Arguments against Christianity, for the ‘forgetful’

Today Mung claimed of TSZ that

I see mocking of Christianity, what I don’t see are arguments that Christianity is false.

As the regulars here (including Mung) know, this is bollocks. There have been many such arguments, and Mung has fled from a number of them.

I replied:

You see plenty of them [arguments against Christianity], but you’re in denial.

Want to test that hypothesis? Start a thread asking for arguments against Christianity. You’ll get an earful.

He got cold feet, so I am starting the thread for him. I’ll provide some arguments in the comments. Feel free to add your own or to cross-post or link to old OPs and comments, if you can’t be arsed to reinvent the wheel for Mung’s trollish sake.

Mung’s fellow Christians are welcome to come to his aid. He’ll need all the help he can get.

534 thoughts on “Arguments against Christianity, for the ‘forgetful’

  1. For once I think we can see where our differences lie. Appeal to non existent entities to explain physical phenomena. You saw it here, at “The Skeptical Zone.”

  2. Mung,

    The dog thought the baby’s head looked tasty, and ate it. There was no benevolent God to step in and prevent it from happening. The Christian God doesn’t exist.

    This is not that difficult, even for a brain like yours that is addled by religion.

  3. Robin: LOL! Off to get a new irony meter!

    As for your videos…why exactly should claims by proxy be taken with any more weight than your claims of ignorance?

    I not saying the links I provided should be taken with any weight at all. I’m saying that the words of the Koran itself and Muslim scholarship should be taken with some weight.

    The links simply quote what the Koran says and give some context.

    The Koran is plain in this regard and it plainly agrees with me that Christians should judge by the Christian Scriptures.

    Serious Muslim scholarship is also on my side on this point though they might falsely claim that today we don’t have access to the scriptures that were extant in the 6th century.

    There is really no argument.

    peace

  4. Allan Miller: I don’t think Dave was equating small with simple.

    OK then how do you account for his appealing to the Big Bang as a reason to think that the universe started out “dirt simple”?

    Peace

    Bye the way, you are mistaken for thinking that I was equating order with entropy.

  5. Rumraket:

    I’m sure you can consider yourself a Christian and believe you are adhering to proper Christian doctrine, yet be factually wrong in that belief. If Christianity is true, whatever the essential truthes of Christianity may be, they’re going to be what they are and there’s going to be a way to fail at being a Christian. For example, you can be an atheist. Is an atheist a Christian? I would say no.

    Well there are people who call themslves Christian atheists. Can they really be considered to be Christians? Who am I to judge?

    I don’t presume to be an authority on what Christianity is truly essentially about. I merely go by what Christians, in their masses, generally profess to believe. I was one myself, I believed there was a God. If and when I argue against Christianity, I try to argue against what Christians generally believe.

    Taking this tac you are erecting to it’s logical conclusion, I might as well define Christianity however the hell I please, then disprove it and declare my work over. Would that mean I have successfully disproved Christianity? Of course not, let’s not be ridiculous.

    You cannot define it however you like because you must include its central figure, Christ.

    (Re-people who claim to be Christian but do not believe in the omnipotence of God)
    What about them? Who are they? How many of them are there?

    I know there are such Christians. Why should it matter who they are and how many there are?

    Doesn’t it strike you as a rather silly ad-hoc excuse, when faced with an argument against Christianity that has as a component an omnipotent God, to suddenly start redefining Christianity to not have that component? Have you really succeeded in showing Christianity was not disproven, or have you merely invented an ad-hoc excuse to avoid falsification?

    What’s the next thing going to be? God isn’t required to be all-knowing? Or even morally perfect? How many things can we pick away and keep having a “Christian” belief? It seems to me that once you start down this path, you’re essentially prepared to excuse away your reasons for belief indefinitely. You are simply not prepared to admit that your religion might be false, and whatever core attribute you previously believed, which you now perceive to be under threat, you simply dispense with as you go along.
    So Christianity can be literally anything anyone wants it to be. Christian Atheists is a thing. If that is really the case, if one can be a Christian atheist, then I outright concede I can’t show Christianity to be false. Noone can. It’s unfalsifiable.

