₦airaland Forum

sotall:


Typical Nigerian man or woman.

Superstitiously stupid.


Sees everything he cant explain as a spiritual consequence.

This is one of the ills of religion. You dont reason normal anymore. Everyone around you is either a suspect or the devil

One of the ills of atheism is excessive generalization, condescension, and the foolish and excessive use of insults.

LordReed:
So then why doesn't he intervene and stop evil? It indicates lack of omnibenevolence.

Strawman. I have expressed no such beliefs. That is entirely your fabrication.

He does so at his own time. And he has promised to do so ultimately in a final judgement which will affect all men, including you, an atheist.
His omnibenevolence is shown by His giving you time to repent of your sins, and His giving you breath, and a mind, and a mouth, which you use to blaspheme His name.

He remains merciful, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Reality11:
OK is your God omnibelenovent and willing to stop evil?

Yes nau. How many times will I answer you?

LordReed:
How does free agency stop an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god from acting? According to the tales he has acted several times to intervene.

Yes, he has acted several times to intervene, but he won’t force you to join His kingdom or encroach on your freewill. But He will judge you.

According to your beliefs, life is a pointless endeavor, as meaningless as death, why do you keep on living, and why do you struggle to remove the meaning from the lives of others?

Reality11:
don't you wanna save an atheist? So you thought I'll believe it just because some book says it?



The reason was because what you wrote has noting to do with what I asked.



I didn't asked you why there is evil in this world and what your God would eventually do

This was my question, answer it.

I answered it here:

Joshthefirst:
As to the bolded, the problem of evil ceases to become a problem when you consider God created beings with free agency, and promises to one day judge all evil completely.

This promise of a new completely good creation is also a promise of judgement on the beings who side with evil. Thus the Christian message of repentance and warning.

It seems you didn’t understand me. I disagreed with your mutual exclusivity and explained why an omnibenevolent God present doesn’t mean evil wouldn’t exist.

Reality11:
Source and prove your claim

source is myself and the Christian doctrine.
I’m not proving. It will be a waste of my time.

What is my business with what your religion teaches or what your version of god says.

Besides you don't follow what other Gods say neither to what their religion teaches.

I thought we are having a discussion? You asked a question and I answered and you’re exploding with “what is your business”? Are you okay?

And why should I follow other religions please? I already have a religion.

So you agree with me that a God that is omnipotent, omnibelenovent and who is willing to stop evil/suffering is mutually exclusive with the evil/suffering in this world. It is either this God doesn't have these attributes, incompetent or it doesn't exist at all

Is this your God omnipotent, omnibelenovent and willing to stop evil?

I just answered your question with my explanation of why there is evil in this world and what my God will eventually do and you subsequently exploded in my face.

LordReed:
So this is not the historic agreement or certainty you thought it was. You may need to reevaluate what you think you know.

I will. I always do

hahn:
What am I trying to win you over to exactly? Atheism has no heaven, no Paradise, no heavenly rewards etc. Lol

And I don't have beliefs. I "disbelieve" the things you believe in. How hard is that to understand?

You do have beliefs, aren’t you an atheist?

Let’s not go there shaa

Reality11:
I think I've made it clear by saying sceptics use the argument against Theist who hold on to the ideas that the God is benevolent, omnipotent and he is willing to stop evil?

The theist defined evil(rape, murder), then went ahead an say this God is omnipotent, omnibelenovent and omnivolent.

Since the world is filled with suffering and evil(evil here according to the theist), then God with the aforementioned attributes can't exist, since God(omnipotent, omnibelenovent, omnivolent) is mutually exclusive with the suffering and evil.
So the existance of this god is logically impossible!

My problem here is that the theist had already defined what evil is, then gave attributes(omnipotence, omnibelenovence, omnivolence) to this Supposed God. If so why evil and suffering in the world?

Is it a matter of debate that with the suffering/evil in this world a God with such attributes can't exist?

However don't get me wrong, I don't go about arguing with deist that, with the suffering/evil in the world so God(s) cant or don't exist.

Besides what does the existence of a god has to do with suffering or evil



And yes evil and good are subjective so it cant or shouldn't be used to deny the existence of a God. In fact I've always argued with atheist/sceptics that argue this due to the very reason I bolded up.

Moreover I'll like to know what you called God or what it is.

My definition of God is of the uncreated creator, the uncaused cause of all things. The eternally existent one.

As to the bolded, the problem of evil ceases to become a problem when you consider God created beings with free agency, and promises to one day judge all evil completely.

This promise of a new completely good creation is also a promise of judgement on the beings who side with evil. Thus the Christian message of repentance and warning.

Ola17:
Intrinsic = subjective.

We are just going in circles.

No. intrinsic = objective. Nawa for you oh.

