At the end of this section, Matt convinced himself that he won the "thought crime" argument. Sorry. It's ALL the way at the end. This gave Matt a bit of a boost that you'll see in Round 3, if you have the stomach to read it.
Truth told, I did screw up. I reverted to calling him daft when I shouldn't have. I was getting frustrated and I just lost it. That and finals were upon me and I really didn't want to respond to all his drivel. In any event, for your reading pleasure....
•
March 10
Matt Larimer
o Hey man, I saw you updated your profile and added some questions you'd had about God. I was wondering if you've had any of them answered? If not I'd love to do my best, and you could let me know what you think.
•
March 10
Andrew Garber
o I haven't edited the "About me" section of the info tab in years. Feel free to address any of the questions you find there. The problem of evil is a particular favorite of mine.
•
March 10
Matt Larimer
o For me the problem of evil really depends upon whether there would be more good in a universe where there is no evil, or in a universe where some evil is permitted. I think there is far more good in a universe where free beings are given the ability to love and therefore also given the ability to not love. Which leads to the analogy of heat and cold, there is really no such thing as cold just an absence of heat. And I know that the story is often falsely attributed to Albert Einstein, but that doesn't make the truth of it any less potent. There is really no such thing as evil just an absence of good.
So that leaves me with a God who is all good. He creates a universe and beings within the universe made in his image with the ability to choose, create, think, reason, and love. The story of Adam and Eve really relates to the fact that at some point in everyone's life they decide that they know what's best and choose to not trust God. God cannot force us to love him because that would negate free-will and love itself. So instead he chooses to come to earth and in the fullness of time give his life for his creation to draw them back to him and make all things new. I admit that I have struggled with doubt over the years, but I have never struggled with the reality that the gospel is the greatest story ever told.
•
March 10
Matt Larimer
o Don't get me wrong there is great "evil" in the world, which is ultimately an extreme lack of conscience and extreme lack of goodness.
•
March 10
Andrew Garber
o Are you responding to the problem of evil? It sounds like you are arguing for the existence of free will and its implications. That's not what the problem of evil is about. Free will hardly addresses the problem of evil, and I don't think I ever made the argument that free will does not exist, though it is my position.
Here's the problem of evil:
Is god able and/or willing to abolish evil? If he is able and not willing, he is malevolent. If he is willing and not able, he is impotent. If he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?
Try again.
•
March 10
Matt Larimer
o The problem of evil only exists because free will exists. God is able but not willing and is still good because a universe with no evil is not as good as a universe where some evil is permitted.
o Without choice love is not possible. With choice evil is possible.
•
March 10
Andrew Garber
o Ah, I see. You want a malevolent god who is still all good. You think a slightly dirty table is cleaner than a clean table. Interesting.
You are saying that good isn't good without a little evil. That's insane. Is this so with any other set of opposites? Is white whiter when held against black? No, it may appear so only because of an optical illusion. It seems you are being fooled by a similar illusion.
Now, for the time being, I'd like to move away from the question of the existence of free will. For the present argument, I'll grant that it does. Keep in mind however, I'll eventually challenge this position, as I think free will itself is an illusion.
You just mentioned choice and love before I finished this. Love is not a choice. Do you chose who you love? Have you control over those you find attractive? When you chose to find Bill Nye sexy and also choose to find Angelina Jolie unsexy, then you can say love is a choice.
•
March 10
Matt Larimer
o Yes, you absolutely choose who you love. Romantic love is often based on attraction, but love itself is actually the choice to understand someone else's needs and put them above your own. The is why Christians are called to love everyone, including their enemies. We are called to understand other people and put their needs above our own.
•
March 12
Andrew Garber
o Oh, fine. I'll also concede for now that love is a choice. Again, I think this is hogwash, but I want you to actually address the problem of evil instead of dancing around it. I just want to say that I disagree, but I'll concede for now for the sake of this argument. We'll have to come back to the choice of love AND free will later. This is going to take a LONG time......
Now, you were saying that god is able but not willing to abolish evil. You contend this does not make god malevolent. Further, you assert that good gets better with a little evil. Seriously, does any of this even sound rational when it comes back at you?
A little evil.
You must have a very high tolerance for evil. You must think that we need a holocaust every once in a while so we can all thank god for the good he does. A few million starving children ought to show us just how sweet god is. Please. A little evil, indeed.
If your god has a plan, and if everything happens according to his plan, and if your god has the ability to affect the affairs of humans, he is responsible for the horrors humanity witnesses.
Fortunately, god is imaginary, so there are no monsters lurking trying to harm us.
•
March 13
Matt Larimer
o The only way God could have created a world without evil, would have been to create beings without choice. He could have created a bunch of robots that just stood around and sang praises to him 24/7, but in that world love would not exist. He can't make people love him, that's the tragedy and the beauty of this world. And about those starving children, the problem isn't God the problem is us. The people in the US have more than enough money and food to feed the world 10 times over, but we just don't do it. I will take it another step further, the people in church in the US have more than enough money and food to feed the world 10 times over, and throughout the Bible God constantly commands the people to feed the hungry, and we still don't do it. The problem is not God, the problem is us.