    There is nothing ad-hoc in what I am saying. It is perfectly logical. God cannot be omnipotent and all-loving. In order to make a sacrifice out of pure love the One doing the sacrificing must relinquish some power. If God had not allowed Satan a share of power, then Satan could not have tempted Jesus in the desert. The only way that humans can attain freedom is by God allowing us to have that choice. No amount of power can give us that freedom. It can only come about through a sacrificial act of God. God is all-loving and this is the message that Christ brought: aspire to pure love. This love is the opposite of power. He did not advise us to gain power over each other. He advised us to love one another.

  6. Mung: “This is revealing. You believe that the non-existence of God explains why a dog would eat a baby’s head. Something that does not exist can serve as an explanation for events in the physical world. To me, that is deeply irrational.”

    Mung is in a rowboat, miles from shore. He sees a cork sticking out of the bottom of the boat. He thinks, “Somebody could trip on this!” He plucks the cork out and throws it away. Water rushes into the boat through the hole where the cork was. The boat sinks. As the water closes over his head, Mung’s last thought is, “Something that does not exist is sinking my boat. To me, that is deeply irrational.”

  7. davemullenix: If you could look at the universe at the time of the big bang, you wouldn’t find any galaxies, stars, planets or life. Or atoms. Or sub atomic particles. You probably wouldn’t even find any laws of physics.

    1) Are you actually claiming that the expansion of the universe from a singularity could occur absent any law at all?
    2) Are you actually claiming that galaxies, stars, planets or life are more complex than the laws and initial conditions that facilitate their origin?

    davemullenix: So, at time zero there were no stars, galaxies, planets, living things or even subatomic particles, just a lot of amorphous matter crammed into a tiny space plus a single ur-law of physics. Pretty dirt simple.

    What exactly kept that amorphous matter crammed into a tiny space and then facilitated it’s eventual and relatively rapid transformation into the amazing cosmos we now see? Please be specific

    Are you claiming that it was dirt simple?

    Peace

  8. Mung this is a pleasure to watch. 😉

    Who would of thought that all you had to do to utterly defeat the Anti-christian zealots here was ask them to present an argument for their particular pet assertion.

    peace

  9. There’s no end to the irrationality of some atheists.

    Sunspots. We have an explanation for that. There is no [enter non-existent entity here] to prevent sunspots.

    Gravity. We can explain that too! There is no [enter non-existent entity here] to prevent gravity.

    The list of explanations is endless when you can appeal to things that don’t exist!

    davemullenix: He sees a cork sticking out of the bottom of the boat. He thinks, “Somebody could trip on this!” He plucks the cork out and throws it away.

    So the cork is something that actually exists.

    keiths appealed to an entity he claims doesn’t exist to explain a physical event. Now he’s changed his tune (sort of), because he sees how deeply irrational his argument was.

  10. fifthmonarchyman: Who would of thought that all you had to do to utterly defeat the Anti-christian zealots here was ask them to present an argument for their particular pet assertion.

    keiths posted the names of 18 OPs he’s written. I find and publish the link to all 18 of them [something he failed at], read every OP, concluded that there was not a single one of them that contained an argument which reached a conclusion that Christianity is false, and the response from keiths?

    keiths: I’ve got Mung wound up pretty tightly. That was quite an adolescent display on his part.

    No credit at all for calling his literature bluff. Just an “adolescent display.”

    Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.

  11. A message for the Christian lurkers:

    You’ve seen Mung, fifth, and colewd botch their defense of Christianity against the problem of evil. Do any of you think you can rescue the situation? If so, please join the conversation.

    If not, ask yourself this question: Why am I still a Christian if I can’t defend the existence of the Christian God?

