Professor Garret Merriam argues that if God exists, then we can’t be moral. In other words, we can only be moral if morality is not grounded in God’s existence. This is a reversal of the moral argument for God’s existence. It’s a moral argument against God’s existence.
Like many new atheists, Merriam argues that the Christian God commands and commits evil, so if morality is rooted in God and our moral duties are based on God’s commands, morality is impossible. I don’t accept the premise that God commands or commits evil, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument. Does his conclusion follow? No.
If moral truths and duties are grounded in an evil god, how could one ever judge those truths/commands to be evil? To do so would require that one appeal to moral truths that are grounded in something or someone other than God, and that differ from the moral truths grounded in God’s nature. But a few things follow from this. First, to make this move is to repudiate the very view Merriam is critiquing. He is critiquing the view that God grounds morality. If there is another source of morality that stands above God, then it’s not true that God grounds morality. Morality is grounded in the other non-God source. This would be the ultimate bait-and-switch.
Secondly, if there is more than one source of moral truth, and the non-God source is truly good, then it’s false to say humans could not be moral if God exists. To be moral all we would need to do is follow the moral truths of the non-God source and ignore God’s moral claims.
Thirdly, if there are two sources for morality and the moral truths/commands of each source conflict at points, how does one decide which one is truly moral? If God commands genocide but the other source of moral truth condemns it, why would one assume that God’s command is immoral and the contrary moral command is good? What is the criterion for deciding which source of morality is truly morally good?
As I noted earlier, to judge God’s character, acts, and commands as evil one must appeal to a moral standard that exists beyond God. Where does this standard of morality that stands above God as His judge come from? There are only two options: human minds, some transcendent source.
If the moral standard is one that originates with human beings, then it is mere opinion, preference, or convention. It is an invention of the human mind. How can a subjective, human invention be used as an objective basis for judging God’s behavior and commands? That’s like saying, “God is evil because I don’t like carrots.” Why should anyone care what your preferences are, yet alone God?
In order for Merriam’s moral standard to be objective and binding, it must have a source that transcends human minds. That source cannot be God according to the professor, so what is it? Morals don’t just hang in mid-air.
Merriam does not identity his source of moral truths in his presentation, but he does seem to be a moral realist (moral truths are real, not just human conventions). But it’s one thing to believe in moral truths and a wholly other thing to ground those moral truths. Unless Merriam can ground the morals he uses to judge God by in some source that transcends humans, he has no right to use those morals to evaluate God’s morality and judge Him as evil. Well, at least he has no right to expect anyone else to take his criticism seriously.
Thinking to Believe 
March 25, 2015 at 11:34 am
Why can not morals be the equivalent of; say, maternal instinct as a mother hens protects her chicks by covering them with her wings. This parallel was used by Jesus when lamenting “Oh Jerusalem…………..How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
The Law as written by Moses regarding the ten commandments, were they not developed because of actions within society which Moses reasearched to determine the top ten reasons that people died prematurely of inflicted trauma from the affected parties? The first four reasons he listed that were capital offenses were merely religious decrees by religious men and we know those were arbitrary religious laws dictated by religious men, Blasphemy keeping the Sabbath; for eample, while the remaining six reflected the natural reactions as they are today, if you steal, commit adultery, kill, covet beware that your fellow man may take the law into his own hands or the State whci still may hold capital punishment as the penalty.
Moses may have credited “God” for the Commandments but it was his own research that showed the Top Ten Reasons what may happen of you break the laws as demonstrated by the stats of those days. It was an exercise of that time to put into writing what the research showed.
Laws change over time to reflect society’s evolution; religon never wants to change on the pain of having to admit that they were wrong before the change like eating meat on Friday was forbidden and restaurant menus still reflect those archaic religious laws.