•
March 13
Matt Larimer
o I know that I am doing a poor job of conveying these ideas. Have you read any of C.S. Lewis's non-fictional work? He was an atheist who could not understand how a good God could exist with so much evil in the world. But through his friendships with J.R.R Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton and the writings of George MacDonald he saw how joy is not possible without sorrow, and love is not possible without choice.
•
March 13
Andrew Garber
o "The only way God could have created a world without evil, would have been to create beings without choice"
No. Wrong. First, it wouldn't matter if neither you nor I could think of any way that god could have made the world so that choice existed and evil did not. You believe god knows everything, right? Therefore, god would know exactly how to make a world without evil and with choice. But just to drive the stake into your silly argument, consider this:
Let's say the only evil in the world is starvation. Let's say that the choices are: feed people meat and grains and vegetables, feed people only grains and vegetables, feed people meat and grains, or feed people meat and vegetables. Look at all these choices. Starvation solved and the choices are endless. If I can do that with one problem of evil, what stops your god from doing the same for all evil?
The problem does not go away when you try to shift the blame from god to man. The problems only compound for god.
If your god has a plan, and if nothing happens outside his plan, then all evil that happens, large and small, your fault, my fault, Hitler's fault, are all god's responsibility. He made the plan which we execute. He is the ultimate evil, for no evil does not come from him.
Again, this is why it is good news, the atheist's gospel, that god is imaginary. There is no plan, no divine course that we must stay. God isn't here; we are.
I've read CS Lewis, though it has been years. You keep asking me if I'm familiar with christian doctrine and apologetics. I'm a master. Before my apostasy, I was a devout student of christian lore and dogma. I wager I know the bible better than you. This education was one of the first steps I took on my journey of apostasy. Want to know what book I recommend most to people who think they might want to de-convert from christianity? It's the bible.
•
March 14
Matt Larimer
o It's not a silly little argument. It's a topic that the most brilliant men throughout all of history have wrestled with. It seems really arrogant for you to think that you are "a master" and so much wiser than them. I'm not saying you have to believe what they believed, but a least have a little respect for the subject. I keep asking if your familiar with certain authors because they are much wiser than me and I cannot communicate their thoughts as clearly as they can. What books of Lewis's have you read, and did you know he was an atheist converted by Tolkein? Lets take your food analogy for example. God creates two people with free-will and gives them plenty of meat, grains, and vegetables. One of the two is stronger and decides to take the other persons food. What should God do?
•
March 14
Andrew Garber
o The argument is silly, and it wouldn't matter who made it, it would still be silly.
God should make more food. Simple, isn't it?
I don't think you give yourself enough credit. I think you make their arguments just fine. Sure, it may not be as eloquent, but I get the point. It is not you that makes the argument fail. The argument fails all on its own.
•
March 14
Matt Larimer
o Your big hang up with God seems to be the existence of sorrow, despair, calamity, and fear. But I would argue that you would not have any idea what joy was without sorrow, what hope was without despair, what peace was without calamity, and what love was without fear. For these things to exist free beings must be able to meet within a fixed space and that is exactly what this world is. You are angry about these things and that is what your response should be. I believe love is the greatest of all these, and love could not exist with out free-will and consequently the existence of the rest. But that is why the gospel is so great. There must be time for these things to exist, but there will also be a time when God will judge everyone for the decisions they have made. You cannot judge God based on what people do, even people who claim to do things in his name.
•
March 14
Andrew Garber
o Nope. This is actually NOT my biggest hang up with god. It's just the first question I posed in my "about me" section and the one I thought you might want to address first. It's an easy one. And if you are a thoughtful person at all, you will have thought on this to some degree in your life.
You are going to have to demonstrate how the non-existence of an opposite concept negates the remaining concept. Further you will have to demonstrate how, "For these things to exist free beings must be able to meet within a fixed space". How do they cease to exist in endless space? Is that what heaven is like?
•
March 14
Andrew Garber
o "You cannot judge God based on what people do, even people who claim to do things in his name."
I judge the character of god based on the description of his character by his believers and his apparent disregard for humanity. I judge him by the standards he gives, which by his own admission, are faulty.
Why do I say god's standards are faulty? Imagine this:
I'm the coach of a football team. I tell you that you are on the team if you tell me that my son is the greatest football player of all time. You've never seen him play, in fact, you've never met my son in real life. You've only heard about him from members of the team. They say he is indeed the greatest player ever. I go on to tell you that if you don't make the team, whether you try out or not, and don't think my son is the greatest player ever, the members of my team will rip you apart, limb from limb, and burn you alive.
I judge that coach to be flipping nuts, crazy, scary, and stupid. I judge the team to be comprised of misinformed nutbags. How do you judge them?
•
March 14
Matt Larimer
o Okay I'm going to try and go through these one at a time.