  12. fmm: “1) Are you actually claiming that the expansion of the universe from a singularity could occur absent any law at all?”

    What would you expect the universe to do, shrink?

    We know that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force didn’t exist at time zero because they don’t emerge from the electro-weak force until the temperature gets much lower. This has been experimentally verified and Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg won the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their theory predicting it.

    The same theory predicts the electro-weak force and the strong nuclear force will separate at much higher temperatures, which we can’t yet attain in our accellerators.

    To summarize, we had gravity plus one force at the big bang, which split into gravity plus three forces as the universe expanded and cooled. All this is pretty standard physics, almost 40 years old now. How is it you’ve never heard of it?

    Do you know that there were no atoms at the big bang? Too hot for them. Ditto protons, neutrons and electrons. Too hot. Do you know ANYTHING about conditions at the Big Bang?

    fmm: “2) Are you actually claiming that galaxies, stars, planets or life are more complex than the laws and initial conditions that facilitate their origin?”

    Of course! There were no electrons or protons at the Big Bang. Too hot for them to exist. As the universe expanded and cooled, the electromagnetic, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force separated out from the original force and acquired their present day properties. As the universe expanded further, electrons and protons formed, but it was still way too hot for them to combine into atoms. When the universe cooled even more, gravitation was able to pull hydrogen and helium atoms into stars and galaxies. Once the first generation of stars had burned up and created higher elements, rocky planets could form and conditions were finally suitably complex enough for life to begin.

    If all this is news to you, then you should stop arguing for a while and study some cosmology. It’s better to be silent than to reveal your ignorance by making stupid arguments. It’s What Jesus Would Do.

  13. keiths: The dog thought the baby’s head looked tasty, and ate it. There was no benevolent God to step in and prevent it from happening. The Christian God doesn’t exist.

    So now you present an explanation for why the dog ate the head. The dog thought it looked tasty. Now you can not only read human minds you can read dog minds too. Does it get any better than this?

    So now that you have your “explanation” what does God have to do with it? You’re confused. You’re looking for an explanation for why the dog did not eat the baby’s head. But the dog did the the baby’s head. So you’re sort of SoL.

    Let’s try to look at this rationally. Why can’t I argue that if something bad failed to occur, then it must be that God prevented it? And why can’t I argue that if something good happens that it was because of God.

    So I have on my side everything good that takes place, and everything bad that does not take place, and you have on your side only bad things that do take place.

    Why does my evidence not outweigh yours? Why are your events evidence that God does not exist while my events and non-events are not evidence that God does exist? Why, if you can appeal to a non-event (God did not intervene) is it illegitimate for me to appeal to a non-event (nothing bad happened)?

    I think if we total things up I win. There’s more evidence for the existence of God. Therefore there’s no compelling reason to think Christianity is false.

    Why don’t you make up your mind whether you are gong to offer a deductive argument or an inductive argument?

  14. Mung: “davemullenix: He sees a cork sticking out of the bottom of the boat. He thinks, “Somebody could trip on this!” He plucks the cork out and throws it away.

    So the cork is something that actually exists.”

    Not in your boat.

  15. keiths: You’ve seen Mung, fifth, and colewd botch their defense of Christianity against the problem of evil.

    Here we go with the tried old problem of evil canard again. Even walto acknowledges that that one no longer holds any water. It was soundly defeated decades ago

    You know you are in trouble when the only thing you can come up with as an a possible argument is a philosophical enterprise that has been all but abandoned by folks in the position to evaluate it.

    quote:

    Does Plantinga’s Free Will Defense succeed in describing a possible state of affairs in which God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil? It certainly seems so. In fact, it appears that even the most hardened atheist must admit that (MSR1) and (MSR2) are possible reasons God might have for allowing moral and natural evil. They may not represent God’s actual reasons, but for the purpose of blocking the logical problem of evil, it is not necessary that Plantinga discover God’s actual reasons. In the last section we noted that many people will find (MSR2)’s explanation of natural evil extremely difficult to believe because it assumes the literal existence of Adam and Eve and the literal occurrence of the Fall. However, since (MSR2) deals with the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil (which claims that it is logically impossible for God and natural evil to co-exist), it only needs to sketch a possible way for God and natural evil to co-exist. The fact that (MSR2) may be implausible does not keep it from being possible. Since the situation described by (MSR2) is clearly possible, it appears that it successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil.

    end quote:

    from here
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

    nuff said

    peace

  16. Mung:

    I think if we total things up I win.