LikeLike
March 25, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Great points Jason…
Problems with arguments always lay in the premise. One has to articulate properly what one is judging. To say God is immoral one has to understand, or have a right perception, of what one judges about God as being an accurate pretrial of him. In other words, one must see things truthfully to conclude a moral judgment, and if not, their moral judgment becomes unjust. If God is loving and just, then one must understand God’s nature and purposes. One must attribute to God what He actually does and what he does not do. This requires scholarship and understanding of the so called “crime scene” that is being judged by man. Judgments by some “armchair scholars”, who do not understand Hebrew or many of the Middle Eastern languages, have no idea what they are judging. For example, a friend of mine is a Hebrew scholar, Dr Joseph Colson; he had to learn 13 other languages to understand Hebrew properly. There are nuances in languages (thoughts and understanding) that the one who just sits down to read the Old Testament off the cuff making, making uneducated judgments of events, is actually an unjust judge. Most would cry “foul” if we were treated like this. Yet the uneducated atheist gets to make such claims about which he has little understanding. A good example for many to follow is when you have Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, an Astrophysicist at NASA, who works with the findings of the Hubble telescope, talks both about science and faith, about God and redemption, one who understands the Old Testament from a scholars perspective, can make an educated judgment on matters of God and morals. It would be nice for the Atheist to make arguments that actually address the Biblical topics from an educated view point, using the same criteria they expect from their scientific friends.
So when we read Sam Harris (Atheist author) making statements that the God of Christianity has a person offering themselves to die a bloody sacrifice, has no understanding at all of what he is saying or inferring. Yet he stands at a podium benefiting, from a health perspective, of many years of animal sacrifices that lead to vaccines that no doubt has furthered his life and the health of his family. We call this medial science. Early on people volunteered to test vaccines on themselves, risking their lives that others may live. From a spiritual (moral/ethical) view point God has justly acted in redemption if one cares to understand it as we understand it in the human experience of everyday life. All I ask is from the Atheist is to understand what they are talking about before they judge.
LikeLike
March 25, 2015 at 5:18 pm
dgjesdal:
“Yet the uneducated atheist gets to make such claims about which he has little understanding.”
That’s a pretty sweeping statement but what gives you the auhtority to say that? How do you know what you are talking about. I submit you do not. How do you make judgment about what constitutes an educated or uneducated atheist; in fact, what constitutes an educated or uneducated Christian in your mind? If you think knowing the bible textually is key, but context is not so easily lost in a paragraph or a chapter.
You make things sound as though only a few religious scholars can understand scripture but scripture is not so complicated as you say; most atheists know the bible more than Christians, did you know that?
For example; Deut 23:13 And you shall have a paddle or shovel among your weapons, and when you sit down outside [to relieve yourself], you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up what has come from you.
14 For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you. Therefore shall your camp be holy, that He may see nothing indecent among you and turn away from you.”
Now tell me the scholarly logic says God walks in the middle of your camp and does not want to see your refuse after you take a crap?
Ezekiel 5: 8-10 “Therefore this is what God, the Master, says: I’m setting myself against you—yes, against you, Jerusalem. I’m going to punish you in full sight of the nations. Because of your disgusting no-god idols, I’m going to do something to you that I’ve never done before and will never do again: turn families into cannibals—parents eating children, children eating parents! Punishment indeed. And whoever’s left over I’ll throw to the winds.
11-12 “Therefore, as sure as I am the living God—Decree of God, the Master—because you’ve polluted my Sanctuary with your obscenities and disgusting no-god idols, I’m pulling out. Not an ounce of pity will I show you. A third of your people will die of either disease or hunger inside the city, a third will be killed outside the city, and a third will be thrown to the winds and chased by killers.
13 “Only then will I calm down and let my anger cool. Then you’ll know that I was serious about this all along, that I’m a jealous God and not to be trifled with.
14-15 “When I get done with you, you’ll be a pile of rubble. Nations who walk by will make coarse jokes. When I finish my angry punishment and searing rebukes, you’ll be reduced to an object of ridicule and mockery, turned into a horror story circulating among the surrounding nations. I, God, have spoken.
16-17 “When I shoot my lethal famine arrows at you, I’ll shoot to kill. Then I’ll step up the famine and cut off food supplies. Famine and more famine—and then I’ll send in the wild animals to finish off your children. Epidemic disease, unrestrained murder, death—and I will have sent it! I, God, have spoken.”
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! (found only in Leo The Truth Fairy’s translation) Can you tell me how the morality of Ezekiel’s writings demonstrates morality of this God you defend?
And now take a sampling from Jesus who came out of the Atheist closet to Set mankind free from the tyranny of religon and religious scholars. How long was Jesus pursued unto death by the religious scholars he humiliated with his no nonsense interpretation. Like 3 years until the religious scholars, the Scribes and the Pharisees who knew everything as you continue to state today but who knew nothing except how to interpret the scriptures to perpetuate the fraud and myths they created to augment their power and financial security.
