give people exactly what is warranted. Put the two together and we have a declaration that we don't need to be afraid that God is going to doing something unfair, unreasonable, or unjust. He will do it exactly right.

> I don't think such people belong in eternal torment however. Neither do non believers

There are many Christian theologians who say that the Bible teaches that hell will only be eternal for those who deserve that (such as Satan and his angels). Other than that, there are options that God can or may use in his commitment to fairness and justice. Don't just assume eternal torment for finite crimes, and don't just assume God is going to do something unfair.

[Book Mitten]

> Of course they are. The Bible is quite clear that the world doesn't work according to the Retribution Principle (good people have good lives; bad people have bad lives).

Why is this?

> What you would have to prove to make your case, I assume, is that all evil is unjustified or that there is more evil in the universe than good, and that's not a possible case to make.

Neither is your case. The point isn't about whether there's more bad than good. It's that the bad reaches prolonged and unjust levels. You might argue, as you seem to have done, (To quote you: "For every horrific act we can find many of morality and nobility. For every evil person on the planet we can find many of amazing goodness.") that a certain number of good things (say for the sake of argument 5 million friendly functioning communities) makes up for the bad things (let's say 4 million incidents of rape. Again sorry to be blunt, but I feel it's a severe example that hits hard). I'm saying that the bad things shouldn't exist, and no amount of metaphorical "sunshine" so to speak, changes that.

> many atheists borrow capital, so to speak, from Christianity, though without a foundation to do such. They assume things like morality, reason, and love, though from a strictly naturalist viewpoint these qualities are difficult to explain.

These things existed before Christianity. Besides, I don't see why there's no foundation to do such. You'll have to explain more. Naturalism also isn't the only alternative to Christianity.

> Third, many of us are socialized to be good people, and so we live that way.

The term to think about here is "many of us". There is good in the world, for sure. But there's also bad.

> Christianity speaks of "common grace" that God has built into the system: He has made all humanity in His image and imbued us with dignity and value.

What about those he sends to hell?

> As I mentioned just above, God has gifted all of humanity with common graces.

Why does he do this in an unproportional way, i.e. sometimes giving graces such as evading the law to people who commit evil deeds, for example.

[jimwalton]

> "the Retribution Principle" Why is this?

Because the retribution principle is ultimately self-defeating. If good people had good lives and bad people had bad lives, we would see people trying to be good (or pretend to be good) just to get the prize (the good life), which would mean they weren't actually good people, but just "in it to win it." Self-centeredness and greed would rule the day. And anyone who was actually a good person could easily be accused of trying to game the system as well. The whole thing just smells of "bad idea," and it would never work.

And if bad people would be punished on the spot, it would breed an atmosphere of fear.

Neither of these are what God is after. He wants to love people who choose to love him, to be in relationship governed by joy rather than manipulation or fear.

Let me ask you a question. It's a sincere and serious question, not a trap or a game.

You, like many agnostics and atheists, claim that there just isn't enough evidence to convince you of theism. We have had a great conversation, and I've really enjoyed it, but as you said yesterday, you're not persuaded.

So I'm curious: What are you looking for? What would be that **evidence** by which you would be persuaded?

I have actually asked atheists before...

• "What if God appeared to you, in your room, and you knew it wasn't a hallucination, and you knew it was God?" They say, "I still wouldn't believe it. Despite what you say, I'd assume it was a hallucination, a dream, or bad drugs."
• "What if God spoke to you, in an audible voice?" They say, "I would think I was delusional."
• "What if God did miracles for you at your command?" They say, "I would wonder what scientific phenomena were at work fooling my mind and senses."

Now, I don't know if this is what your answers would be, but I've heard them a lot. It sounds like this:

• Reasoning that shows theism is a stronger case than atheism just "isn't strong enough."
• Scientific arguments that the natural world is more concordant with theism than atheism don't persuade
• The Bible doesn't persuade
• Jesus doesn't persuade: his life, teachings, miracles, resurrection, the claims about him (made by himself and others)
• The resurrection evidence isn't strong enough
• God appearing to me wouldn't do it
• God talking to me wouldn't do it
• God doing miracles wouldn't do it. That is something happened in the world, you would say, "Oh, that was God, for sure."
• God stopping rapes, torture, and disease wouldn't do it. (as per a previous post)

Maybe you're not in agreement that all of these are inadequate. So I'm asking you honestly and sincerely: What evidence are you looking for, that if someone were to say yadda-yadda or if yadda-yadda happened, that would be persuasive and convincing? Is it a specific thing that would persuade? The cumulative evidence of several things? What is that thing you're looking for that nothing else seems to address? I can't ask you to speak for all agnostics or atheists, so I'm wondering about you.