    Fantasy: the last resort of the desperate Christian.

  17. Mung: “Let’s try to look at this rationally. Why can’t I argue that if something bad failed to occur, then it must be that God prevented it? And why can’t I argue that if something good happens that it was because of God.”

    That’s Christianity (and every other theistic religion) in a nutshell. If something good happens, praise god. If something bad is stopped, praise god. And if something bad happens, burn your enemies at the stake because God would have stopped it if not for them.

  18. keiths: You’ve seen Mung, fifth, and colewd botch their defense of Christianity against the problem of evil.

    As far as I know, most Christians don’t see that there is anything there that needs a defense.

  19. Fmm: “Does something have to be in your boat to exist?”
    lf you want to be petty about it, pull the cork out and burn it so you’re drowning because of something that doesn’t exist anywhere.

    But seriously, it better tactically to let it lie because you’re just prolonging Mung’s embarassment.

  20. keiths,

    You’ve seen Mung, fifth, and colewd botch their defense of Christianity against the problem of evil. Do any of you think you can rescue the situation? If so, please join the conversation.

    Keith, we’re saying the problem of evil does not falsify Christianity.

    You are trying to claim this does but you are going against the philosophy of 2 billion people. The problem of evil is not new and yet there are 2 billion Christians.

    What you are missing is the real evidence of why this is most popular religion on the planet. Keith’s not understanding Gods grand plan does not discount his existence. Think about what free will means to the world and how it may create uncomfortable tradeoffs.

    If Christianity is true we cannot possibly see the big picture from our current vantage point and we are not well positioned to judge.

  21. Neil Rickert: “As far as I know, most Christians don’t see that there is anything [about the problem of evil] there that needs a defense.”

    But that’s only because most of them have never seriously considered the problem and those who have are in denial. Just look at the sorry non-defenses we’re seeing here.

  22. colewd:

    You are trying to claim this does but you are going against the philosophy of 2 billion people. The problem of evil is not new and yet there are 2 billion Christians.

    colewd,

    There are more non-Christians than Christians in the world. By your inane logic, this proves that Christianity is false. Congratulations.

  23. keiths: You’ve seen Mung, fifth, and colewd botch their defense of Christianity against the problem of evil.

    LoL. Maybe it’s because I’ve not been challenged yet. You know, an actual argument from you that Christianity is false. The claim you pretended to address in your OP.

    I agree that if God does not exist then Christianity is false. For it follows that if God does not exist then the following is likewise false:

    For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

    And that’s pretty much the essence of Christianity.

    Now about this “omnigod” of yours. When are you going to argue that this “omnigod” of yours is the same God that sent His Son, the God that Christians believe in? Or that this “omnigod” ought to conform to your expectations.

    Seriously, what Christian can you point to who agrees with you that this “omnigod” of yours ought to and does supply toilet paper on demand?

  24. davemullenix: But that’s only because most of them have never seriously considered the problem and those who have are in denial. Just look at the sorry non-defenses we’re seeing here.

    God is preventing me. Further evidence that God exists. Why one earth would you defend that ridiculous claim by keiths that a non-existent God explains why a dog ate a baby’s head and then complain about sorry defenses from others?

  25. Neil:

    As far as I know, most Christians don’t see that there is anything there that needs a defense.

    True, because it never even occurs to them to think carefully about their beliefs. They’re fed the dogma, and they swallow it gullibly and uncritically.