"You are going to have to demonstrate how the non-existence of an opposite concept negates the remaining concept."
It doesn't negate the remaining concept, the existence of the opposite only puts the concept in perspective and ultimately makes it what it is.
"How do they cease to exist in endless space? Is that what heaven is like?"
In order for two beings to relate there must be some fixed medium through which they experience reality, process information, and communicate. This requires a fixed space. The bible depicts heaven as a fixed space in which "heaven" descends to earth and God makes a new earth, making new all that which is broken. How that will work I have no idea. I do know that it will be through Christ.
"You've only heard about him from members of the team."
I don't only believe in Christ because I heard about him from other Christians. I was reading the bible, and in the book of Ecclesiastes Solomon talks about the fact that you will never find satisfaction in life through attempting to fulfill your desires. He said that satisfaction in life can only be found in God. I can't explain it, but something supernatural happened as I read those words and God became completely real to me. My life has been completely different from that day.
"I go on to tell you that if you don't make the team, whether you try out or not, and don't think my son is the greatest player ever, the members of my team will rip you apart, limb from limb, and burn you alive."
Again, God cannot force you to love him. God did not send his son as some political game. God sent his son because mankind was ripping each other apart, and they needed an example of how to live life. And truthfully they needed a savior, so the coach actually gave his life for the team. That doesn't make sense to you because you don't think you need a savior, and until you realize that you do it will never make sense.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
- Proverbs 14:12
•
March 14
Andrew Garber
o Right. I bombarded you. My bad. Let's move away from the opposites exist in time and space nonsense. You have no idea what you're trying to do there. I'll just comment on this:
" The bible depicts heaven as a fixed space in which "heaven" descends to earth and God makes a new earth, making new all that which is broken. How that will work I have no idea. I do know that it will be through Christ."
The bible thinks the earth is flat, that it is suspended on pillars, that there are seven crystal rings above us, that one of those rings is heaven. The reason you don't understand how this will happen is because you know more about the solar system than all of the authors of the bible put together and multiplied by 10.
The next paragraph is what I want to rip into, as this IS my primary beef with Christianity.
"Again, God cannot force you to love him."
He sure does try, doesn't he? What else is this salvation game if not a twisted way of forcing people to love god. Imagine I have a gun to your head and say, "Love me or I'll kill you." Explain the free will in that love IF it is given. Explain how it is ethical to demand love in this way.
"God did not send his son as some political game. God sent his son because mankind was ripping each other apart, and they needed an example of how to live life"
Bullshit. Every believer I've ever know will tell me there are plenty of good people in the old testament. They point to Abraham, Solomon, and David. They talk about Moses and Joshua. People understood what a good life looked like without jesus. And if god sent jesus to stop people from ripping each other apart, he has failed worse than if he had never tried.
"And truthfully they needed a savior, so the coach actually gave his life for the team."
The only reason anyone needs saving is because of the threat made by the coach. Get rid of the coach, and no one needs saved. No one needs saved because no one is threatening people with torture.
"That doesn't make sense to you because you don't think you need a savior, and until you realize that you do it will never make sense."
The best savior is rational thinking. God is imaginary. His threats are as potent as the threat you will be attacked by ninja zombie rabbits. He is a figment used to distort reality and control people. The image of god is abhorrent, and when you realize that, you have saved yourself from delusion.
•
March 15
Matt Larimer
o " Explain how it is ethical to demand love in this way."
That is exactly the point, he doesn't demand it he offers it. So you think God should just let people reject his love, and be unspeakably cruel to their fellow man with no consequences?
" Every believer I've ever know will tell me there are plenty of good people in the old testament."
God called Abraham out of the world to prepare a lineage for Christ. If you don't think society as a whole was infinitely more evil thousands of years ago you need to do some research on ancient cultures.
"The only reason anyone needs saving is because of the threat made by the coach."
Yes God does make threats like, "don't love your neighbor and you will be punished." How is that unethical?
"He is a figment used to distort reality and control people."
You are the one being controlled. You have made yourself God and you are a slave to your desires.
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator."
- Romans 1:25
•
March 15
Andrew Garber
o "That is exactly the point, he doesn't demand it he offers it. So you think God should just let people reject his love, and be unspeakably cruel to their fellow man with no consequences?"
No, he demands it. He demands it by threat of force. This is NOT like a "but-one-get-one-free" offer. This is a demand, made with a treat of force. You acknowledge this here:
"Yes God does make threats like, "don't love your neighbor and you will be punished." How is that unethical?"
God ought not need to make threats. This is what terrorists do. They give you demands and threaten torture if you do not comply. If you think this is moral or ethical behavior, you are a sociopath who ought to be locked away for life.
You've alluded to the idea that without god, there would be no consequences for bad behavior. You forget already this conversation began with the assertion that all bad behavior is the consequence of god's malice.
Are we going to start trading bible verses?
•
March 15
Andrew Garber
o And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. -- Genesis 38:7
This is my favorite game.
