Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

I would would rate all of them above 5 and I would put natural evil at the top of the chart with a 9 out of 10.

You're right about this rating. The problem of natural evil is the hardest in theology.

But natural evil is a by-product of natural laws. And natural laws probably are a necessity in a world suited to free-willed agents.

Necessity truths are universal in all possible worlds and come directly from God's nature and not God's will.

IMHO natural evil is a necessity in a world of free-willed agents. But they are temporary in the lifetime of people and I believe the ultimate God's will is to achieve a greater good. Just like parents submitting their children to painful medical procedures.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

I also think that, if such a loving god exists, then he should be able to forgive my lack of belief, because, I have done nothing to warrant eternal punishment.

In the Catholic view there's what is called invincible ignorance. Ignorance not by lack of education but because there are agents who put some kind of metaphysical blinders. Some of these blinders are the folk Christianity that is very insane. Atheism is valid for a lot of interpretations of Christianity.

And if such deity should deem me worthy of eternal punishment just because I couldn't believe, well ... then such a petty god wouldn't deserve my worship anyway.

Hell is not a punishment. Is a choice. C. S. Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from inside.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Empirical evidence is objective fact.

If you really think this so you're plainly wrong. There's no objectivity without subjectivity. Empirical evidence is produced by the scientific method which in turn is built with metaphysical axioms chose by consensus of subjectivity.

What you call objectivity is a consensus among people who subjectively (through faith) accepts the axioms of the scientific method.

My OP is an observation about all forms of theistic deity.

You have a very strange position about universal applicability. Actually you seem very addicted to the idea of a universal tool. Your analysis its not universal.

I am not objecting to a "philosophical system" I am objecting to claims that theists make about god.

If you're objecting to theism so you're objecting to a philosophical system. I don't understand your denial.

To say that it is necessary is not an answer. Tsunamis are clearly not necessary.

Please read about necessity and contingency in philosophy.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

The persistence of evil. There's no compelling enough reason that an Almighty and all-loving god would tolerate the persistence of evil, natural or caused by free-willed agents.

I mean any individual can only be subject to a finite amount of evil in its temporal lifetime.

And why does god need that humans (again, mediators) explain to other humans why god tolerates evil? Why can't he clearly tell that to everyone, directly?

Are you talking about the God's will or the existence of God?

Why someone choosing to speak through mediators implies its non existence?

The god of the bible doesn't necessarily demands my reason, but clearly demands my faith, or my belief in unsubstantiated claims.

As I said this is just an interpretation. A very crazy interpretation.

Actually, it demands that I chose faith over reason, should both be in conflict.

My position is that is impossible to faith and reason to be in conflict. If they are it means your faith or/and your reason are wrong.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

It begs to be answered why would the god of christianity - heck, ANY god - would require mediation in its dealings with the human beings that the divinity supposedly caused to exist.

No man is an island. But what kind of mediation do you mean?

It begs to be answered why would a deity create lifeforms and gift them with extraordinary intelligence, and then demand that they relate to him by faith.

This is a very strict concept of God. I accept the Catholic concept that states reason is the first requirement (preambula fidei).

It begs to be answered why a god that portrays itself as all-powerful and the apex of love would allow the existence and persistence of evil in any form.

The moral evil is done by free conscious agents. The only problem is natural evil. But there's some explanations about it (necessary and temporary evil to get eternal greater good).

It begs to be answered why such an Almighty and loving god would value his reputation more than the endless suffering of the creatures he supposedly caused to exist.

This is a JW concept (sovereignty).

Turns out that life makes a lot more sense (albeit is much less heart-warming) when god is removed from the equation.

Why? How do you know that?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know.

Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.

You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.

You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.

These are basically the problems in your OP.

Your whole metaphysical position is a mess.

as opposed to your generic apologetics.

My position is not generic. I only defend the Catholic concept of God. Other concepts of God are very contradictory and incomplete IMHO.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?

The answers to those questions are all in the OP

No. They are not.

What you mean by an "objective fact"?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP.

What you mean by "objective fact"? Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?

You have a very poor understanding about epistemology.

Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.
The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.

And you are right! The concept of Jehovah is a caricature of the concept of God.

You're always beating a Sola Scriptura/JW/Pentecostal concept of God.

When you ask theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.

You are changing the subject. Sometimes you talk about a very strict concept of God and sometimes you talk about theism as a whole.

What subject are you talking about?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

And neither should God be measured by your rules of evidence because God is not physical. - fm

The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism. - cofty

A follower of scientism can't accept something is not physical.

Ironically they accept several axioms in mathematics and science. Axioms are metaphysical postulates and are the building blocks of the scientific method.

It's a very contradictory position.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Scientism is also an interesting topic. Science has its limitations but there is nothing in my OP that could even remotely be associated with "scientism".

Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism.

The truth is you're a follower of scientism (in denial). And scientism is a philosophical position, in fact a metaphysical position.

I would like to see your position about the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann