Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

... 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.

... We may not understand how or why God ever WOULD act outside nature, for example, and we may judge God's character such ...

... 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.

... 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."

Contemporary scientific thinking has come up with some novel ways to explain the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and so on ...
God interposing Himself at ... 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 ...
My point is that acts of God lie outside the usual "natural order" and can only be best explained as supernatural forces at work.

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.

"Enduring to the end" is evidence that one's life has been changed through faith in Jesus ...

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

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 have a problem with that.


Clearly? No, it isn't.


Well, what is being stated here is a factual matter. I "know" right now that the Mississippi River, which might as well be in my back yard right now, is mere feet away from the top of the levee. Yes, I'm a little bit nervous right now, and yes, if I had my way I'd be packed up and outta here. In fact, I just got back from climbing the levee to check it out; I'll go back later with my camera right after I drive out to the river bridge. I have to drive to Jackson tomorrow, and my usual route would take me right through the worst part of the Yazoo backwater to get there--so depending on if I can get through or not, I might have another photo op tomorrow. For all I know something genuinely catastrophic could happen here and I'd be under 10 feet of water within mere minutes. But at the moment, knowing what I know, there's little apparent need to panic, nor is there anything that I CAN do about the situation.

In principle, this is nothing different. The demons know God because they've been in His presence; but they don't KNOW God in any kind of meaningful relationship. The drummer in my band and one of my piano students lives on Lake Ferguson. They are intimately familiar with the flood as the waters and possible wildlife have taken over their homes. They KNOW the flood as more than a mere fact or growling menace, just as Christians who exercise their faith really KNOW the Father.

Of course, a key difference is that demons "know" the Father but do not WANT the Father. Merely "believing in God" can't save you. If you do not want God's grace, you are free to reject it. Demons might be afraid of God, but they aren't interested in being in His good graces. We mere mortals are fortunate that we are allowed the time to make our minds up and that we ever really had a choice at all!


Nope. When Paul used the word "justified," such as in Galatians 2:16, he's referring to being "saved" or "declared righteous." Faith alone is all that is required for justification.

James is not referring to the same thing. What James means by "justified" is more like "vindicated" or "authenticated." James 2:23--"So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, and he was called God's friend." What Abraham did was a visible demonstration of his inner faith. People who knew Abraham could say "THIS guy is faithful" because he could "go the distance" by offering Isaac. Note that Abraham was offered a substitute in Isaac's place and that Abraham never had to go through with God's initial command. So if God did not actually REQUIRE that Abraham sacrifice Isaac, where then is the "work" of faith? Works, therefore, are not required, but faith. Abraham demonstrated his faith in a visible, tangible way, sending the message to the generations after Abraham that his faith was authentic, both in the sense that he truly believed what he believed and that the God he believed in was the real God.


Not really.


No, this has nothing to do with a person's salvation. All this means is that we are all held accountable for the things we do. If we do what is right, we reap reward. If we do what is evil, we will reap punishment. This applies to believers and unbelievers alike in principal, and this is a recurring theme even in the OT wisdom literature.

The idea of accountability is a very general one here, which is why I mentioned unbelievers as well as believers. Of course, you'll find that what unbelievers sow is an earthly reward that they'll enjoy before death. The believers' reward is a spiritual, heavenly reward. Generally speaking, if you make plans for good, you will receive good in return. That is more of a proverbial statement than anything else, and you don't have to be a Christian to understand that in the "real world."

As a matter of fact, it is written elsewhere that God disciplines those who belong to Him, the same way a father disciplines his children, because of his love for them. If we sow blessing, we will reap blessing. If we stumble in our faith, we will fall short of the promised reward. If we sow the gospel, we will reap newcomers to the faith. If we stop one person short of sharing the faith (...if we faint...), we fail to bring ALL into the heavenly storehouse that which God desires. Sharing the gospel and doing good for others is what God wants us to do. It is proper behavior for the Christian. It is NOT our ticket into heaven. It is our faith, which has already saved us, put into tangible, visible action. All James is saying is "If you believe, but you don't do anything about it, why even bother believing?"

You don't seem to understand AG, that once you assert a logical contradiction you can infer anything. Your argument is interesting, it is even intelligent. However, it asserts a logical contradiction from this you could infer anything. A maximally great being does not have to do that which is logically impossible. Nor can the decision of a maximally great being be improved upon. It is contradictory to assert otherwise. A more stark example is the old 'create something so heavy a maximally great being could not lift it'. When you do some research and work out why that argument fails, you will understand why yours does also. Either way, further discussion is pointless until you realize this.

... what I am asking a maximally great being to do isn't logically impossible. I am asking said being to pick X+1 over X.

"Yahuah knows the thoughts of the wise ... are worthless.'” (1Corinthians 3:20)

This really says it all.

Except I haven't. I've SHOWN a logical contradiction, and that's the whole of the difference.

The problem is that what I am asking a maximally great being to do isn't logically impossible. I am asking said being to pick X+1 over X. The problem is that this require repeats infinitely, but each request is logically possible, and by my argument is obligatory.

The decision CAN BE improved upon by DEFINITION. X+1>X, so the decision of X+1 over X, is better by DEFINITION. So, if your conclusion is that X>X+1, you've engaged in a contradiction as you are contradiction the DEFINITION that X+1>X, and that DEFINITION is the basis of your rejection of the best of all possible worlds.

I don't need to do more research. You've asserted a contradiction, and when I show it, you proclaim it is my contradiction when it isn't.

I asked atheists on WP to explain why they feel they must ridicule Christianity. Most of you answered either that you-

1. believe my beliefs are ridiculous, hence the ridicule or
2. you feel persecuted by Christians and must, I guess, defend yourselves.

I hope you can all agree that I respected your beliefs in that post. Also, I hope that you respect me enough from the replies I made. You can see, I hope, that they are logical and openminded.

I have a new challenge - convince me. Prove to me that your beliefs are the right ones. Something, at some point, convinced you that this was the right way to go. I want to know what it is.

91 does have a point here. There is no reason to think the idea of maximally good universe or maximally great god to be well defined.

His position has been "a maximally good universe is impossible because universes can improve infinitely, however, there is a definite thing as a maximally great god".

"maximally great gods cannot exist given the view that maximally great universes are shown impossible by universes that can improve infinitely, and that a view of maximal goodness compatible with this notion is not well-defined enough to be meaningful"

You've failed to understand the lines of the debate, and he's clearly contradicted himself by asserting that X+1 is a possible world, and that X is the best choice, as X+1, being possible, is choosable by a being that can actualize any possible world, and it is by definition better than X (think about it, X+1>X is mathematically equivalent to 1>0, a claim true by definition)

This kind of confirms my suspicion that you do not actually read before you respond

You are still assuming that it is incumbent on a maximally great being to do that which you are describing as the logically impossible.

He is not the only one, if the choice of a maximally great being is X, there is not logically possible being to choose x+1. I am not saying that x+1 is a logical impossibility, rather there is no being who could great it, such a being would be impossible. However this does nothing to dispute the claim of the first to be a maximally great being, because, by your own addition, the greater being is logically impossible.

Except I am not.

Except that if the choice of X is arbitrary, then the maximally great being COULD choose X+1. Nothing DETERMINES the choice of X

You are, you just don't understand why.

There is no maximally great choice of x, so all that is incumbent on the being to do is choose from a range of good logically possible worlds. What you are saying is that the choice of a maximally great being cannot be made because it continues on ad infinitum, that whatever choice it makes, it could have made a better choice. But if the maximally great being choses X, which is the best possible decision, it is a logical contradiction suppose a being, greater than a maximally great being who choses x+1.

X isn't a maximally great choice.

Nope, each step of what is being asked is logically possible.

It does not have to be, it merely needs to be the maximally great possible choice. If it is the choice made by a maximally great being, then by definition it is. Your argument fails AG, you just cant accept it. You cannot say it is not a maximally great being if no better choice could be logically possible.

The task maybe, the choice, no; you are equivocating. You cannot improve of the choice of a maximally great being by adding +1. It makes about as much sense as the concept of a married-bachelor. You simply cannot prove anything with your example.