Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

I'm totally lost. And I've mucked around with all the arguments for and against theism... This is just incoherent all around.

The lack of a belief is not, in its self, a belief.

The lack of belief is not necessarily atheism. Under most philosophical definitions atheism certainly is a proposition, not a lack of a proposition. It is only relatively recently that people started attempting to define atheism the way you presently are.

btw. Welcome to the PPR.

Or, at least no harm is done in such a display of the stability of its own nature and character.


I can see why people say that, but I find no difficulty there ... and I would use the game of chess to somewhat illustrate:

God created the playing field (the board), the one who ultimately "chose to oppose" (Lucifer), all the pieces (including a few willing pawns), and then (white moves first) began the play ... and in the end, we have each had an opportunity to observe and to even "play along" a bit ... and then God wins (with all things justly restored to rightness).

Ok, but there is no flow to a contradiction. An infinite set of choosing better and better worlds is not contradictory. It is just not actualizable.

God is required to choose choices that he is able to choice at each juncture. That's it.

God is justified in EVERY choice he is obligated to make.

God is not required to make a choice that entails a logical contradiction.

Well, except God can be more justified in his choice than he is. That's why there is the problem in the first place. Better worlds are definitionally more justifiable than worse worlds. The world chosen to "maximum great" under this meaningless definition you want to use(and it is meaningless and it does fail to be a maximum) is arbitrary, so... it by definition lacks sufficient justification. That being said, he's not at maximum if he's making choice that can be improved upon, and he is by DEFINITION.

Still asserting greatest possible +1 logic.

Can you see the logical contradiction you are asserting here? If he made the decision then it is the best actualizable decision, by default. Your 'better' world is not really possible if it cannot logically be chosen. If it cannot be chosen by a being that is maximally great, then it cannot be chosen.

No, because there is one. If God makes an arbitrary decision, it is still an arbitrary decision, and being arbitrary, it isn't the best decision. You've combined two incompatible traits, that of maximality, and that of arbitrariness.

But the better world CAN logically be chosen. For every X, God can choose X+1. That's part of the definition of the problem.

Not by any logically possible being... Maximal greatness +1 is a logical contradiction... the principle of explosion tells us that once you assert a logical contradiction you can infer whatever you like. It simply cannot count against a maximally great being if a maximally great choice is not available.

OK. So I really do MEAN that I have no issues seeing both sides of the coin.


In what sense? In the sense that God can bring about results that, as far as any human can tell, ought to be impossible? And I've already said I don't believe God ever WOULD do anything contrary to His own nature or character. But the choices one makes (what one actually DOES) is NOT contingent on one's capacity to do/not do those things which one might choose to do. I would never commit murder. But that does not mean I lack the capacity for killing at all, and given the right circumstances (extreme duress, threats to my person or my family), I would have no problem killing someone and would walk away with a clear conscience. Certainly anyone who knows me well knows killing is out of character for me, and I don't even have any of my guns in my house. But I do know how to use guns, I've used guns before, and given certain situations, and ONLY certain situations involving threats of harm to myself, my family, and my property, yes, I'd act out of character and shoot with the intention to kill. However, you could argue that my actions within extreme situations are also within my character. So the difference is what defines God's character: man or God? We may not understand how or why God ever WOULD act outside nature, for example, and we may judge God's character such that we believe He would not, but that doesn't mean we can't make incorrect judgments. I've stated what I personally believe about that nature/character, that God would not defy logical laws or contradict Himself. However, I CAN conceive of a God who is powerful enough to go against what WE think is logical or against what are apparently THE physical laws of the universe.


What are you talking about? You might also argue that we do what is right in our own minds anyway, that the decision to follow Christ is done because it is right in our own minds. As long as we have the choice to do so, there is nothing inherently wrong in "doing what seems right..." Now, whether what is right in one's own mind is consistent with what is right in God's mind is another matter. If that's what we're talking about, all I can say is I do my best to read and study the Bible, I pray, I listen for God's voice in whatever form it takes from moment to moment. I watch to see what it is God will reveal to me, to see what answer God has, or if there is none, I wait. That's all any follower of Jesus can do, spiritually speaking, and I don't "just do" whatever feels right "to me."


