Icons of atheism (pt 2)

 

adespotos_skylos: this doesn't explain why absence in a godly created world have come out of no where, if there is absence it must be a part of the concept, remember immaterial timeless god. you can't have it one way, I may have thought of sin did not do it. but god knows it, how is this mind stalker gives free will? How god ordering killings and raping makes him a moral standard though? You briefly answered because, inference, experience and because he told us? How is that of any significance? Any one can claim anything, how morality is depicted as a standard in the bible?

 

disobedience to conform to someone's apetite or laws isn't an evil as such. how evil is privation? Again how privation occure when a god doesn't intend to, by your definition nothing in the bible from rapes to killings and anihillation of other tribes directed by god aren't evil acts but acts of love? In what possible way can you interpret this?

 

cormackytyrone: Well for starters a privation is the loss or absence of some quality that’s normally present. Remember God upon creating the natural order declared it "good." Absence of that goodness wasn’t part of the "concept" as you believe but rather was a possibility within the attribute of free will. It’s not part of a plan concept but would be "conceptual," by which I mean God would know about the possibility of evil occurring.

 

Free will doesn’t cause evil but allows for the possibility of evil. So God doesn’t promote or create evil, He permits acts of evil by His created beings. Many of your questions are about Old Testament atrocities but there are loads of Christian sites dedicated to misunderstood verses (like Isaiah 45:7) and other OT stories. So if you’d like you can research those and see if the answers are satisfying.

 

"How is morality depicted as a standard in the Bible?" In the form of Gods moral commands, commands which are a reflection of His perfect character. Gods character is the good, that’s ontology. Gods revealed commands are part of moral epistemology. If you look into the different between ontological and epistemology it’ll help. God provides both the moral standard and free will. To complain about God providing freedom to His creatures will mean you’re using freedom to condemn freedom, which is self refuting. To complain about Gods moral commands on the grounds that they’re immoral is to misunderstand either God, the command or possibly both. Questioning Gods foreknowledge is answered by the fact that the questioner is committing a model fallacy, which again we’ve already written about.

 

The incredible thing about our conversation is that both evil and freedom are untenable concepts under atheistic naturalism. Experiencing evil points to an ultimate good. Freedom points towards something more than just our material parts. Both freedom and evil prove God.

 

adespotos_skylos: you are avoiding answering directly, was is it moral of god directly ordering israelites to kill everybody? This to me seems as direct promotion of evil but go on and prove otherwise.what is the moral standard of god we all have to measure up against? What good experience is the benchmark of goodness? You refer to absolutes, truth,morality,good without giving a reason why are absolutes, but we don't mind accepting other virtues as absolutes like patience, pride etc. how come an omni-present-potent-scient god let his creations to run astray on a possibility he probably knew that will come with free will, he could make a better free will, choose between several good options instead.

 

But what kind of free will is when you are constantly monitored and your actions are counted so to decide if you'll burn or saved while all this is happening you are all ready warned if you don't go according my rules you are done! The least I call this is extortion.god created natural order and declare it good but later a snake crept in the garden and fooled eve under the nose of an omnipresent god.

 

Since then we carry the original sin, we are precondemned from birth. not to mention the fact that nothing in the OT fits the facts about how the universe came to be and that can lead us to the conclusion whoever thought of the story did not have the slightest clue about science let alone ontology, epistemology or any other aspect of philosophy. trying to interpret the bible is ambiguous that's why we have denominations with everybody being right! You refer to absolute truth, objective morality and objective good without giving a reason why are absolutes and objective, but we don't mind accepting other concepts or virtues as absolutes like patience, pride etc

 

cormackytyrone: By "kill everyone" you mean Gods command to the nation of Israel to drive various tribes (famously the Canaanites) out of the promised land? There’s no such things as "a better free will," honestly. Free will is just an attribute. You’re either freely choosing or you’re incapable of freely choosing. Begging God to control you by setting up only "good options" is like asking for a multiple choice test paper where all the suggested answers are correct. That’s not a free relationship, that’s theatre. The illusion of freedom.

 

Real freedom is dangerous, it’s alive and part of having genuine loving relationships, that’s why God allowed for it. Being monitored by a camera 24 hours a day wouldn’t destroy your freedom of will. Having your deeds counted doesn’t destroy your freedom of will. Being punished for wrongdoing doesn’t destroy your freedom of will. Asking for God to give you only "good options" but complaining about being "monitored" isn’t the strongest position for an unbeliever.

 

adespotos_skylos: there is a way around cameras but according to your book not a way around god, so it does violates many rights amongst them freedom of will, when your souls integrity is depended on your earthly life decisions it really affects your freedom, like really. There are instances people committed atrocities on the notion god wanting them to do to gain his favor. So your freedom of will is affected. I' am not asking god anything, I'm asking you btw and you keep going round deflecting the questions

 

cormackytyrone: Asking for God to control your options is no different than begging to be a rat in a maze. Saying "only good options" just doesn’t work. Your request destroys freedom of choice because you can no longer disobey God. Nobody wrote anything about freedom of the will being "affected," or "violated," we’re writing on what would preserve freedom of the will. Your idea destroys freedom.

 

Still you’re asking for that as an alternative, but it’s no alternative style of freedom, it’s just slavery. You’re suggesting God make you a robot. I can’t answer your question until you clarify my friend. By "kill everyone" what do you mean?