    In my experience, most of them are shocked when they encounter arguments like the one I’ve presented here. Until it’s pointed out to them, they truly have no idea how weak Christianity is as a belief system.

    Witness colewd’s “Wait, what?” reaction, and his inane “2 billion people can’t be wrong” argument.

  26. Mung,

    There are more non-Christians than Christians in the world. By your inane logic, this proves that Christianity is false. Congratulations.

    By your logic Atheism isn’t even on the map 🙂

    But it takes big balls to claim the largest religion on the planet is false based on evaluating the behavior of God and saying he does not exist based on that behavior.

    The boldest assertion I have seen so far.

  27. keiths: You’ve seen Mung, fifth, and colewd botch their defense of Christianity against the problem of evil. Do any of you think you can rescue the situation? If so, please join the conversation.

    If not, ask yourself this question: Why am I still a Christian if I can’t defend the existence of the Christian God?

    Again, you’re confused. There are many, many arguments for the existence of God. Given that “the problem of evil” seems to be the only argument you have against the existence of God, it seems the arguments for the existence of God carry the day.

    From now on should I respond to your “problem of evil” argument with arguments for the existence of God?

    That way we can see you make this argument:

    Mung gave lots of arguments for the existence of God.
    But Mung didn’t address the problem of evil.
    Therefore, Christianity is false.

  28. davemullenix: What would you expect the universe to do, shrink?

    There is no inherent reason that a universe should do anything at all.

    davemullenix: We know that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force didn’t exist at time zero because they don’t emerge from the electro-weak force until the temperature gets much lower.

    So the universe at the big bang already had the electro-weak force which contained within it the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force just waiting to emerge when the conditions were right .

    Sounds pretty awesome and complex to me. Hardly dirt simple

    davemullenix: Of course! There were no electrons or protons at the Big Bang. Too hot for them to exist.

    So the universe at the big bang contained within it properties that would allow electrons and protons to materialize when conditions were just right

    Sounds pretty awesome and complex to me. Hardly dirt simple

    davemullenix: When the universe cooled even more, gravitation was able to pull When the universe cooled even more, gravitation was able to pull hydrogen and helium atoms into stars and galaxies..

    So the universe at the big bang contained within it all that was necessary for the emergence of gravity that would allow hydrogen and helium atoms to form into stars and galaxies.

    Sounds pretty awesome and complex to me. Hardly dirt simple

    davemullenix: Once the first generation of stars had burned up and created higher elements, rocky planets could form and conditions were finally suitably complex enough for life to begin.

    So the universe at the big bang had already within it the makings that would at form complex life as soon as the conditions were right

    Sounds pretty awesome and complex to me. Hardly dirt simple

    davemullenix: If all this is news to you, then you should stop arguing for a while and study some cosmology.

    It’s not news to me not by a long shot
    Apparently it’s obvious implications are news to you.

    Perhaps you should take some time and think about just the sort of complexity that would make possible the grand entirety of vast universe and everything in it in a single tiny spec.

    peace

  29. keiths,

    In my experience, most of them are shocked when they encounter arguments like the one I’ve presented here. Until it’s pointed out to them, they truly have no idea how weak Christianity is as a belief system.

    You really think the argument from evil is new to any of us? You don’t get out much do you. What has shocked us is that you don’t realize this argument does not support your claim that Christianity is false.

  30. fifthmonarchyman: …it appears that it successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil.

    Still trying to figure out whether keiths is interested in being logical. The evidence so far is not good.

  31. davemullenix: But that’s only because most of them have never seriously considered the problem and those who have are in denial.

    Are you kidding me? How far do you have to have your head buried to not know of the vast scholarship surrounding the problem of evil?

    peace

  32. Mung,

    Mung gave lots of arguments for the existence of God.
    But Mung didn’t address the problem of evil.
    Therefore, Christianity is false.

    🙂

  33. davemullenix: Mung: So the cork is something that actually exists.

    Not in your boat.