•
March 15
Matt Larimer
o It really is a simple issue like you keep saying. What is greater good or evil. Good is obviously greater and in the end good will win. But the evil is not a product of God's malice it's a product of his love. He loved so much that he gave us the ability to love as well. It is not God's fault that people choose not to love him and each other. Why do you keep blaming God for peoples decisions? So do you believe punishment for crime is unethical and sociopathic?
In a recent debate Sam Harris said that if someone could know all the consequences of the earthquake in Japan (i.e. increased nuclear safety) it might have actually been a good thing. If someone could know definitely that more lives would be saved than were lost because of this terrible tragedy then we would have to admit that it was actually a good thing. Do you agree? God is the only being who is omniscient and knows all of the outcomes of any possible action. You take bible verses and set yourself up as a judge over God when you have absolutely know idea what the total outcome of each action that God takes is. I have seen other scriptures that you quote as well and you frequently take them out of context. Quoting things that men did as though God demanded it.
I understand your situation the world views a change of mind as weakness. But God sees a recognition of the truth and a change of heart as strength. I am praying that you have the courage to really search inside your heart, recognize the truth, and make the change.
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Who do you think this verse is talking about?
•
March 16
Matt Larimer
o The difference between us is that you think I'm stupid or crazy or both for my beliefs. And I know that you are an intelligent rational person who just has doubts about God.
•
March 16
Andrew Garber
o Nope, again, you just can't be right. I think you are an intelligent person who holds stupid and crazy beliefs for bad reasons. But I don't think your crazy or stupid for holding those crazy, stupid beliefs. I think you have been indoctrinated into them, and have failed to analyze them in a critical light.
Keep trying. You can't always be wrong, can you?
•
March 16
Andrew Garber
o ""But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Who do you think this verse is talking about?"
It sounds like this is talking about a scapegoat. Do you think that a scapegoat is a method used by civilized, ethical people? Aren't scapegoats morally repugnant to you? Is it allowed in our human, flawed, relativistic justice system for people to take the punishments of others?
Pretend I don't know what this verse is talking about. Explain why a scapegoat is morally acceptable to you.
•
March 16
Matt Larimer
o A scapegoat is a person or group which is singled out for blame, not a person who voluntarily takes the punishment for another. A scapegoat is not acceptable to me. You keep talking about how cruel God is for punishing people, but he has to because he is just. But because he is also merciful he voluntarily took our punishment. I know you understand this and I'm not sure why you pretend you don't or why you choose to only look at God as being evil.
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."
- Romans 1:16
•
March 17
Matt Larimer
o So if God should just make more food then you must also think that if God were good he would just appear and solve everyone's problems all the time?
o There is plenty of food on this planet to feed everyone, God HAS made enough food, it is our fault for not sharing it.
•
March 17
Andrew Garber
o "A scapegoat is not acceptable to me."
You think that a person's willing participation makes a scapegoat NOT a scapegoat? Are you serious? You think just because a person WANTS to be tortured for another's transgression, that makes it okay? NO. Imagine this:
Hitler is captured. He stands trial and is sentenced to be executed. His mother, who loves him regardless of his evil, offers to suffer his punishment for him. Hitler wants his mother to take his punishment. His mother is ready and willing to do so. Would the execution of Hitler's mother be the moral, just thing to do? Fuck no. Hell fuck no, and fuck you if you think anyone should lay a finger on his mother. That's not justice. That IS christianity.
"You keep talking about how cruel God is for punishing people, but he has to because he is just."
No, wrong again. God is cruel for allowing the crimes to be committed in the first place. It was god's fault it happened, and the blame rest with him. An all-powerful, all-knowing deity would be able to stop any transgression and allow for your perception of free will. I've already illustrated this.
" I'm not sure why you pretend you don't or why you choose to only look at God as being evil."
You have already admitted your god is able, but unwilling to abolish evil. That makes him malevolent. I don't understand why you want so badly to find a way that makes a malevolent being a loving, caring god. YOU defined your god as evil. I only submitted to you the problem of evil.
"So if God should just make more food then you must also think that if God were good he would just appear and solve everyone's problems all the time?"
Yes. Duh. What is heaven supposed to be like? It would seem to me that god has already done this, according to your beliefs. He meanly withholds it to only those who are willing to ignore evidence and delude themselves with faith.
"There is plenty of food on this planet to feed everyone, God HAS made enough food, it is our fault for not sharing it."
This is insane. You cannot be serious. I'm taking a class right now at ISU regarding poverty, hunger, and the technology required to feed the people of earth. There's more here than just the amount of food. There's irrigation, fertilization, over harvesting, environmental issues, transportation, preservation, etc. etc. People are the ones who are making food more and more available to those who need it. People are the ones creating the technologies to store, maintain, preserve and distribute the meager resources we have. God watches with glee as thousands of children starve every day. Humans try to make that number 0. God isn't here; we are.
Psalms 37:12-13 "The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The LORD shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming."
