What is the purpose of life? (page 25)

John_Mann

The debate is not between two sorts of evidence - it is between evidence and faith. There is no contest.

I can assure you that I'm not interested in a contest of this kind.

Actually the Catholic Church is officially interested in a dialogue with Atheism. Because Atheism is really valid to a lot of concepts of God.

Sola Scriptura interpretation of Bible is considered a heresy to CC and is responsible for a lot of distorted concepts of God. The concept of Jehovah by JW's is an aberration. I'm an atheist to this concept of God.

Sometimes I think atheists here only consider the JW or the pentecostal concept of God.

But what's the point to use Atheism towards concepts from Buddhism or ancient concepts of God like Brahma?

Clearly there's concepts of God that modern Atheism doesn't apply.

What's the point to argue with evolution to religions that accept evolution entirely like Catholicism and Buddhism?

Clearly there's a lot of harmful things in JWism like shunning and refusal of blood transfusions. But if someday they abolish these doctrines they would become harmless IMHO. They would be just a group with crazy ideas about science and theology, nothing more.

But what really is so harmful in traditional Christianity, like Catholicism or Lutheranism, for example?

Atheists and theists have ideological enemies in common, like Nihilism.

Nihilism says life can't be meaningful by any way so the only thing to do is dive in a radical Hedonism and Cultural Relativism. And this thought is really dangerous to society.

Atheists and theists are both existencialists, they're opposed to Nihilism. Both think life can have meaning.

Atheists say you alone can build a meaning for life and they advise for a good and peaceful meaning. Atheists want to be good people, this is a fact.

Theists say that life has a meaning already set by God.

nicolaou

Looter: How about the fact that you and I and billions are actually alive and well on this Earth today without harm and are sufficient?

Your absolute denial of reality is staggering! They must be maximum strength, industrial grade rose tinted spectacles that you're wearing.

Should've gone to Specsavers.

The Rebel

going back before my grandparents I know nothing about generation after generation of ancestors, except presumably they lived and died. Anyway we too will dissolve and one day leave nothing behind, not even a trace of the posts we made here will remain. So keep posting its maybe not so much asking the question " what is the purpose in life? that is important, but " having a purpose in life that's important"

A Ha

Slim -
1. No solution exists.
2. A solution exists but we have not yet, or may never find it.
It is only husbris, or wishful thinking, that says 1 must be true and 2 cannot be the explanation.
Unless you know some good reason why 1 must be true and 2 can definitely be discounted.

A half-dozen reasons jumped out at me while skimming the thread.

By using analogies like solving a "maths problem," you're mis-characterizing the PoE. PoE isn't "looking for a solution," it's offering an answer. As you say, it's making a claim about a specific conception of God.

When your response to a logical argument isn't to challenge the validity or soundness of the argument, but to say "there might be a solution that nobody has thought of," you haven't defeated the argument, you've admitted that it's a good argument!

What is being claimed here is that the inability of humans to find a solution to the problem of evil therefore disproves the existence of the God of the Bible.

No, this isn't what's being claimed. What's being claimed is that the concept of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with the world we observe. The argument doesn't claim to succeed because of a "lack of a solution;" it is the solution.

It isn't

1) no solution exists, or;
2) maybe there is a solution that we're unaware of.

It's

The premises of the PoE are both correct and the conclusion follows, or;
One or both of the premises are wrong, or;
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You seem to be attacking the first premise, but to do so you must ignore a main theme of the Bible--that of God's revelation of Himself to mankind.

If you claim that God is Good then you're admitting that His personality is discernible, at least in part. The PoE proponent also says God's personality is discernible, and that it is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent.

I no longer believe that the Bible is consistent with itself. So I won't argue that there are parts of the Bible that claim God has revealed himself in various ways, especially Jesus...

You're proof-texting. If you're going to blatantly ignore scriptures that are inconvenient to you, then the argument is not aimed at you. It's aimed at people who are willing to consider all of the evidence.

Your position seems blindingly self-serving. I would find it nearly impossible to believe that you are consistent in which scriptures you accept and which you reject. If you were walking down the street and a little child said, "Mister, do you think God is good or evil?" I do not believe you would say, "Dunno. He's inscrutable. Could be Good. Could be Evil." No, I'm certain you would claim God is Good, and would likely use the same scriptures Cofty quoted as evidence.

For reference, we can list the PoE as (per wikipedia):

If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

cofty

Excellent analysis A Ha.

The one thing I would add is that my argument is very specifically about "natural evil". In other words suffering that is not a result of human action but which occurs as a direct consequence of the way god designed the world.

I am also defining god as the god of the bible, the god and father of Jesus.

cofty

Communion with God. - Fisherman

Then how do you explain the hiddenness of god?

John_Mann

Then how do you explain the hiddenness of god?

Liberty.

We are in a time of test. Our lifetimes here on earth will show if we freely want to live with God or not.

This choice can only be made while we are alive. After death your intentions throughout your life will be fixed in your soul forever with no turning back.

Why no turning back? The free will our souls possess will be over in Heaven? No second chances after death?

Yes.

Why?

Because if you are confronted with two extreme unequal choices you lose your ability to freely choose. After death you will be able to see God and his reality in all his Glory. That would be the equivalent of a choice between receiving for free a marble and gold palace or a piece of chalk.

You can't use your freedom of choice in a situation like that. So God indeed intentionally hides His total Glory (reveals indirectly only a very little fraction of it) from us in this period in our lives.

That's why we say a man cannot see the Glory of God without dying. A man without its total freedom of choice is not a man anymore.

Freedom of choice needs total privacy too, that's why your mental intentions cannot be read by anyone. You have total privacy about your deepest thoughts/intentions.

You can change your intention as you wish while alive, you even can change it in your last breath. After that your will/intention will be fixed forever in your soul.

cofty

Not one single word you have just typed addresses my question about the hiddenness of god.

John_Mann

Not one single word you have just typed addresses my question about the hiddenness of god.

It's the best answer I know.

What is the purpose of life?

Share this