    Then there’s no reason to believe that the hole in my boat exists either.

  34. colewd:

    You really think the argument from evil is new to any of us?

    colewd,

    You wrote:

    You are trying to claim this does but you are going against the philosophy of 2 billion people. The problem of evil is not new and yet there are 2 billion Christians.

    Anyone who thinks that that counts as a refutation does not understand the argument from evil at all.

  35. How difficult is it to use google?

    http://www.equip.org/article/how-should-christians-approach-the-problem-of-evil/

    Does the reality of evil make the existence of the Christian God impossible? No. For good reasons, God created a world that contained evil. For those same reasons, as we have seen, the Christian position does not self-contradict.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/seven-things-the-bible-says-about-evil

    Lewis is not being novel here. He is simply restating what Christians have hoped in for centuries, the promise that gives all our suffering purpose: “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:17-18).

    http://www.patheos.com/Library/Christianity/Beliefs/Suffering-and-the-Problem-of-Evil

    Toward the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and a Church Father, formulated an theodicy, an argument intended to show that evil is necessary for human moral and spiritual development and is part of God’s purpose. God created humans in a morally and spiritually imperfect state so that they can strive in response to suffering, in order to grow into full fellowship with God. This argument continues to influence Christian thought and belief.

    and
    https://bible.org/seriespage/6-why-there-evil-and-suffering

  36. fifthmonarchyman,

    Are you kidding me? How far do you have to have your head buried to not know of the vast scholarship surrounding the problem of evil?

    This conversation is blowing my mind. You would think this is not their first Rodeo. Ok heres the game plan. Lets falsify Christianity with the problem of evil 🙂 As they said in the last scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. We can take these guys.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: How far do you have to have your head buried to not know of the vast scholarship surrounding the problem of evil?

    I know, right? I have yet to even pull a book off the shelf. That’s how “threatened” I feel by the posts by keiths.

  38. keiths,

    Anyone who thinks that that counts as a refutation does not understand the argument from evil at all.

    Again, the argument is for the existence of God. Evil exists so God does not exist is not a logical argument. I am curious why you think it is?

  39. fifthmonarchyman: Sounds pretty awesome and complex to me. Hardly dirt simple

    I have in mind an OP on why design wins. One day people will begin to argue that the fine-tuning argument applies to biology and evolution as well. I just don’t see how it can be avoided.

  40. fifth,

    I’ve already explained this to you. First, Plantinga’s Free Will Defense doesn’t succeed:

    A critique of Plantinga’s ‘Free Will Defense’

    Second, even if it did succeed, it wouldn’t help you. The Free Will Defense is targeted at the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem of evil. The latter is the one you need to solve, and no theist has solved it.

    Back to school for you.

  41. more from the folks in a position to evaluate these things

    quote:

    If there is any blame that needs to go around, it may be that some of it should go to Mackie and other atheologians for claiming that the problem of evil was a problem of inconsistency. The ease with which Plantinga undermined that formulation of the problem suggests that the logical formulation did not adequately capture the difficult and perplexing issue concerning God and evil that has been so hotly debated by philosophers and theologians. In fact, this is precisely the message that many philosophers took away from the debate between Plantinga and the defenders of the logical problem of evil. They reasoned that there must be more to the problem of evil than what is captured in the logical formulation of the problem. It is now widely agreed that this intuition is correct. Current discussions of the problem focus on what is called “the probabilistic problem of evil” or “the evidential problem of evil.” According to this formulation of the problem, the evil and suffering (or, in some cases, the amounts, kinds and distributions of evil and suffering) that we find in the world count as evidence against the existence of God (or make it improbable that God exists). Responding to this formulation of the problem requires much more than simply describing a logically possible scenario in which God and evil co-exist.

    end quote:

    peace

  42. keiths: I’ve already explained this to you. First, Plantinga’s Free Will Defense doesn’t succeed:

    Is that all you got
    You couldn’t even convince your fellow atheists here with that pitiful attempt.

    keiths: The Free Will Defense is targeted at the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem of evil.