 

adespotos_skylos: arguing semantics, I'm not asking of god to control my options, according to your religion he already controls the fate of the universe as he is the ultimate conceivable being, my freedom of will is affected when I have to choose your god option or hell, basically as limited of calling something an option as possible just 2. How this is going to create a genuine loving relationship I wonder. It's extortion, not choice.

 

You take freedom of will, good and truth as absolutes given by god without giving a reason how they are absolute and where you got the standard you are measuring people, but you don't argue about other virtues like patience or pride is there an absolute at all? god directly orders killings some times does it by himself, he even accepts human sacrifice. Pick one story and give me a reason why he doesn't promote evil. You also forgot to answer how the snake talked eve into the sin under the gods nose in paradise who himself made and called it good!

 

cormackytyrone: I use the word objective, not absolute. So if you reread my messages you'll see that. You should look up the word objective also. Morality under God is objective. These aren’t semantics, I'm just using words correctly. If you aren't using words correctly that's where the problems come in. I don't need to argue for virtues because virtues are properties of persons. God possesses virtues, they can only be housed in persons. There's only 1 god your truly dislike so far, that’s the god of your imagination.

 

I know this might offended you my friend but I think it's important to write. So far you've failed to understand a verse in Isaiah, then tried to hide the failure behind a nonsensical defence about creating things. You've misused simple words and can't understand others. You didn't appear to know what free will meant. You're confusing options with ultimate fate in an attempt to save your newest error. You didn't know that evil was a privation and asked why it's suddenly appeared out of nowhere, yet we've been writing on this for 3 days. You don’t seem to understand the difference between objective and absolute. You commit model fallacies without realising. I'm concerned you don't understand the arguments.

 

To answer your questions about the snake in the garden really isn't difficult. The snake isn't a simple snake, it's the tempter, also known as the devil. Angels can take on forms, as can God. You can read that in Genesis 18 and 19. In Ezekiel 28 a parallel between a king and the devil is made where the devil was called perfect or blameless in all his ways, so that means him, like Adam and Eve and the earth, was created good. God said it was good and it was. Then the chapter says iniquity was "found" in this devil later on.

 

The ending to Ecclesiastes 7:29 caps off the entire teaching on the devil and humanities fall into sin. It says God created man "upright", but man sought out "many schemes." I hope you really think on these answers before moving on.

 

adespotos_skylos: My understanding of Isaiah 45:7 is just fine, it's you who are hiding behind a translation "issue", in fact I didn't know the infallible book had so many different versions, pick one that fits your narrative and go. Either way you previous stated that evil is a privation, absence of goodness, i form the light and create darkness, i make peace and create calamity, how a loving god creating a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering (definition of calamity) isn’t an evil act? How this is not privation or absence of gods goodness? He inflict pain and suffering when he pleases him. In fact I do think the scribe who did the translation for the kjv bible actually this is what he had in mind, evil.

 

In ezekiel  28:11-19 herub when cast out of heaven god made it clear was gone forever, there is no reference that it was the tempter who tricked eve. Gen 3:1 refers to the serpent that was more cunning than any other beast of the field which god had made. God made the beast from the get go, no mention of a fallen angel that morphed in to a serpent.

 

Depending on the version of "the word of god" you read Ezekiel 28:11-19 it makes a parallel with the fall of man from heaven and satan. From Ez 28:14 "specifically I appointed a winged creature to guard your home on my holy mountain, where you walked among gems that dazzled like fire."

 

As my reference on absolute morality, on my last comment I made an error, my previous posts are clear that I asked about objective morality and objective good and what are the standards/benchmarks your god set for us to measure against, and if it’s moral when god directly orders killing, rape etc and even some times doing it by himself on many instances and how with his actions doesn’t promote evil.

 

adespotos_skylos: Also disobedience isn't evil as such, who ever does not conform to your apetite isn't evil, on the contrary, maybe it's better than you.

 

cormackytyrone: 1 John 3:4 disagrees. Disobeying a police officer in certain situations is a breach of the law and therefore criminal, in a similar way disobeying God is evil.

 

cormackytyrone: it’s about interpretive principles, not simply translating. Neither you or I can speak Hebrew or Greek I’m assuming, so apart from using the best Hebrew and Greek authorities, who say it’s not evil, I also pointed out "evil" isn’t the opposite of peace. The writer of Isaiah was using opposites like light and dark etc. So you’ve got both the translation of evil which was your error, and a principle of translation that helps you see it’s an error.

 

Revelation 20:2 says that the Devil is that very deceptive serpent. Including Jesus’ words that the devil was a liar "in the beginning." In the beginning aren’t only the first words of Genesis, but to the Hebrews that was the very title of the book we call Genesis. The Bible having different translations isn’t the same as different versions, they’re two different words with two different meanings. I don’t pick versions but rather I use principles, if you’re not a man or woman with principles this might just look like picking and choosing because you don’t understand principles just yet.

 

God judges sinners, that’s not evil, that’s justice. If you consider inventing words for the other side "an error" that’s okay. Everyone reading will also call it a straw man. You invented a fake argument on my behalf and then tried to knock it down. Like how you invent a fake god and try to complain about him.
Honestly I’m not surprised so many atheists hate "god," and they complain about an "imaginary god" who’s "creating evil" and has "appetites" and things happen "under his nose." Just think about it, it’s their own imaginary god they’re complaining about!

 

― Tyrone Cormack