•
March 18
Matt Larimer
o "Hitler wants his mother to take his punishment."
You seem very concerned about Hitler receiving his punishment or justice being met, but what you don't understand is that in your system there is no justice. Hitler shot himself in a bunker and because there is no after life he was never punished for his crimes. Men and women everywhere commit terrible atrocities and are never caught, so according to you they die and cease to be, how is that just?
"No, wrong again. God is cruel for allowing the crimes to be committed in the first place. It was god's fault it happened, and the blame rest with him. An all-powerful, all-knowing deity would be able to stop any transgression and allow for your perception of free will. I've already illustrated this."
Here is the complete reason for this argument. You presume to know what an all-powerful, all-knowing being can and cannot do. In order to know that you would have to be an all-knowing and all-powerful being. You constantly set yourself up as a judge over God, as though you have the wisdom to do so.
Also, you never did respond to the Sam Harris paragraph and how you can judge God when you don't know all of the consequences of any action.
•
March 18
Andrew Garber
o Matt, you are talking in circles. At the very beginning of this, I said this:
"No. Wrong. First, it wouldn't matter if neither you nor I could think of any way that god could have made the world so that choice existed and evil did not. You believe god knows everything, right? Therefore, god would know exactly how to make a world without evil and with choice. "
Then, I began to show you how even without infinite knowledge, I can do better than god.
I don't always agree with everything Sam Harris has to say. There is no pope of atheism. I didn't respond because it seemed incidental.
•
March 18
Matt Larimer
o " Therefore, god would know exactly how to make a world without evil and with choice."
This clearly violates the law of non-contradiction. You cannot have a being that has choice but also does not have choice.
•
March 18
Andrew Garber
o Are you daft?
•
March 18
Matt Larimer
o Tell me how a person can have choice and not have choice at the same time.
•
March 18
Andrew Garber
o This is the third time I have said this. You still don't get it. Are you daft?
"Let's say the only evil in the world is starvation. Let's say that the choices are: feed people meat and grains and vegetables, feed people only grains and vegetables, feed people meat and grains, or feed people meat and vegetables. Look at all these choices. Starvation solved and the choices are endless. If I can do that with one problem of evil, what stops your god from doing the same for all evil?"
•
March 18
Matt Larimer
o I will pick up this discussion where I think we left off.
" God watches with glee as thousands of children starve every day."
Where do you get that God watches with glee? Yes it is evil that children starve, but God cannot suspend the laws of nature every time something bad is about to happen. Tell me if every person on this planet decided that we should put all the earth's resources towards ending starvation could we do it? I think the answer is yes so how is it still God's fault? You still want to blame God for mankind's choices.
•
March 18
Matt Larimer
o A year long facebook message conversation would take about an hour to have in person. Would you be willing to meet for lunch or coffee some time in the next couple weeks?
•
March 20
Andrew Garber
o Nope. What's the hurry? Do you think your elevator speech will do better than long rants on Facebook?
•
March 20
Andrew Garber
o "...but God cannot suspend the laws of nature every time something bad is about to happen."
Then he not only is unwilling, by your admission, to abolish evil, he is unable.
"Tell me if every person on this planet decided that we should put all the earth's resources towards ending starvation could we do it? I think the answer is yes so how is it still God's fault?"
Every person, vs. one god. All humanity's effort, vs the spoken word of the almighty. It is god's fault we have to make it happen. If god exists, we should not have to do so. The problem should not exist.
This isn't outside your theology. This is heaven, is it not? This isn't something that your god has not already created. Do you think there is free will in heaven? Is there evil in heaven? How does your argument that free will begets evil and good stand in a realm like this? This coexistence of free will and the banishment of evil is already created by your god.
There are more hols in your argument against the problem of evil than a colander, and yet, I fear you will continue to use the same argument over and over again. You are not intellectually honest, or you would admit you never had your position challenged before and now realize the entire argument is flawed. Or you can show how the rebuttal is flawed.
Go ahead. Take all the time you need.
•
March 20
Matt Larimer
o Okay, hypothetical God creates your "heaven" and everyone gets whatever they want whenever they want it. What would that world be like? What kind of person would you be? That would be a world filled with completely selfish, spoiled, and arrogant babies. This world must exist the way it is number one for love to exist, and number two to make people even capable of what God has planned for heaven.
It's not my argument, it's the truth of God, and it's certainly not got any holes. Your grasping at straws at this point and pretending to be intellectually honest because you don't want to be accountable to anyone but yourself. You don't want to rely on anyone for anything, and certainly not a savior. I doubt you will be so arrogant late in life when you are forced to come to grips with your own mortality and even if it's the very last second God will still be there his arms wide open.
"Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you."
- Matthew 20:14
•
March 21
Andrew Garber
o Are you daft?
Do you believe there is a heaven? Do you think there is free will in heaven? Do you think there is evil in heaven? Are the residents of heaven "completely selfish, spoiled, and arrogant babies"?
"It's not my argument, it's the truth of God, and it's certainly not got any holes."