    You are supposed to be making an argument that Christianity is false not that it is improbable.

    Talk about flailing 😉

    peace

  43. fifth,

    There’s a danger in quoting things that you don’t understand. You just made my point for me. From your quote:

    Current discussions of the problem focus on what is called “the probabilistic problem of evil” or “the evidential problem of evil.” According to this formulation of the problem, the evil and suffering (or, in some cases, the amounts, kinds and distributions of evil and suffering) that we find in the world count as evidence against the existence of God (or make it improbable that God exists). Responding to this formulation of the problem requires much more than simply describing a logically possible scenario in which God and evil co-exist.

    [Emphasis added]

    In other words, Plantinga’s Free Will Defense fails to address the evidential problem of evil, exactly as I said above:

    Second, even if it did succeed, it wouldn’t help you. The Free Will Defense is targeted at the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem of evil. The latter is the one you need to solve, and no theist has solved it.

    Back to school for you.

  44. keiths,

    This was for you

    If you object that selective creation would deprive the uncreated people of their free will, then you run into a big problem: There are already zillions of uncreated people for every person who is actually born. If leaving a person uncreated violates his or her free will, then God is already massively guilty of denying free will to zillions of uncreated people. The objection thus undermines the assumption that free will is important to God, which is the basis for the whole argument in the first place!

    Your opinion is that it violates a uncreated persons free will and that makes free will unimportant to Gods creation. This is a serious argument? Personally, I think free will is an after birth entitlement and I cannot fault God for moving it past non creation 🙂 Keith’s I do admire your imagination.

  45. Mung: “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

    And that’s pretty much the essence of Christianity.”

    Mung, I think there’s a better explanation for God killing his son. He likes killing! Look at Exodus for examples. For instance,

    Exodus 4:21: The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

    Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,

    Exodus 9:12 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses.

    Exodus 10:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them

    Exodus 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

    Exodus 10:27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go

    Exodus 11:10 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go

    And why is the supposed fount of all absolute morality deliberately stopping Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites? Well, partly to show off, as we see above, but since God is supposedly omniscient he knew that would fail and his people were going to get kicked around for a couple thousand years before getting kicked out of their country altogether. No, I think the real reason is described below:

    Exodus 12:29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

    Wow!! He killed a member of every family in Egypt!! Your all-loving God is a super terrorist! The 9/11 bombers were such insignificant pikers that they only managed to kill one member of about 3000 households in America! There were over 118 MILLION households in America in 2011. Your holy fount of absolute morality would’ve killed over 100 million kids if he’d been in charge of the 9/11 attacks. And he would have fucked up our livestock too! Now that’s REAL terrorism!

    None of this 3000 dead crap, Your God, whose name is Mercy, would have killed 33,000 times more people than Osama bin Laden and he would have done it to show off!

    Compared to that, I think we’d have to classify killing Jesus under God’s Light Entertainment.

  46. colewd,

    Your opinion is that it violates a uncreated persons free will and that makes free will unimportant to Gods creation.

    No, my opinion is exactly the opposite. Jesus, colewd.

    My argument is that an uncreated person’s free will is not violated, and that an omniGod could therefore have prevented evil without depriving anyone of free will. (Assuming, as I stated in that OP, that libertarian free will were coherent, which it is not.)

  47. keiths: The Free Will Defense is targeted at the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem of evil.

    Would “the evidential problem of evil” be a deductive or an inductive argument that God does not exist?

  48. Mung: “davemullenix: Mung: So the cork is something that actually exists.

    Not in your boat.

    Then there’s no reason to believe that the hole in my boat exists either.”

    Mung’s dilemma. He can’t defend Christianity because it’s indefensible, but he can’t just sit there with his thumb where the sun don’t shine because he’s a Christian.

    So we get this kind of sorry shit because it’s just the best he can do.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.