Here is a brief scenario as it unfolded in the life of Jesus the Atheist: Scripturally referenced, scripturally sound and it needs nothing from religious scholars to understand the plain words every Christian and Atheist can read for themselves including you if you care to understand the simplicity in Jesus.
TO FREE MANKIND FROM THE TYRANNY OF RELIGION:
THE JESUS CAMPAIGN BEGINS: LK 4:16-30; THE INDICTMENT OF RELIGION AND THE RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS: MT 23; THE RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS’ REACTION: JN 7:1
BEWARE: “The (religious) world cannot hate you, it hates me because
I testify of it that its works are evil. Jn 7:7
JESUiS EVERYMAN
Was Jesus a religious scholar? Did he come back from this University and that University with Degrees in the Unknowable; did he have to learn 13 other languages to understand Hebrew properly, as your friend Dr Joseph Colson?
The Corporate RELIGIOUS Collective serves only ITSELF & has no real life of ITS OWN. ITS minions, proxies and proselytes, are like robots of Protocol without discretionary insight or common sense. “IT” has no innate capacity for moral or ethical action of independent volition & has no capacity to respond truthfully to the moral & ethical concerns of real human beings. To the CORPORATE RELIGIOUS COLLECTIVE, the people are viewed as inventory to be managed and cattle to be prodded.
Tell me what part of Religion, Church, Clergy, Rituals, Jesus loved! Or was a member of? NONE! Jesus was an atheist who came out of the proverbial “closet” and the religiously insane of his day sought to imprison him, throw him over cliffs, stone him, whip him, beat him, mock him and crucify him, which is no different than religious fundmentalists do today to atheists and gays alike.
I know I cannot convince anyone through logic or reason because most minds are made up by indoctrination of the values of the religious society they are born into, too dogmatic to be easily persuaded; that’s the nature of the tyranny of religion and the very reason that Jesus said of you and your kind:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted,to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind (blinded by clergy and religious insanity) to set at liberty those who are oppressed;to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Jesus is none of the things said of him in churches by preachers, pastors, priests and popes. Indeed Jesus ws no scholar niggler over prepositions.
LikeLike
March 25, 2015 at 9:22 pm
Sonofman,
“Now tell me the scholarly logic says God walks in the middle of your camp and does not want to see your refuse after you take a crap?”
You are kind of proving my point with these soft balls. My point in all of this is… know what you are talking about. If I’m going to object to the notion of how a star is made because it “sounds farfetched” when it is described by an astrophysicist, I better know physics enough to object intelligently. To object to the standard laws of physics one better do so intelligently, and not be some armchair astrophysicist wana-be embarrassing them self’s. The same goes with the scriptures, or any other written literature from another language and culture.
If you are an outdoorsman you would realize the seriousness of this text. Read this book.
Ezekiel 5: 8-17, HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! (found only in Leo The Truth Fairy’s translation) Can you tell me how the morality of Ezekiel’s writings demonstrates morality of this God you defend?
This is a reference to how Jerusalem came under siege and was captured by the Babylonians. God foretelling of events that will take place is not immoral. If I tell my Son NOT to drive the car fast around the corner, for if he does, the car will roll over and decapitate him, this does not make me an evil Dad by telling him what will happen. All God is saying through Ezekiel is that because of Israel’s behavior He will pull his protection that allows Babylon to invade and describes what will take place. Just like my Son, he is protected by listening to me. He falls out from under my protection if he decides to fly around the deadly corner at a high speed. This is the same cause and effect principle God is illustrating.
My friend Joseph Colson is a Hebrew scholar, and actually was one of the translatosr of this Ezekiel text in the NLT. This is why I said what I said. You can’t sit down and read, through eyes of a smart ass, literature from other cultures not knowing important details. You miss the nuances of their language and how they write and communicate. This just simply shows the desperation of Israel. Ezekiel was a young man, a priest in training, when Jerusalem was under siege and Israel dragged to Babylon. Ezekiel is referencing Leviticus –another text. This kind of behavior is not far fetches and was recorded by Josephus, WARS of the Jews, book vii., chap. ii. This reference gives us a particular instance in dreadful detail of a woman named Mary, who, in the extremity of the famine during the siege (Roman 69-70 AD), killed her sucking child, roasted, and had eaten part of it when discovered by the soldiers!