As a matter of fact, yes, I have thought that through. Contemporary scientific thinking has come up with some novel ways to explain the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and so on. The idea of God merely "blinking the universe into existence" is defiant in terms of what "they" accept as truth. God interposing Himself at key events in the Bible--parting the Red Sea, cloud-by-day/fire-by-night guide in the wilderness, manna, stopping the earth's rotation with no unpleasant after-effects (a nod to ruveyn), feeding thousands on two different occasions, miraculous healing, on and on--defies any physical "rules" that human beings have "imposed" on nature based on their careful observation of it. And yes, I'm being slightly sarcastic here, so don't school me on natural laws existing whether we observe them or not--I know that already. My point is that acts of God lie outside the usual "natural order" and can only be best explained as supernatural forces at work.


I have no problem with this.


Why not?


I need to review the mustard seed parable and will hopefully come back to this. I think perhaps there are two different things at work here.


Not at all! The "extent" just means that Christians should submit to ruling authority only as far as that authority does not violate Christian principles--we may not worship other gods, for instance.


Right. In other words, examine the teachings of religious authority to assess the truth of them, and do those things. I've been exposed to pastors who were excellent expositors and said nothing at all untrue in that capacity. However, I'd never want to imitate those people as they are away from the pulpit.


That's not what I said. If all things are possible with God, then everything possible is possible in addition to what we may think is impossible. If we are in agreement, then you have to concede that there are many, many more things which are possible of which we are yet unaware.


You're going to have to be a little bit more clear than that.


John 3:16 and following. Here's vs 18: "Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God."

"Enduring to the end" is evidence that one's life has been changed through faith in Jesus; it is not in itself a saving quality.


OK, well then, there you go. God is not dependent on the physical universe, neither to exist nor to act. If God is sovereign over the universe He created, He can do anything He wants with it, including manipulating it in ways inconsistent with its natural order. God is able to bring about the physically impossible.


True. But He also taught the proper perspective of it--the spirit of the law over and above the letter of the law.

It is an interesting conversation that is going on between you two. I am following it with interest.

As a Catholic I tend to lean towards what leejosepho on the subject of Justification. Your citing of John 3:16 is no doubt the referencing of a central verse. However, as a Catholic I cannot endorse Sola Fide in the sense where it takes a total line against works*. The hardest interpretations of Sola Fide are simply not able to be reconciled in any consistent way with James 2:14-26. I am interested to hear what you think about Sola Fide in light of this passage. Personally I prefer the sort of language used in the Joint Doctrine on Justification between the Catholics and the Lutherans.

*This is not to say that any work can really justify salvation.

It's interesting to me that you are interested in this discussion--it started out as a play on the silliness of a useless word-game, but I do think it's useful to explore the greater issues of omnipotence. Quite simply, just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they are compelled to, and I think this is the fatal flaw in any serious argument you might draw relating to supposed (but non-existent) inconsistencies of an omnipotent God.

My view of sola fide is that it isn't "faith" that saves. Only the grace of God can do that. By placing faith in Christ, one accepts the gift of God's grace. There are no necessary works to "earn" justification.

HOWEVER...

Works evidence faith. If someone does not act in accordance with scripture, if someone does not feel any compulsion whatsoever to move in the direction the Holy Spirit leads them, there is no reason for anyone else to really believe that person possesses any faith at all. If someone doesn't feel the need to DO SOMETHING, they have no reason themselves to believe their own faith is genuine, since there is little or no evidence of such a faith. I will admit this is a conflict I've felt throughout my own walk of faith. As I got older and more willing to share my beliefs, I found it got easier. Much of what held me back was really lack of maturity. I think this is a problem for most believers at some point when they believe but cannot help having doubts. When it comes to faith vs works, I think doubts are actually an encouraging sign that God is working on a person to enable that person to act on faith. I'd be worried if I DIDN'T have doubts throughout my life. It is reaching a level of maturity that has enabled me to act on faith lessening the effects of doubt regarding my salvation and enhancing my actions by redirecting those doubts to questioning whether what I'm doing at any given moment really is what God wants me to do. A "perfect" faith-in-action doesn't doubt AT ALL. I have no idea that I'll ever reach that point in my lifetime, but I'm certainly improving!