LordReed:
Its so glaring that you did not read this article. Did you read the footnote 3?

Though willing to accept the historicity of the empty tomb for the sake of argument, I am nevertheless very uncertain that the tomb really was empty. At present, I regard the odds that the tomb was empty as just slightly better than 50%, since I leave it an open question whether Paul believed in an empty tomb. Critics will sometimes deny that Paul believed the tomb was empty, on the grounds that he believed in a so-called 'spiritual resurrection.' However, I think the issue is much more complex than such critics typically acknowledge, and I lack the linguistic and theological expertise to assess that debate. Cf. N.T. Wright, "The Transforming Reality of the Bodily Resurrection" in Wright and Marcus J. Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1999), pp. 111-127; and Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 104-136. For my estimation of Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb, see section 1.2

no wahala, the author says he is uncertain simply because he questions whether Paul believed in an empty tomb. (Which he did btw), but he put the odds at slightly better than 50%

LordReed:
I am not giving you assignment. There is no place where the author says an empty tomb is historically accurate. You will not find it in that article but you assume there is because you obviously didn't read it. And you dare to call me dishonest. What a sham.

wow. Okay. Quick question; when the author says he tentatively agrees with William Craig that Joseph of Arimatheas tomb was empty, what does he mean?

LordReed:
Morality is the product of our consciousness. We do not observe that the universe holds any intrinsic moral values nor can any be demonstrated.

I have come to understand a different meaning of the phrase objective morality as opposed to what I now understand, that when people say objective morality they may actually be referring to an absolute morality. That is, they believe that there is a clear delineated structure of morality. I of course disagree with this. Objective morality in my understanding, is a moral structure that is focused on attaining a goal(s) and as such gives room for growth, change and new understanding. It also allows for what some have described as inter subjectivity.

That said, rape cannot be said to be intrinsically wrong however for us conscious creatures a number of factors make this kind of act wrong to us. Things like the pain and anguish, the damage both physically and mental and the aftermath, make it such that we require a reckoning.

We are unique, yes. It may not always be clear, that’s why I asked the clear question about rape:

And the bolded as your reply is quite shocking.

If rape is not intrinsically wrong, then one can come along to argue that for him, rape is right. For example, what if I rape people and drug them so they never know they were raped? And there are no consequences to them? Will it be right then?

The problem with subjective morality is that nothing is intrinsically wrong, so any civiliztion can change morality to suit their whims.
Is there (in your words on objective morality) a moral structure that is focused on attaining a goal(s) and as such gives room for growth, change and new understanding, where rape would be right?

LordReed:
Damn! You are going there? Wow. So it's now time to disrespect one another right?

You have yet to quote the article you say agrees the tomb was empty and you call me dishonest? When I start to lay it on you do not cry crocodile tears ok.

I’ve quoted it already now, see it here:

“While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty“

Your excerpt not mine

LordReed:
You brought an article, I have quoted it to show he makes no such agreement. Quote the place where he gives a reason why the tomb was empty.

Lol. Oga, you’re subtly giving me another assignment oh. You told me to quote a secular source confirming an empty tomb. And I have already, clearly, shown you the first line where he says he agrees, which you conveniently discarded. now you’re telling me to quote the place where he gives a reason why the tomb was empty. That was not our agreement.

I simply am saying that among other historically verifiable facts about Jesus, his tomb was empty. I say the reason is that he resurrected. Others like the source, try to give other reasons (highly unfeasible imo) why the tomb was empty.

LordReed:
Of course. I already said as much. Morality and god are not synonymous. Us having morality doesn't prove god does or doesn't exist.

Finally, we agree on something.

Although much is to be said about the bolded.

What do you think? Is morality subjective or objective? Is Rape intrinsically wrong?

LordReed:
It is clear you didn't read this article. The author agrees that Jesus was probably buried and states his reason. He at no point agrees that the body was later found to be missing. You brought the article why have you failed to read it?

Excerpt:

In short, there are strong, historical grounds for rejecting Craig's arguments for the empty tomb story. And this would be the case even if there exists a God capable of raising Jesus from the dead.[130] In the absence of inductively correct arguments for or against the historicity of the empty tomb story, I suggest that the historian qua historian should be agnostic about the matter.[131]

Gymnastics.

Most historians, including this one, acknowledges the empty tomb. Him rejecting Craig’s argument for it and bringing up his own arguments are another matter. I simply showed you an example of a secular historian acknowledging an empty tomb.

LordReed:
It is clear you didn't read this article. The author agrees that Jesus was probably buried and states his reason. He at no point agrees that the body was later found to be missing. You brought the article why have you failed to read it?

I read the article, but why are you resorting to an argument over words? Can you not be dishonest?