All you did is prove my point. You have no idea what you are talking about.
LikeLike
March 25, 2015 at 10:46 pm
sonofman,
Thank you for proving my point.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 12:48 am
Sorry Dane:
I have no idea what point you are talking about. Your Post # 4 is writing “in tongues”; if the reader can’t understand your writing, it is babble. You lose whatever point of argument you are trying to make, alone on your island.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 6:22 am
dgjesdal , excellent post ! I agree with you.
There still are some good posts on this blog if you could ignore the background noise of trolls ……….
Naz
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 8:45 am
The background noise would be easier to ignore if certain posters would quit feeding that noise. 🙂
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 9:21 am
Ha ha Naz:
Finally you have someone with whom you can agree. I am pleased it took an Atheist to bring you together after all this time. May you live happily ever after in your new found bliss posting to each other.
BUT Putting a fool in a place of honor
is like setting a mud brick on a marble column.
Nevertheless you won’t have to bother me anymore (which Naz has promised several times already but failed to find any stimulation within his own sense of nonsense group and keeps coming back for more education.) Now he can stop progressing.
But I am pleased that you have come around to seeing it Jesus’ way and my way: that the Father within is the only real entity there is to know; at least you have gleaned that much from my writings and that’s encouraging.
To babble like a goat is to babble still but together with another is so much more comfortable when your brain is not required to do any thinking.
Dreamers fantasize their self-importance;
they think they are smarter
than a whole college faculty.
I mean I can understand why people are drawn to scripture and to religion because it’s so easy and convenient. It’s all laid out for you, all the thinking you’ll ever need has already been done. You don’t have to lift a single brain cell. That’s so convenient. It’s almost modern. All you need to do, and Naz you do it so well, repeat scripture, that’s all, you don’t need to understand it or know what you’re talking about, done and finished and all you had to do was repeat what somebody else wrote when they had “Magic” for “Miracles” when they had rocks to carve into before papyrus. It’s the Neuronic Dumbbell Solution, the BOOK to build strong neuron muscles to flex like a mad man casting firebrands, arrows, and death at non believers.
Smooth talk from an evil heart
is like glaze on cracked pottery.
Your enemy shakes hands and greets you like an old friend,
all the while conniving against you.
When he speaks warmly to you, don’t believe him for a minute;
he’s just waiting for the chance to rip you off.
No matter how cunningly he conceals his malice,
eventually his evil will be exposed in public.
ha ha Naz. Have a nice eternity. Are you there yet? Can you see it? NO? Keep searching you just might trip and wake up one day and realize that wet noodles cannot stand straight when saturated.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 9:30 am
Welcome Scalia:
Indeed! Wow! Three peas in a pod: 3 Musketeers, 3 God Guerillas. With one voice: Come out NOW all ye whose time is short, the Noise will convict you: Scalia, Naz, Dane,
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 9:53 am
Sonofman,
Subterfuge is your tactic. All you did was prove my point that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do some study using scholary references. Dr. NT Wright would be a good source. You make an observation with no attempt at finding what is actually meant by the original language and culture. It would be like me mocking how a star forms when I have no idea of the physics behind how it is formed. You are embarrassing yourself and you don’t even realize it. Just like the reference on how to take a crap, or the references in Ezekiel. You are embarrassing yourself. This is not some 101 college course on reading Little House on the Prairie and making application. The Scriptures are real languages, real cultures, and real people. They deserve to be understood by what they mean and for us to understand and do our best in doing so. It is not up to you to impose yourself onto the text by using your Balck Helicopter cover up Grassy Knoll someone’s drinking the Kool-Aid mindless approach.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 10:14 am
Dane:
I am not embarrassed anymore than Jesus was embarrassed by your ancestors telling him he was a blasphemer, a drunk and a glutton because how Jesus interpreted scripture is the same way I interpret scripture, with common sense especially taking into account culture, people and tradition, not because of some supernatural God pilot in the northern sky.
That’s why Christians still think that Ham’s curse was the result of Ham seeing his father naked or some homosexual encounter, why they can’t undertsnad how Moses lead the people 24/7 day and night, hiow the waters of the sea are parted, the furious conspiracies about 666, dead people being raised from the dead, why miracles were nothing but magic tricks, how the multitudes of thousands were fed and on and on my perceptions of these events is perfectly interpreted and the reason that supernaturalism is a hoax, religion is a fraud and the Gods are illusions. And if you can’t see that, you are not really looking.