I have faith, and I know that I'm saved by the grace of God. My faith would be pointless (dead), however, if I didn't feel the need to express it in some way, and I'll admit it is this compulsion that leads me to get into discussions here. I may not convince one single solitary person to believe in Christ, but I at least can TRY by sharing my faith with others OR I can support like-minded believers. It is my faith together with guidance by the Holy Spirit that leads me to do what I do. It is not for me to judge whether someone who professes faith in Christ really is or is not saved based on the things they do/don't do. I would just say in regards to someone who claims to believe in Christ that if they do not follow Christ's teachings, their faith is probably not a genuine faith.

Otherwise, what you have is a problem of exactly what and what quantity of what constitutes justifying works. What about so-called "deathbed" conversions? They never believed or performed "works" prior to their last-minute desperation. What about murderers on death row? Once they are in "they system," there are no more works left for them to do and thus no way to earn their salvation. Does God somehow just exclude them and not others? This doesn't work with the idea that God wishes all people to be saved; it is unjust to "close the door" in the living years, and the only person who can really burn any bridges between himself and God is that person himself. Also consider the parable of the workers--each received the same wages no matter when they began the work. This illustrates that WHEN you come to faith in Christ is irrelevant on this side of eternity, though I do think that making the decision to come to Christ gets much more difficult with age. Believing "with all one's heart" effectively bars one from trying to "pull a fast one" on God by living as one pleases because one does have up to the "last minute" to have a change of heart. So you have the problem of trying to judge exactly at what point a person's faith is genuine. Works make that evident, as only time can tell. But the problem here is people do good deeds all the time with the wrong motive. If it's just about doing good deeds, then either we all get a free pass whether we have faith or not, which is unjust on God's part, or NOBODY gets in because no amount of deeds will ever be sufficient. Faith mitigates the necessity for works, confining works to merely evidence of what someone actually believes.

Think about it. The Bible says that one of the rebels crucified with Jesus believed and that Jesus assured him a place in paradise that very day. The rebel acknowledged his own sin, that he deserved to die for his sins. How, then, could he have done any works to earn paradise and still be assured that a place in paradise awaited him? Unless you count confession and acceptance through faith as works themselves, faith+works as necessary for salvation is scripturally inconsistent.

Maybe you would see your argument from a different perspective if you consider the idea that accepting Christ is a work made possible by the grace of God. Faith alone is clearly stated to not be enough:

James 2:19, 'You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.'

James 2:24, 'You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and 'not by faith alone'.' ("Non Sola Tantum")

This view is supported elsewhere too:

Galatians 6:7-9: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

This is why I personally have serious reservations about the Sola Fide doctrine as it is used by some denominations. Though this does not affect my opinion on their salvation... they are still brethren.

Given the bible is not even written by the same person, based on what the Christians think one can get a consistent view on these 'theological' matters?

Yes. Many people do not understand "The Bible" is actually a collection of separate books written by a variety of people and over a considerable period of time ...

... and then there is the matter of different sects within religion overall not always having identical collections of books as their own "bibles" ...


However, I have yet to see any particular version or variation of "the Bible" that is truly inconsistent with any other as far as its "basic text" content is concerned.

Sure by any logically possible being. The fact that maximal greatness + 1 is a logical contradiction is why maximal greatness is incoherent.

I don't see why a lack of a choice *can't* count against such a being. I mean, really this all just a set of ad hoc special pleading, as you assert that a maximally good God is possible because it just has to have "a lot of good and no evil", but a maximally good world of "a lot of good and no evil" isn't plausible because of continual possible improvement. But.... in both cases, we really see clear signs of continual possible improvement, and honestly, the ability to claim a maximally good world is actually CLEARER than a maximally good God, as each individual's life being intrinsically good is more contestable than a better choice being better than a worse choice. So, the entire matter is just ridiculousness pretending it is profundity.

A theological dogma. However, Biblical scholarship has generally found that different theologies exist in scripture. Conservative theology is just used as an apologetic to avoid that kind of truth though, and it has asserted its "rise to prominence" for the last few decades, despite a failure to ever see that actualized.