What does it mean for a tomb to be empty please? Does it mean the body isn’t in it or not?
Most other theory tries to explain the reason for the empty tomb. Including this source. So please stop all this struggling to cling to shadows.

LordReed:
The dilemma doesn't posit that the god is evil. It posits that either morality is subjective in which case we can go on to define our own morality or it is intrinsic and we can discover it. In either case the usefulness of a god is diminished.

And the point of this thread is that one cannot on the basis of subjective morality deny the existence of God, who by nature is an objective being. Agreed?

LordReed:
The words tentatively and presumably tell you all you need to know that this person is only granting the position for sake of argument. He says it quite plainly in that article there is no way to substantiate any of this historically, especially the Markan tale.

I shall argue that none of Craig's arguments show that the Markan story of the empty tomb is probably historical

It seems it is you indulging in a bit of selective reading if the article. You really should read the article and grasp the author's points instead of trying to make it mean something the author did not intend.

Oga that scholar agrees to the emptiness of the tomb. Simple.

He goes on to posit a far-fetched reason for the emptiness of the tomb. But the fact is that he agrees the tomb is empty

MrPresident1:
Chairman upgrade, he slays.

He slays, but he’s willing to save you, his enemy. He has given you a token of salvation, the pure life of His Son shed on a cross for your sake. He’s able and willing to save. But if you reject His reconciliation, then He will slay you for your sins, and cast your soul into hell

LordReed:
Actually a god and evil can simultaneously exist if you allow for certain characteristics of the god. Like if the god itself were evil or the god doesn't really care about what happens to the universe or even that the god itself is compelled by forces beyond its control.

The last one is encapsulated in the Euthyphro dilemma, simply rephrased as is something good because it is commanded by god or is commanded by god because it is good. Which is truly a dilemma because in the first case good is not intrinsic but a product of a god's commands which leads us to conclude that it is indeed subjective. The second case leads us to conclude that the god is compelled by forces beyond it because it merely reiterates what is intrinsic. In which case the god is likely not to be essential in discovering what is good.

I mean a good God. The conclusion “God(a good God) cannot exist because there is evil in this world” is dead on arrival because your recognition of evil is only legitimate if evil is not a term defined by you, but defined by God. Thus acknowledging a good and evil acknowledges the existence of God, the transcendent moral arbiter.

Ola17:
What do you mean by "morals"? Is it: what is written in a Holy Book of your choice under the heading "behave like this" or you go to hell? Or "correct behavior" as it is expressed in any group of animals such that certain deviant action will relatively and consistently be "punished" by other individuals? Let’s not muddy things up.

As for lions killing baby deers or humans eating their young, I can show you videos of a lioness not only refusing to kill a baby buffalo but saved it from the other members of the pride! Humans have been recorded to eat their young or the weak during severe famine/war.

You stealing from the national coffers to ensure the survival of your immediate family is antithetical to the survival and prosperity of the society at large. Hell, even individual ants or squirrels in a colony/family are smart enough not to steal or fritter away their winter food/nuts stash. How can rape not be wrong when even wild animals have an elaborate courtship and mating ritual?

Ps: You may want to go through my posts on this thread, I never said morality is a personal preference, rather I implied that morality is simply intrinsic values we act out to ensure the survival of the larger human society.

Okay, thank you. Now, we both agree here that morality is intrinsic meaning it’s objective and not determined by personal whims.

And we agree rape is intrinsically wrong.

But I disagree with what you give as the purpose for morality, I think it’s reducing morality to a survival naturalist concept, no wonder you compare us with animals.

Let me ask you one question to show my point.

What if I stole from my neighbor who is a rich man, so rich he wouldn’t even notice I stole from him?

Another one, what if we got with of all old people, and all disabled people? It would mean more resources to spend on those who actually have positive economic potential.

Would these be wrong or right?

LordReed:
My dear buda, I would be conceited if I claim I know why.

Its because I care about you. Don’t let that guy make your head bloat by insulting both me and himself, that’s not really a good foundation for head bloatedness.

LordReed:
This person does not agree with you at all.

Excerpt:

While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty

It seems you’re truly in the habit of always struggling to grasp anything that reinforces your POV, keep an open mind. The first line the guy is agreeing and you say he does not agree at all. Smh

hahn:
Answer his question first. Is your god a liar or not?

You can't tell people to ignore obvious loopholes.

No. Are you a liar? Are you a thief?

hahn:
You are the one that is not getting it. God said in his own word(s) that it created evil. All those other things are simply you tying to twist his words to fit your own idea of an all good God.

Honestly, there is so much stupidity in the bible it is hard not to make mockery of it and those who actually believe all that nonsense and who fail to just take the bible for what it is.