When I quote text it is because I understand it and can use common sense like Jesus. Just because the religious brainwashing technics has most of the world in thrall doesn’t mean it is any less deceitful in its communication. When Jesus indicted religion and the clergy he was talking about the same things as I am talking about. You can believe the hoaxes all you want but no matter how much you believe, it still doesn’t make it true. Tell mo one scripture I ever quoted without understanding the meaning. Can you name one?
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 10:55 am
dgjesdal:
Ezekiel referring to taking a crap has nothing to do with seige or capture or god fortelling anything. Total nonsense. All this scripture is doing is promoting hygiene and using the supernatural God myth to scare the soldiers into thinking that God would punish them if they don’t obey the orders…….well I suppose it makes sense to use something to make the people obey…..but it doesn’t give any credence to the concept they scared people with anymore than the threat to children to be good or Santa will not bring them the presents they want.
Please don’t compare Bible literature with Science of star formation; that’s like comparing physics to palmistry.
Look I quote the bible a lot but I do not quote the bible with any reference to the supernatural that just does not exist or the concept myths attached to it, nor do miracles ever happen. I am not nitpicking prepositions if a text means in, about, on, into. It’s like the nigglers who spin the walking “on” water miracle when the text can easily be used to say that Jesus walked “in” water, instead of “on” water but of course the walking “on” water is so much more compelling to the believer who has a supernatural propensity because of a lifetime of brainwashing by religion.
Nobody fortells the future, no prophet, no god, no psychic but I will grant you that people do predict the trends. John accurately predicted the trend of the Money Syndrome, how money was the beast and would continue to be the beast and eventually the god that controlled all the people on earth. So yes people can predict trends and even Leonardo Da Vinci made an airplane and the first airplanes mimics the flapping wings of birds before science discovered the wind and lift principles.
When you talk about God fortelling the future, that is an embarrassing position to risk your credibility because it doesn’t happen with anymore accuracy than the prediction who will win the US Presidential election on 2016 or speculating how the Airbus crashed in the French Alps but with the flight recorder found and analyzed, what happened is being pieced together not through God or the wannabe messenger prophets but through technology based on science not on seance. Now it is revealed that the co-pilot was a “deranged believer” and deliberately crashed the plan after he locked the pilot out of the cockpit when he went into the cabin area to use the lavatory, for example.
PS by saying the co-pilot was “deranged believer” I do not imply and you should not infer that I mean a Christian or a religious believer, necessarily but whatever belief his mind was operating on was deranged. And there was no God to intervene.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 11:30 am
You never run out of rope do you? Keep going. It is entertaining.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm
You presuppose there is no God, therefore you are required to hold your view of all events and clouds your view.
I do not believe in supernatural. All things God does is natural to his Laws. Even Physics may view something as “super” but this is because they can’t explain it. What if in physics they are able to control water in the future? Just because it appears “super” in scripture doesn’t mean it is super to a God who has made a finely tunes universe. In a 13.7 billion year universe you think what we know has the answers in the last 200 years?
Raising the dead is hardly unbelievable for a God who made the universe and brought life in the first place.
Explain to me how matter came from nothing? How supernatural is that? Don’t dodge to question. Answer it. Or will I get more subterfuge?
There are wackos everywhere. 666 simply is a mark given by John for Nero. If you understood understanding apocalyptic literature and Hebraic syntax 6 is an imperfect number. When a word or number is repeated it adds intensity. Nero is evil.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Dane:
Who is saying that matter came from nothing? Not me. That’s the Creationist view; that something came from nothing, it is not my view. And who says the Universe is 13.7 billion years old? not me. The 13.7/13.8 billion is merely the extent to which technology allows man to look into space as far as possible and the presumed age is based on assumptions which themselves may be or not be accurate, the the whole house of cards need to be recaluclated. As of 2013, using the latest models for stellar evolution, the estimated age of the oldest known star is 14.46±0.8 billion years. It seems to me that if the oldest star in the universe is caculated as 14.46 billion then does it mean that that star existed before the universe existed was created or big banged into existence? How smart is that logic?
More recently, in February 2015, an alternative view to extend the Big Bang model was presented that suggests the Universe had no beginning or singularity and that the age of the Universe may be infinite.
