IAmSabrina:

Even if that was the only argument. The fact remains that the bible provides details of angels, added to that, multiple well-known and respected Theologians provide very specific information about angels (Barth, Augustine, Pannenberg and Aquinas for example).

IAmSabrina:

Also if you're going to accept Swinburne's argument for "Religious Experience" (which i think is the argument you're trying to make), then you have no room to deny their existence and subsequent details about them, because there are very many testimonies of angel encounters and experiences, especially under the "principal of credulity".

IAmSabrina:

It seems awfully like you're intentionally denying their existence or any knowledge about them

IAmSabrina:

So are you going to cherry pick when to apply the principals and arguments (principal of credulity and argument from religious experience) you accept to avoid having to face a refutation of the opposite problem of certain knowledge?

LordReed:


LoL! WOW! You actually unironically wrote this down! WOW! LoL!

IAmSabrina:

If you think that Angelology is somehow this area of complete mystery, but yet God, who is next level, is somehow way more attainable and epistemically apparent.....

IAmSabrina:

This ignores the fact that theologians the likes of Thomas Aquinas (who I think you'd hold in higher regard than WLC) have written a specific treatise on angels and indeed writes quite extensively about detailed knowledge of their existence and being.

"But the knowledge, whereby according to his natural principles the angel knows God, stands midway between these two; and is likened to that knowledge whereby a thing is seen through the species abstracted from it. For since God's image is impressed on the very nature of the angel in his essence, the angel knows God in as much as he is the image of God."
- Aquinas

IAmSabrina:

You need not know great detail to know they are finite beings, like us, but yet obviously have a higher level of access or knowledge of God in order to be angels. But yet, like us, have the ability to freely chose and have done so, even when having that closer level of epistemic knowledge. To pull the "who knows" card seems rather disingenuous.

Martinez39:
Insha Allah

IAmSabrina:

And in this paragraph, you literally obliterated Christianity and contradicted your own response

@bolded Are we just to accept that what "most Theologians think" about created intelligences is true? Or would be more reasonable to conclude, like you've stated, that they know almost nothing? What are we relying on here, Theologians or what the bible says? Because the bible seems pretty clear that angels have undoubtedly more access to the knowledge of God than us mere humans, but yet, they can still freely choose to not believe God, as demonstrated by Lucifer.

IAmSabrina:

This seems like a pretty sure rebuttal to your own argument

If angels can rebel and turn away from God with their level of knowledge by exercising their free will, then it stands to reason that humans can too.

Martinez39:
Most muslim scholars think the quran is valid. Allah akbar.

IAmSabrina:

I'm sorry but this is simply not true.

Let us look at Lucifer and the angels that rebelled against god. Beings who would've, supposedly (according to your argument), not have had significant and unmitigated moral liberty, but still, freely chose to go against him, and thus were cast out of heaven.

They had all-out evidence of god's existence and knew it at the level people would like to know, and thus be convinced. This evidence, even at the highest level of the knowledge of god, STILL free choices were able to be made to ignore that and not believe god.

Ihedinobi3:
NnennaG6, I am very happy to see you. I am incredibly encouraged to read you. It seems to me as if you have come some way since the last time I read you here.

Grace from the Lord be with you.

IAmSabrina:

The giant hole in this kind of argument is i don't really see how knowledge of God negates freely choosing God. Surely if we're talking about Yahweh the Bible seems to give reasons as to why we shouldn't expect that to be the case.

IAmSabrina:

@bold is just hilarious. It really is. But anyway, that's not even the issue.

Let's say your god existed and he was indeed all-loving. Given the nature with which he's being described in the bible, as a god who wants to have a relationship with us, why should we have to bother ourselves with seperating his voice from our subconscious? Why will a "father" hide himself to the point where his "children" will doubt his existence? His existence should be as overwhelming and undeniable as the noonday sun in full blaze, or, at the very least, not open to dispute. Seems to me your god is not that much different from a neglectful dad.

Maybe its just me, but saying "He saves who he wants" heavily contradicts his omnibenevolence and the fact that he wants to have a relationship with you & me.

Cc. Martinez39

LordReed:


Ok so you can't prove your god until it is good and ready to prove itself. Thanks for clearing that up. LoL

LordReed:


There is no such "voice of god". Just one test will let you know that there is no god making any speech to you. If you want ask your god for my real name and post it here.

IAmSabrina:

I agree that it's a bad thing that people having worked in pornography face discrimination. However, the people who I think are to blame for this are the ones who are discriminating, not anyone else. In fact, it feels like purposefully avoiding pornography would actually contribute to the problem: it would make pornography (and by extension porn actors) more taboo.

IAmSabrina:

I can't see why it's relevant whether they are prostitutes or not.


True. Although this is a very particular set of circumstances.



If they have no better alternative, I can hardly blame the porn industry for providing one. I would most certainly blame the society, or the local government, for not providing a better option. But if these women are in a situation where they are desperately in need of money then it does not invalidate their ability to give consent. If I were starving, I might sell my family heirlooms and, while unfortunate, this would not be theft. I could get a job, presumably hard and not at all glamorous - else someone in a better position would have already taken it, and that would not be forced labour. I can see no reason why there should be special rules for anything having to do with sex. I want to stress, though, that I consider it deeply unfortunate that people end up in debt and all other types of difficulties, and that another way out for them should exist.


What about people who have a much less sentimental approach to sex? I don't see how anyone has the right to tell them who to have sex with and under what conditions.

IAmSabrina:

I'm sorry, I don't understand how something can be generally good when it is literally infinitely worse than God.

IAmSabrina:

"More good than bad" implies you're taking an overall average of some situation, which is what you just said I shouldn't do

IAmSabrina:

That isn't really how goodness works though. Auschwitz wasn't good because there was some good there. It would have been better if it did not exist at all.

johnydon22:
LOL. Acting out of love is also an expression of need. Need to express love.

primarily all actions falls down to a need.

For something to create anything, there must be at least a need to create, a desire to create. that is the point.

A creator who doesn't have a desire to create, won't.

a creator who does have a desire to create therefore has a need to satisfy this desire.

So, for the fact that this universe exists is incompatible with the idea that we are created by a creator who doesn't have a desire to create.

IAmSabrina:
Why is that the case? Because things that are not God are infinitely worse than God.

johnydon22:
The need to paint a picture. Self satisfaction, self appraisal, demonstration of ability - many of them.

Actually it is a need.



1. Omni-factor and love? lol

2. He made them before he loved them or loved them before making them - which is it?

LOL

TheArranger:

I think the need for expression would be our impasse then. As humans, there is evidence for this need for as far back as our origins go. Other species show this need as well. My questions would be why would an omni-x being express itself, considering how we view expression? I would accept expression for its own sake, but when inferior beings come into the question, that changes everything. The whole "its better to be than not" frankly falls flat on its face. Say that to people living on a dollar a day. Say that to people that have lived short, anguish filled lives full of pain. Say it to sex slaves, manufacturing slaves, etc. And if you both believe in the concept of Hell, love does not work in this equation.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression.

TheArranger:

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

TheArranger:


1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

Vic2Ree:


Two of you need to calm down and reason. I am saying that guaranteeing someone a spot in heaven is paramount. The actual number of people I do not think matters so much; I argue that it's more about the success rate.

XxSabrinaxX:

It isn't a false dilemma when there really are only two options.

XxSabrinaxX:

Once we assume Yhwh and heaven, the claim "Yhwh sends all babies to heaven" either is true or isn't true.

XxSabrinaxX:

Okay I am going to try and make this as clear as possible for you.

1. Worship a God that sends babies to heaven
2. Worship a God that doesn’t send babies to heaven

The above two options literally cover all of the possibilities for your God. Either he does or does not let babies into heaven; there literally it not another option. OP is saying that you have to pick which one of those your God is (according to your Christian beliefs or whatever religion you belong to), and then the argument is that either way you're screwed because both lead to an absurd outcome.

XxSabrinaxX:
Gooder day

Vic2Ree:

By killing the baby, you guarantee them a spot in heaven; that's a 100% success rate.