Trash

Okay, suit yourself, as I already implied, you are a mocker. It’s awfully hard to win people over to your side by mocking them though. I know that by experience. I can easily mock your beliefs and show it to be the truly idiotic trash, but I won’t, I’ll rely on arguments and respectful debate.

Reality11:
This question is only directed to theist who claimed the god or a god is actively involved in the affairs of his subjects and having attributes such a being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

So!
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

The argument from the sceptic tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of God and evil, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelovent God with the evil evident in the world.

So since it is evident evil exist in the world, this said God can't exist.

I hope you get it?

It isn’t me that doesn’t get it, it’s you, and I’ll show you.

Reality11: Good and evil are products constructed through human interaction and coexistence, hence as a byproduct of
culture, custom, societal norms on a societal level to foster coexistence build upon selection, acting on the societal level. Murder and theft( or any vice) tend to be socially destabilizing. So societies that don't discourage this behaviors die out more easily than those expressly forbidding them. Think of any moral obligations, they are all beneficial to the long term survival of the society. This selection pressure condition members or new members (children) to abide by this rules to ensure continuity of the society.

So goodness is inculcated not inborn likewise evil.

This why, morals, good/evil tend to evolve or change/tilt in accordance how it its benefit/affect us.

If good and evil are human products, and humans change over time, then what right do you have to say God and evil cannot coexist, when good itself is a subjective human construct. Why do you use subjective human construct that even changes over time to suddenly deny the existence of an objective being? How immature is that? “My version of morality says there is evil in this world, how can a God allow my definition of evil to exist, therefore there is no God”. Does this sound sensible to you? This can only be sensible, if you agree that good and evil are not just subjective whims but are objective values that apply to God, who is an objective being, i.e, Your version of morality which is objective says that there is intrinsic objective evil in this world, how can a good God allow this to exist...etc. But we both know why you can’t say this, abi?

Your argument is dead on arrival.

Reality11: if the god had approve of torture as good and disapprove of helping our neighbors as bad.

Can we hold on to such as torture (good) or helping neighbour (evil)?

If you think good/evil and morals is/should be the product of a transcend source (God), then you have no right to deny/falsely killing, rape, torturing... if they claimed God told them they are good behaviors worthy of doing since you are not one to define what is good or bad to God.

Or if I tell you god told me to kill, would my action be good or bad?

@ the bolded, on the contrary, it is only when I lay claim to an objective morality that I claim rape and torture is intrinsically evil, irrespective of individual whims or subjective or environmental upbringing. For example, you cannot tell me rape is evil, when according to my upbringing we rape women to teach them humility. That is my own subjective morality, and you cannot impose your subjective whims on mine, see?

You cannot truly call anything intrinsically good or evil when you hold to the notion that good or evil is subjective. And if you dare say good and evil are objective, you must agree to a transcendent Entity who defines these objective morality in the universe.

This is the argument for God from morality.

LordReed:
Really? Yet from the tales of the bible your god occasionally approves of the use of lies.

Edit: Doesn't that make your god a liar?

Stop looking for loopholes. You’re a liar aren’t you?

hahn:
Exactly. The bible doesn't make sense. Neither does the description of God.

The verse also confirms that God is responsible for both good and evil. Didn't you see that part?

What are you saying? Refer to my description of judgement. God bringing evil upon someone does not mean He is an evil God. He brings evil on evil doers, it’s not always straightforward though, I’d love to teach you a lot about biblical wisdom and the concept of justice and tribulation, but you’re a skeptic and a mocker.

LordReed:
Oga I have the book, nowhere in it does Ehrman say the body missing from the grave is historically confirmed. In fact Ehrman posits in another book that the tales of Jesus' burial stories cannot be historically confirmed.

So question again since you say I am misquoting you, who is the secular historian that confirmed the crucifixion and the missing body?

Majority of scholars agree that the tomb was empty.

See here

Ola17:
Even in lesser evolved animals, like say a pack of wolves, you hardly see them kill each other. It is natural that every member of a society be it humans or wild animals behave in such a way that will guarantee the survival and prosperity of such a society, else the individual will be treated as a societal misfit/criminal.

Forget this comparison, morality is a human issue. We don’t question why lions kill new born deer or baby elephants do we? Do we eat our young? Do we sacrifice the weak for the strong? Animals do these things, but I wonder how you’d feel if humans did it.

What if I wanted to preserve the survival and prosperity of my family so I stole millions from the national coffers? Would that be “natural”

How does intuitively knowing Right and wrong = appealing to something other than ourselves? That is counterintuitive.

Don’t be dishonest. Intuition is the ability to instinctively understand something without even consciously analyzing it.

You imply that morality is the result of individual preference on one hand and suggest it is an intuition on the other hand? You, my friend, are contradicting yourself.


One question: Is rape completely and intrinsically wrong?