Are you daft?
""Let's say the only evil in the world is starvation. Let's say that the choices are: feed people meat and grains and vegetables, feed people only grains and vegetables, feed people meat and grains, or feed people meat and vegetables. Look at all these choices. Starvation solved and the choices are endless. If I can do that with one problem of evil, what stops your god from doing the same for all evil?""
This marks the fourth time I have presented this to you. You refuse to acknowledge this hole. Try again.
"Your grasping at straws at this point and pretending to be intellectually honest because you don't want to be accountable to anyone but yourself."
Nope. I'm holding your feet to the fire. Your position that "This world must exist the way it is number one for love to exist, and number two to make people even capable of what God has planned for heaven" is silly. I have shown you this with example and analogy. You won't address any of my arguments. You change the subject and duck and cover.
Like this:
" I doubt you will be so arrogant late in life when you are forced to come to grips with your own mortality and even if it's the very last second God will still be there his arms wide open."
I know the conversation is coming to an end when Pascal's Wager makes an appearance. Please. Only fools think the wager is anything more than nonsense.
And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.--Leviticus 15:16
•
March 28
Andrew Garber
o This video goes quite nicely with the conversation we're having.
o
How God Favors Evil
•
March 29
Matt Larimer
o My knee jerk reaction when I read your posts is that you must be crazy (daft). But then I take a second and remind myself that you are an intelligent rational person who is trying to make sense of the world. So please stop asking me if I am daft.
" You won't address any of my arguments."
You keep bringing up this starvation as an example of evil and in almost every post I try to address it so I don't know what your complaining about.
"Do you believe there is a heaven? Do you think there is free will in heaven? Do you think there is evil in heaven? Are the residents of heaven "completely selfish, spoiled, and arrogant babies?"
(Just so we're clear and you don't complain later this is an extension of your starvation argument if you follow it back.)
Yes, there will be a heaven. Yes, there will be free-will in heaven. No, there will not be evil in heaven God will separate all that is good (heaven) and all that is evil (hell). The residents of heaven will not be completely selfish, spoiled, and arrogant babies because people will have lived through this life. That is exactly why this world and life as we know must be this way first.
(Video Response)
This video is unbelievably simplistic and ridiculous. If God were to intervene and stop the situation portrayed he would have to intervene every time something bad was going to happen. On top of that your still blaming God for the evil decisions that the men are making. Either people have free-will or they don't. This all boils down to your misconceptions of love and how powerful it is. Love cannot exist without free choice and in the end love will win, and justice will be met. And to top it all off the pandering of his Hitchens sketch at the end was classic.
•
March 29
Andrew Garber
o My knee jerk reaction when I read your posts is that you are daft. But then, I remind myself that you have obviously not had your world view challenged before and are not willing to pursue what is actually true at the expense of what you find comforting. And while that may not make you daft, it comes really close.
I keep using the starvation example because I think it is a more easily addressed issue than, say, the issue of rape and murder that is presented in the video. I think you have an opportunity to argue for free will in the starvation example that would not exist in the rape or murder scenario, which is why I chose it. Again, I don't think free will exists, but I'm willing to concede the point for the sake of this argument. The starvation example allows for this. Rape and murder eliminate the possibility to argue for free will, and that is why the video uses those examples instead of starvation.
Remember, I was going easy on you when I made the starvation example. You've requested I do not. Which brings me to the video.
"Yes, there will be a heaven. Yes, there will be free-will in heaven. No, there will not be evil in heaven God will separate all that is good (heaven) and all that is evil (hell). The residents of heaven will not be completely selfish, spoiled, and arrogant babies because people will have lived through this life."
"If God were to intervene and stop the situation portrayed he would have to intervene every time something bad was going to happen."
Seriously. You don't see what I'm trying to illustrate here? My argument is on your grounds, not mine. My point is that your position is not coherent. I only turn your examples on you. Why don't you see the problem here?
You state on one hand that free will must be present, and the with free will comes the capacity to choose evil. But if that is true, you must explain how there is the choice to do evil in heaven, and there is no evil in heaven. Further, even if you succeed in doing this (which I doubt), you must then explain why this same scenario cannot be accomplished on earth. You assert it must be that there is free will AND evil on earth WHILE asserting that there is free will WITHOUT evil in heaven. You assert it must be so. I say your position contradicts itself and is self-refuting. Your point of view is incoherent and is bad thinking.
"This all boils down to your misconceptions of love and how powerful it is. Love cannot exist without free choice and in the end love will win, and justice will be met. "
You think that love wins? Did you not see the video refute that point precisely? So what if the rapist goes to hell? So what if he is tortured for eternity? How is that love winning? How is that justice? That is neither love nor justice. It is evil and vengeance. It is disgusting and morally revolting.
You are right about one thing. The video is simple. It's too bad you cannot see how your free will argument is flawed BEFORE I demonstrate to you that free will is an illusion.