666 has absolutely nothing to do with Nero; as a matter of fact 666 is not a Mark , it is a number; the Mark is something different and the name is something different again but they all refer to the exact same thing. The bible provides the answer to what 666 refers to and how it operates which gives clues to be able to extrapolate the Name and The Mark (of the Beast) It’s like the Triune Godhead. three in one Number, Name and Mark simple, logical and for sure in knowledge.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Dane:
You said: “You presuppose there is no God, therefore you are required to hold your view of all events and clouds your view.” Now let me turn that to you:
“You presuppose there is a God, therefore you are required to hold your view of all events and clouds your view.”
Any difference?
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 1:19 pm
I’m breaking out the popcorn….keep going…..
Naz
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Again sonofman you can’t seem to get the point. The point was that unless you know what you are talking about from an informed and studied knowledgable point of view you should not be talking about it, let alone critiquing in criticizing. And it’s quite obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about. It does not matter if You are talking about physics, chemistry, literature, archaeology, or science in general. In less you know what you’re talking about you shouldn’t be talking about it. Imposing your self and your ideas into historical literature is a pedestrian community college 101 bookclub approach. Make an honest attempt at reading scholarship then share from an educated point of view. Nobody really cares about your opinion. Everybody has one it’s not original.
Back to the point. Many atheists have no idea what they are talking about. They make criticisms about their observations not understanding various forms of literature culture people groups and so on. If Christianity is the enemy to the atheist, then know thy enemy. Know what the Christian doctrine believes about the atonement, about sin, about God, about death, about miracles, about Jesus. I’m not saying to except it, but at least understand and know it. The potshots that most atheists have made or not grounded logically and Christian doctrine. Most atheists mess their theological diapers because they’re unwilling to comprehend or understand basic fundamental Christian doctrine.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 3:22 pm
Again you go chasing rabbits. 666 for some end times people want to scare people – I dont agree with that. The beast, the The whore of Babylon, all pertain to the Roman system that was persecuting the church. The number of the beast is 666. The mark that people take deal with what they do (hand) and what they believe (forehead). These are all references back to Old Testament Scripture. The book of Revelation is written in apocalyptic format. This is an actual form of literature. There many other apocalyptic writings – it is a literary form used during that time, you have to read it to understand it and how it uses words.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 3:51 pm
Professor Mirriam’s argument is not new. In a nutshell he is saying the same thing countless other atheists have said: that it is logically impossible for an omnipotent, all loving God to allow evil and since we certainly have evil, there is no omnipotent, all loving God. We Christians should admit the strength of that argument. It is quite straight forward and logical, but it is a linear argument that does not factor in free will. One must realize that if there is no free will, other than God’s own free will, then Mirriam’s argument is logically unassailable. Alvin Plantinga is one of the modern philosophers who has proved it is logically possible, if free will exists, for an omnipotent, all loving God to exist. In essence, the bottom line is that greater good will ultimately result. Rather like the tough love argument of allowing a child to go astray so he will learn his lessons and return a better person (Prodigal son.) Plantinga’s argument is subtle, complex and difficult, but brilliant. Google Logical Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga or http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 4:55 pm
You said: “You presuppose there is no God, therefore you are required to hold your view of all events and clouds your view.”
Sonofman says…
Now let me turn that to you:
“You presuppose there is a God, therefore you are required to hold your view of all events and clouds your view.”
Here is the Difference and I hope you can follow this and appreciate it. If I was commenting on Atheist Ethics, and read Sam Harris’ book on Ethics, I would need to read his book and try to understand him from his perspective. I can’t infer into his writings “God”. I need to understand his doctrine of ethics from a pure chemical foundation. I know he does not agree with free will. So when He writes and talks I need to get it right. When he talks about “love” it is a pure chemical reaction that has nothing to do with choice or free will. He believes in a deterministic world.
The same with scriptural literature, I need to understand what “it” is saying from its world view. I can’t presume to understand the scriptures from a 21st century world view. I need to understand what is meant by those who wrote it. The text you give about taking a crap and God enforcing what he desires. You can’t say that Man uses “God” to control people out of fear. This does not make any point at all that shows that the text is a farce, or that there is no God, or that it is absurd. These are natural societal warnings – just like it says “No Parking”, or your car will be towed.
