Comments on: Might does not make right, even with God

By: PKW

PKW — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:00:53 +0000

I doubt set your kids up for failure?

By: Michael R

Michael R — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:52:03 +0000

That’s a fact? Umm…no. For something to be a fact, there needs to be verifiable evidence for its existence. Religion relies on faith, not facts. Don’t meddle in foreign territory.
“God doesn’t sit back and watch bad stuff happen”? Well if you assume he exists, and that he’s omniscient and omnipresent, then he most certainly DOES. And how does sin “infiltrate into our world”. Is your God powerless to stop it?
“Every day I read about horrible things that happen to believers and it breaks my heart.” I read about horrible things that happen to human beings and it breaks mine.

By: IsaacJ

IsaacJ — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:53:59 +0000

If God has the right to do whatever he wants to us, then would we have the right to decimate more primitive peoples because we have tanks and bombs? Would advanced aliens have the right to conquer us or wipe us off the globe at their leisure? To me, this is the same thing.

For that matter, does God have the right to send people to Hell (or their souls at any rate) for all eternity because we behave badly due to his flawed design?

Glad that dude isn’t real. :-) He’s a bit of a grouch.

By: Abbey

Abbey — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:59:33 +0000

different words, same meaning.

By: Keith Allison

Keith Allison — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:59:45 +0000

“Perhaps we can move on to more serious topics than ‘autism’ and ‘boinking cousins’”

What’s more serious than a child with autism – a self-congratulatory examination of the nature of an improbable and ridiculous Invisible Friend? I guess so.

By: Sye

Sye — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:06:13 +0000

It is only because God exists that we have an absolute moral standard by which we can condemn such atrocities as rape. Without God, all we are left with is arbitrary moral preference, and if morality can be stipulated, then rapists can stipulate their own.

Your view that the abuse you suffered is punishment from God, is not one that you have gotten from me. You should join me in absolutely condemning what was done to you, rather than clinging to a worldview which cannot justify absolute condemnation of anything.

By: Anne

Anne — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:29:04 +0000

I have been reading about sin and what happens to people, that you bring bad things upon yourself and so God punishes you. I am tempted to swear up a storm at you, but I will resist. At the age of 6 I was raped by a relative. I suffered horrible abuse at the hands of my father(whom I will respect when God himself shows up at my home and tells me to). I was molested by teachers. What I get from you is that I brought this on myself? I sinned and was punished?! That God might do this to punish me makes this whole site all that more compelling. I do not like people like you.

By: Janet Greene

Janet Greene — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:37:51 +0000

This is a wonderful response. It’s so hard for me, as a newly minted atheist, to keep to the point when christians ask these questions – I have SO much to say about all of this. I really appreciate the respectful atheist community on this site.

By: Mogg

Mogg — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:11:27 +0000

That’s a fairly definitive statement. Why not? The codes that are common across all of humanity are fairly easily understood as evolutionary advantages, and don’t require that some being wrote them down on a celestial blackboard as reference for the universe.

By: Sye

Sye — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:28:00 +0000

Morality is prescriptive, evolution is descriptive. One does not get ‘what ought to be’ from ‘what is.’

By: Mogg

Mogg — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:40:53 +0000

No, it’s not arbitrary. The vast majority of non-christians lead lives that are very similar to that of Christians, from a moral point of view. It takes either lots of psychological damage or some breakage in the wiring like sociopathy to make someone who doesn’t more or less follow the general moral outline laid out by our evolution as a group-living species, socially refined to fit into the mores of the specific culture we find ourselves in.

By: Sye

Sye — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:30:02 +0000

“If Dr. Craig insists that I would, he must be moving in a moral universe that does not intersect my own.”

Which is exactly the point, without God, it is not a matter of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ but just one of arbitrary personal preference.

By: Karleigh

Karleigh — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:28:06 +0000

Would you care to expand on your ‘might is not wrong always’ statement, or should we just accept your word as infallible?

By: Miguel

Miguel — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:36:14 +0000

“Thus, he is responsible for the outcome that apparently makes him unhappy”

I’ve already reiterated that we do not have any ‘destiny’ because of free-will. So my ‘parent-serial-killer’ analogy is well placed here. If you think parents of serial killers are responsible for their kids murders then that is your opinion. But I would really beg to differ.

By: Miguel

Miguel — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:29:01 +0000

“Chicken or egg proposition – whether logic is an internal characteristic arising from your god, or an external force acting on him, per your definition he is limited to it, and thus not all powerful.”

- “can he create a rock he can’t carry?” – type of question. If God devolved himself to be illogical, then at that instance he was ‘illogical’ he would’ve been ‘imperfect’. He wouldn’t be much of a God now would he, if he was imperfect? A perfect entity cannot be illogical or irrational. So either way, you will say, he isn’t all-powerful.

“On “all knowing” – you are clearly saying that your god is not all knowing. He doesn’t know what will result from his granting of free wiil. But surely he at least knows the potential outcomes, right? Otherwise he couldn’t know which ones please him and which don’t. Yet he is apparently unhappy when people exercise the free will he gives them? ”

- No, I am clearly saying that he is all-knowing. But since he granted us free-will, we cannot be “destined” – we can make our individual choices. He created us to be ‘free-will agents’, we can therefore choose freely apart from him. I said, God cannot be illogical because he is perfect. It would be illogical to create something that had free-will, yet is destined for something – that essentially means he had failed to create a ‘free-will agent’. This is again ‘a rock he cant carry’ type of retort.

“Yet he is apparently unhappy when people exercise the free will he gives them? But he doesn’t send them to hell for it?

- No one said he is unhappy when people exercise the free will he gives them. the presence of free will establishes a human nature that can alternate between choosing God’s will and rejecting God’s will. When a free will agent uses his free will to go against God’s will, it is not evidence of an error on the part of God(immorality), but evidence that God has successfully created a free will agent. Thus ofcourse He is unhappy when free-will is used for immorality, which is to go against his will.

“(Again I’m unclear what, by your definitions, is the motivation to believe in this god when there are apparently no negative consequences for not believing in him.)”

Like I said, God is just and merciful. To simplify what I said earlier: those who don’t believe – he is just, those who believe – he is merciful. I don’t know if it would be motivation enough for you, but for me, If I committed a crime, I’d rather stand trial before a jury who is more merciful than just.

“None of this changes the fact that god could – if he wanted to -not grant free will and get excatly the outcome he apparently desires. Thus, he is responsible for the outcome that apparently makes him unhappy”

- No, I’m thinking that you didn’t care to read my last posts. God wants to create a holy and moral people –these very attributes are dependent upon the existence and exercise of free will. Morality, generosity, love and mercy are dependent upon free-will. God therefore creates a perfect free-will agent in order to create holy and moral people. So without free-will, he, logically, cannot get the outcome he would’ve wanted. Like I said he is a logical God, so don’t respond to this with more of your “well he is all powerful so he can do anything” response. Like I said, he cannot do anything illogical, That is against his nature; He cannot devolve into imperfection.

“There really are much more simple explanations than the contorted logic you are trying to apply.”

- I think I’m holding quite fine. Honestly, you don’t seem to be fairing any better. You seem to be equivocating every statement I make, and continue to suggest that God should be able to be illogical and irrational if he is to show that he is all-powerful. This is a contradiction. I don’t think you are making any note-worthy arguments here Bill. I’ve answered all your questions (ofcourse I don’t actually think you will believe them, but I hope you do see the logic of where I’m coming from. Why wont you admit that?), you keep asserting the same.