•
April 4
Matt Larimer
o "I remind myself that you have obviously not had your world view challenged"
Do you think your the first person I've ever had this conversation with?
"You state on one hand that free will must be present, and the with free will comes the capacity to choose evil. But if that is true, you must explain how there is the choice to do evil in heaven, and there is no evil in heaven. Further, even if you succeed in doing this (which I doubt), you must then explain why this same scenario cannot be accomplished on earth. You assert it must be that there is free will AND evil on earth WHILE asserting that there is free will WITHOUT evil in heaven. You assert it must be so. I say your position contradicts itself and is self-refuting. Your point of view is incoherent and is bad thinking."
You're right I don't know how it will be possible that there will be free-choice without evil in heaven so I won't try and explain it to you. But I do know that it hinges on our experiences in this life and that is why God didn't just create heaven. This is not "bad thinking" it just requires actually thinking about God and not just looking for ways to dismiss him because you don't want him to exist.
Let's take the video as an example. How is your world view more just? If the rapist and murderer are never caught then they will die and never be punished for their actions. How is this more just? And this is where your understanding of God's justice is flawed. They are not punished for raping and murdering only. They are punished for their rejection of God which results in a life time of remorseless evil. What do you think the punishment should be for the rejection of that which is infinitely good, true, beautiful, loving, just, merciful, and gracious?
•
April 5
Andrew Garber
o "Do you think your the first person I've ever had this conversation with? "
Yes. You certainly act like you have never considered opposing arguments. I say this because of bad thinking, like this:
"You're right I don't know how it will be possible that there will be free-choice without evil in heaven so I won't try and explain it to you."
Because you can't. Because by your own premise, this doesn't work. Because if we take all of your assertions up to this point, this is not the logical conclusion, and I think your premise is flawed as well. If this isn't even the logical conclusion, why do you think this is anything BUT bad thinking? Why do you think that mental gymnastics is better?
" And this is where your understanding of God's justice is flawed."
No. This is where god's justice is flawed. I understand just fine. You think this is okay. I find it morally repugnant.
"What do you think the punishment should be for the rejection of that which is infinitely good, true, beautiful, loving, just, merciful, and gracious?"
Nothing. There should be no punishment EVER for thought crime. Only hideous dictators punish thought crime. You should try to be better than the disgusting deity found in the bible.
My world view is more just because in my world, no one is punished for thought crime.
Tell me. Why do you think it is morally permissible to eternally punish thoughts with torture?
•
April 7
Matt Larimer
o Okay before we move on, God does not equal Big Brother. You seem to be mixing science fiction with your understanding of Theology. What dictators do you know that had the ability to know peoples thoughts?
God does not punish for thought crime. You were created to love God and to be loved by him. We get the added bonus of being able to love and be loved by others. God punishes people when they reject love, goodness, truth, beauty, justice, mercy, and grace, and in doing so choose hate, fear, and evil. People can do that with their thoughts as well as their actions.
"You certainly act like you have never considered opposing arguments."
I consider opposing arguments all the time, and I've never heard one that was strong enough to make me reject God. You don't want God to exist, so you don't really attempt to see my point of view and you're left with extremely simplistic, closed minded arguments.
I am really excited to hear how you're going to reveal to me that there is no such thing as free-will.
•
April 8
Andrew Garber
o " What dictators do you know that had the ability to know peoples thoughts?"
None, which makes your god more disgusting than all the evil human dictators of all human history.
"God does not punish for thought crime."
O RLY? What do you call this:
"God punishes people when they reject love, goodness, truth, beauty, justice, mercy, and grace, and in doing so choose hate, fear, and evil."
Let's take an example. Would god reward or punish the following:
There is a man who is a paraplegic. He has no arms, no legs, and cannot move. He is a living vegetable, but his brain is fully functional. In his mind, he commits whatever blasphemy you can imagine. He is an atheist, or an anti-theist, or he believes in god and hates him or whatever.
Are you certain your religion does not say that god punishes thought crime? Did jesus not say that if a man lusts for a woman he has committed adultery in his heart?
Or did he mean that in some context in which he means the exact opposite of what he said?
"I am really excited to hear how you're going to reveal to me that there is no such thing as free-will."
"I consider opposing arguments all the time"
if you actually consider opposing arguments all the time, you would not be excited to hear how I am going to destroy free will. I will present to you the EXACT same argument against free will that has existed since the days of Aquinas.
The reason I take you for a fool is because you present yourself as a fool.
"You don't want God to exist, so you don't really attempt to see my point of view and you're left with extremely simplistic, closed minded arguments."
Nope. I destroy your position without even trying. They seem simple only because I spare you the details and cut you with your own arguments. I need to go no further than your own position to show it is flawed and incoherent. I know. I used to hold the same position. And when I did, I wanted it to be true. But no matter how much I wanted it to be true, it was not.
•
April 8
Matt Larimer
o "None, which makes your god more disgusting than all the evil human dictators of all human history."