What it says is that God is showing the importance of health. Many 3rd world humanitarian efforts have come to understand this importance. The Book I linked is a required reading for those studding “Forestry” at Oregon State University. This is where “sonofman” goes off the rails – the text when read from an educated view makes perfect sense…
Deut 23:12-14 “You must have a designated area outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 Each of you must have a spade as part of your equipment. Whenever you relieve yourself, dig a hole with the spade and cover the excrement. 14 The camp must be holy, for the Lord your God moves around in your camp to protect you and to defeat your enemies. He must not see any shameful thing among you, or he will turn away from you.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 5:45 pm
The static universe has been proven wrong by almost all credible astrophysicists. They know there was a beginning 13.7 BY. There is no evidence that this universe has always been. I will Let Dr. Jenifer Wiseman speak to the age (or appearance) of the universe.
Next. What you are saying is that Matter (hydrogen) has always been and had no beginning. Jenifer Wiseman shows that before the big bang there was no energy in the universe. She talks about if there was a static universe constantly recycling then there would be evidence for it. There is NONE.
Matter has always been with no beginning – is “supernatural”. It boils down to an Atheist that worships Matter – that has NO intelligence, yet reacts to physically known laws that comes from nowhere, that eventually created a brain that actually can come to understand these Laws that come from nowhere.
A Christian believes in God, that is eternal, intelligent, a law (laws of physics) giver, and the giver of life – soul.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 6:51 pm
Dane:
OMG If you think that by telling me I don’t know what I am talking about proves that you DO know what you are talking about, makes you all the more obtuse. Tell us what you know instead of telling me what I don’t know. Maybe we could learn from you, If your knowledge is bolstered by ignorance show me the money.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 6:57 pm
666 Has nothing to do with end times, you just don’t know what you are talking about, in fact that isn’t even something you came up with yourself; you give other peole’s opinions while I give revelations. Nor do you understand the Mark, has nothing to do with the roamn Empire, how silly you repetitious followers are to religious insanity.
Thomas Jefferson summed up Revelation better than than anyone. He said: “It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.” With very few exceptions Jefferson is absolutely correct.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Randy:
I have been thinking about free will again today. When the Airbus was piloted to crash into the mountainous French Alps did the free will of the co-pilot to die supplant the fee will of the 150 people, to live. What free will did the 150 people he killed have, that will better mankind? The reality is, everything must be intervened by man for man, prayer is useless and there is no god to intervene and free will is an illusion.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 7:20 pm
dgjesdal:
Deuteronomy 23:12 and 13 make perfect hygienic sense; 14 is where the absurdity starts. Well two out of three isn’t bad but verse 14 discredits the acceptable and reasonable hygienic explanation by bringing in a nonsensical concept devoid of logic, instilling fear and shame for a normal life requirement.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 7:42 pm
dgjesdal:
“constantly recycling” is in evidence all over the universe; we can see the results in novas and supernovas when they blow apart and are absorbed again. We see it in star nurseries, black holes that appear and then disappear. Astrophysicists base their conclusions on assumptions. How in this universe can Jenifer Wiseman state that there was once no energy in then universe; how did the oldest star in the observable universe appear a billion years or so before the so called big bang? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed or transformed into energy, what is that all about?
There are lots of reasons to accept a static universe, look at everything in our micro earth, would not the earth mimic the universal laws of the macro universe, I don’t see why not and there are lots of recycling that goes on in our earth we see it every seaons turn. A breathable universe? An expanding and contracting universe? Is gravity a force independent of matter? Is gravity a pull force or a push force. The thing about the universe is that we can observe it, explore it but the paranormal, the paranormal is only observable in Hollywood and Religious Movies.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 9:29 pm
No the “Steady State” argument of our Universe is a dead old argument – you are looking at the existing universe and its energy – radiation – in current evolution. Yes it is now evolving and merging – building – but that is it – that is all taken into account. After that there is nothing. Jenifer Wiseman says a multiverse (string theorists) – is all conjecture with no evidence.
LikeLike
March 26, 2015 at 10:09 pm
Sonofman, Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. I say that because you prove it every time you post. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, someone who also did not study scripture and he admitted by not reading Rev. shows you can’t quite grasp your own deficiency. But you have no free will so you can’t help yourself. People mock what they do not understand. The form of literature John used is an actual literary construct, a form of communication – Apocalyptic Literature. Why do you ignore facts? You have not studied this literature so you can’t understand it, therefore you mock it. The early church understood John’s words and it was a comfort for those under Roman persecution.