So if God, who knows peoples thoughts, punishes someone that is more evil than a dictator, who doesn't know peoples thoughts, punishing them?
Jesus did say that a man who lusts for a woman has committed adultery in his heart. The man rejects that which is good (respecting the woman) and chooses that which is evil (disrespects the woman). I was rejecting your label of thought crime, but if you want to continue calling it thought crime then yes God punishes for thought crime. But let me ask you is it evil to think about raping and murdering people?
"The reason I take you for a fool is because you present yourself as a fool."
"I destroy your position without even trying."
I would like to ask you another question. Why do you reject my requests to meet for coffee or lunch? I can only assume it's because you're much braver sitting behind a computer screen. I love having these conversations with people over coffee because it's much more personal, and you can really get to know the other person. If you'd like to meet some time please let me know. Other wise I can no longer continue to waste time typing a conversation that would take one afternoon to have in person. I really have enjoyed this, and again I would love to meet somewhere (Starbucks, Coffee Grounds, Java Haute). If you aren't willing I would still love to hear your free-will argument.
•
April 9
Andrew Garber
o "So if God, who knows peoples thoughts, punishes someone that is more evil than a dictator, who doesn't know peoples thoughts, punishing them?"
Yes. Do I have to keep repeating myself? Do you think this is ethical? How revolting!!
"But let me ask you is it evil to think about raping and murdering people?"
Nope. This is called fantasy. We have an entire entertainment industry focused on delivering fantasy, and there is nothing wrong with violence and bloodshed in movies, tv, and other entertainment. Thoughts ought not be punishable.
" Why do you reject my requests to meet for coffee or lunch?"
Believe it or not, I'm busy. I go to school, have a family, run a student group and am trying to organize the third secular organization in Terre Haute. I'm busy, and the internet allows me to get to you when I've time.
•
April 9
Matt Larimer
o Just so I get this clear. Let us say, hypothetically, that you have a daughter in kindergarten (which I do). You would be okay with her teacher fantasizing about raping and murdering her?
•
April 9
Andrew Garber
o You must be daft.
•
April 9
Matt Larimer
o This is exactly what you're saying! This is the logical conclusion from your argument. Thoughts are not evil. Don't just tell me I'm crazy, explain to me how I am wrong.
•
April 9
Matt Larimer
o Me: But let me ask you is it evil to think about raping and murdering people?
You: Nope. This is called fantasy.
•
April 12
Matt Larimer
o By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.
- Acts 3:16
•
April 13
Andrew Garber
o Alrighty. Sorry I've been away. Had to host Andrew Seidel from FFRF at ISU's Human Rights Day. It was glorious!! I even got to pimp FFRF on TV on good friday. Heh. Didn't even plan that.
There seems to be some weird christian thing that says that you cannot make a moral judgement without attaching some maniacal punishment or reward to it. Now, if you can't get around that, then I suppose I will concede your point for now. In the end, it doesn't matter.
So I concede. You're right. So what? What punishment would you assign to a teacher fantasizing about raping your child?
1 Corinthians 11:13 "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Still playing this game, eh?
•
April 13
Matt Larimer
o I can play this game as long as you want to. My question for you is are all these verses what is really keeping you from accepting God?
You think you are progressive, enlightened, intellectual, or whatever; when the reality is you've traded the truth of God in for a lie. This "thought crime" was only a small example of the fact that you don't fully understand what justice is, what love is, or what truth is. And the reason you don't fully understand is because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that these things do not come from people, they come from God.
•
April 13
Matt Larimer
o Just to be clear I don't fully understand them either, but I believe faith in God gives us a better understanding.
•
April 13
Andrew Garber
o Nope. The verses I quote are simply an illustration that you can use the bible to support ANY position, even contradictory ones. Indeed, we see this happen often. So often in fact, it is a mystery to me why anyone would think this is the inspired word of god. If that were true, god is an idiot.
You think you are progressive, enlightened, intellectual, or whatever; when the reality is you've taken a lie and called it the truth of God. This "thought crime" was only a small example of the fact that you don't fully understand what justice is, what love is, or what truth is. (You never answered the question.) And the reason you don't fully understand is because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that these things do not come from god, they come from people.
And to be clear, faith only lets you assert understanding. It does not grant it.
•
April 13
Matt Larimer
o "There seems to be some weird christian thing that says that you cannot make a moral judgement without attaching some maniacal punishment or reward to it."
Wow, this is called justice, and it's not just a "christian thing."
"So I concede. You're right. So what? What punishment would you assign to a teacher fantasizing about raping your child?"
Well first and foremost would be ensuring that they are not allowed to teach children.
"Nope. The verses I quote are simply an illustration that you can use the bible to support ANY position, even contradictory ones."
I actually agree with you about this. Every form of communication must be conceived, sent, received, and interpreted. This is true with any and all forms of communication, not just the bible. The problem is you've listened to people who have either misinterpreted it or interpreted it correctly and you just didn't like it. Then you reject the truth because it makes you uncomfortable.
No comments:
Post a Comment