Rev. 17:9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated”.
Rome is well known for it’s 7 hills. These are all word pictures used by John. Read “Worthy is the Lamb” by Ray Summers a Greek Scholar.
Sonofman, talking to you is like talking to someone who can’t reason the complexities of a position so all you do is mock it. I explained Duet 23: all the way down to vs 14 and you can’t even address my points. Argue the points – debate actuals, instead of your absurdities. Your arguments have little substance. Quoting a Non-scholar (not in this field of study) like Thomas Jefferson, is like me quoting George bush on Revelation. Who freaking cares? Quote a scholar. Quote a person who has taken the time to learn and read and be educated.
LikeLike
March 27, 2015 at 5:01 am
dgjesdal:
You seem to have a need to seek the approval of others (scholars) therefore you know nothing yourself; you can only repeat the findings of the scholars you look up to. So answer this question please if you can, if you are able to: was Jesus a scholar? If you do not know then tell me how your friend, scholar Joseph Colson, would answer that question: Was Jesus a scholar?
if you don’t know, your scholar friend’s answer?
LikeLike
March 27, 2015 at 1:29 pm
In the terms of their day Jesus was known as a “Rabbi”, a “Master” or “honorable”, and a “Teacher” of the law, One learned of the scriptures. So in the true sense of the word Jesus was a scholar in his field. He was tested by the scholars of his day about the scriptures. He was one known by his critics as one who speaks with “authority”. God’s word speaks for itself. Most Biblical scholars of our day would call Jesus their “Rabbi”; their Teacher.
LikeLike
March 27, 2015 at 9:28 pm
dgjesdal:
Your spin is pathetic. Jesus was sought after to be killed because of his interpretation of scritputres. Jesus was not known as Rabbi anymore than you are; they wanted to kill him for Christ’s sakes; open your eyes.
LikeLike
March 27, 2015 at 9:33 pm
dgjesdal:
Your spin is pathetic. Jesus was sought after to be killed because of his interpretation of scriptures. Jesus was not known as Rabbi anymore than you are; they called him Rabbi as a mock; they wanted to kill him for Christ’s sakes; open your eyes. The Scholars didn’t accept Jesus interpretation anymore than you accept my interpretation. Can’t you see the parallell? Of course you can but can’t admit it.
LikeLike
March 28, 2015 at 2:29 am
2Ti 3:1 – But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2Ti 3:2 – For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 – unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
2Ti 3:4 – traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
2Ti 3:5 – having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
2Ti 3:6 – For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
2Ti 3:7 – always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2Ti 3:8 – Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;
2Ti 3:9 – but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
2Ti 3:12 – Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Messiah Yahshua/Jesus will suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 – But evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 – But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
2Ti 3:15 – and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures,which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yahshua.
2Ti 3:16 – All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 – that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
LikeLike
March 28, 2015 at 10:33 am
Frank:
Not agreeing with NT philosophy or religious dogma, (not Jesus’s philosophy), does not mean that one is of corrupt mind nor does it mean that they are disapproved of anything other than self righteous religious believers as their despise shows forth through their words.
The Last days or the end days are merely the days of transition from one Era of Death cause into a new Era of Life cause. Now if you talked about the end days when the sun novas for example and burns earth to cinders, yeah that would be really the last days of earth but end of days/last days is only metaphorical for the time when the world’s mindset will be changed.
When there is no need for Temples, Churches, Synagogues, Mosques for then will men accept the Father that lives within and begin to follow him when religion is abandoned for the good of mankind; much more difficult today when there are so many ways to justify the flesh being weak while the spirit is willing.
LikeLike
March 29, 2015 at 3:27 pm
With all the fables, distractions, distortions & deceptions bound up in the various masks of this world it proves essential to direct & maintain our focus on Messiah who has overcome the world [John 16:33; 1 John 4:4].
Keep steadfast in the Word of God [2 Peter 2:20; 1 John 5:4].
LikeLike
May 31, 2015 at 11:51 am
Json:
When you say “I don’t accept the premise that God commands or commits evil, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument.”
When Isaiah says:
IS 45 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
One can rationalize anything to suit his debate but how do you rationalize that God creates evil and the morality of evil.?
LikeLike