Well, yes, yours is just a story. How telling it is that people prayed about a translator rather than a supernatural gift of understanding and communicating in Turkish. There are many unlikely coincidences. Just last week there was a story about two women walking/jogging near a cemetery that were killed by a lightning strike. What are the chances of that happening?
FYI link to the story:
Primarily, I suggest your reasoning is flawed in that you claim to speak on behalf of every single person who has ever or does (or will) exist. I can certainly claim that my experience, and my interpretation and perception of my experiences, does not contradict the above beliefs. You know that every single person who ever has, does, or will ever live will have experiences that contradict the traditional beliefs about god?
Moreover, Iâd be curious how (in affirming possibility of deism but denying any theistic concept of god) you can claim with some kind of certainty that God has never spoken in some sort of direct way with anyone who has ever lived on the face of the earth. The Bible records all manner of such interactions, miracles, and such that reveal God to be one involved more in this world. You believe that all of these are false, because⌠why exactly? Because you presume that God would never, and has never, done such a thing? You somehow know that he has never, and will never, reveal himself directly to anyone?
Finally, a minor but niggling point⌠âOmni-benevolentâ is an unfortunate neologism that has somehow crept into modern philosophical discussions of god. This was never a traditional statement of Christian belief about God, it seems to me more often used by skeptics or atheists than by Christians, and this is quite problematic. It is at best an unintentional straw man, a claim about âwhat Christians believeâ that Christians have never historically claimed.
This may well be correct and I think you are in a better position to know than I. It certainly seems logically flawed on the face of it since with most moral dimensions, what is best is usually a golden mean between extremes. âOmni-benevolentâ seems to imply âmaximally generousâ. One might well wonder if excessive benevolence might likely lead to dependence and ultimately be disempowering.
But for what itâs worth, as someone whose church experience ended before becoming literate, something like this was one of the strong impressions I walked away with. Left to think about what Iâd heard, the impression I formed of Jesus was that he was âmorally bestâ, and that our own moral development was his primary concern. Of course you canât leave it to illiterate children to decide theology, but the impressions a church makes on its least formed might still be one way to judge its impact.
Well said. In hopes of not overstating, just that this has become a certain pet peeve of mine. In any list of Godâs attributes until very recently, you could always find 3 âOmniâ adjectives⌠omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I happened to try searching the historical usage of some terms in google books (just now realized you can do this), the results are pretty obvious:
One issue is that the term is claimed to be synonymous with âall morally goodâ, but as you noticed, it seems to imply âmaximally generousâ or the like. Google tells me the synonyms for benevolent, after all, are kind, kindly, kindhearted, warmhearted, tenderhearted, big-hearted, etcâŚ
I had never heard this word except from the writings of atheists (and then occasionally from Christian apologists responding to atheists). I suspect the word was attractive as it makes it easier to âproveâ Godâs logical nonexistence, as all one needs to do is find a single example where God was not as generous or nice as conceivably possible, and your work is done. Read genesis 6 and there it is, proof positive, that God is not âomnibenevolent,â but the critical has only succeeded in proving the non existence of a God that Christians donât believe in.
Unfortunately, I fear the term simply muddies waters and leads away from clear and useful dialogue. Thus why this is relevant to Vladâs argument above. I would agree with him that - if we Christians did claim that God was âOmni benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient,â - then any human in the entire history of the world who ever experienced even the slightest discomfort would prove that such a God would not exist.
Spot-on. An omnibenevolent god is a strawman god of the cheapest construct. I love the plot, and will likely steal it!
And now that Iâm having fun playing with this feature of google books I just discovered⌠hereâs a chart comparing historic use of the three traditional words (omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent) against omnibenevolent, since either 1750 or 1920âŚ
Sorry again, Mitchell, I don´t know why this keeps happening!
Depends. This requires the so-called âexistential inertiaâ. Once you exist, nothing keeps you in existence. Problem is from the view of a neo-aristotelian, that this requires the rejection of âessentialismâ, basically the claim that the whole is different than the parts, holism instead of reductionism. But even if we meet in the middle, God holds our existence up, while he doesn´t intervene in human affairs, deism would be impossible.
Depends also. Judaism clearly states that God is responsible for both good and evil. I´d also say that the one necessarily requires the other. The statement âA is goodâ is meaningless if it can´t be contrasted by something evil. Third, I´d say that Gods goodness is analogous. God is good on that view is the same as âGod existsâ. That´s the view of St.Thomas Aquinas and although it might sound strange at first, this is actually the best way I ever found for grounding something like objective morality, when goodness is equivalent to âbeingâ. An act becomes evil if I prevent you from following what is natural to you. For example: In your natural state you have the actual ability to walk. My action of hurting your legs is thereby objectively evil, since I prevent you from actualizing natural abilities.
Directly in the next passage:
What makes you think that this is analogous to the question if God exists? Were you a Mormon? Because the material deity on another planet is the only equivalent conception I could find. In which way is that comparable from the monotheistic God, who is immaterial, theground of existence and necessary?
Gonna save that post, Daniel! Thanks a lot!
Well, thatâs an interesting response. Let me turn this argument around, and lets say that I am claiming to have divine powers. What would be a reasonable approach to testing my claim, in your opinion?
Since you canât know what every single person who has ever lived or currently lives experiences, perhaps I can claim to be able to answer prayers and grant people their wishes. After all, this claim cannot be tested based on the premise that you (or I) canât possibly know what every single person experiences.
I believe Bible claims are false for the same reason you would claim my claim is false.
Lets take a specific promise of Jesus.
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Here Jesus is making several promises that can easily be tested. If you ask Jesus to heal amputees or Downâs syndrome, you will find that no healing will take place. Which is the same thing that would happen if you ask ME to heal amputees or Downâs syndrome. If this test is not sufficient to test a claim, then Iâd be curious about your methodology to test this.
Of course, we canât really test Deism claims, because Deism pretty much agrees that God is not detectable today. But we can certainly test prayer answering claims of personal Gods.
Maybe thereâs something Iâm not getting but even if the universe could be said to have only a minute chance of existing we still canât explore those cases because we live in the case where the Universe DOES exist.
As an atheist I can say that my reason for not being a believer is simply lack of evidence in support. I can think of arguments like the problem of evil, but if I apply simple skepticism where any claim has a burden of proof then I simply donât see sufficient evidence to warrant such a belief. So the argument I see as the strongest is divine hiddenness; If there is a god that wants us to know he exists why is the evidence lacking?
Physicalism is not atheist as it does not logically start from theism. Theism cannot touch it. Claim equality with it. Let alone superiority to it. It can only come begging alongside in its shadow. Its appeal, if any, is from there. In humility. In yearning. In Jesus.
Atheism from theism is far more fraught. It is an inevitable consequence of deconstruction and almost impossible to reconstruct theism from without cognitive bias like Thomism and related fallacies. If at all. Its only honest reconstruction is in yearning, submission, choice; the leap of faith. In the last thing let out of Pandoraâs box.
The best atheist objection to theism is that there is no evidence for it. No requirement. It explains nothing at all, nothing that rationalism beyond empiricism doesnât, at infinitely greater cost. The only theist claim worth the candle is Jesus. And He can only be believed in by faith.
Maybe we have to want to know him, and have to humble ourselves to his terms.
Maybe we have to want to know him, and have to humble ourselves to his terms.
But then he DOESNâT want me to know he exists. What you are saying is that you are supposed to believe FIRST and then let confirmation bias do the rest. I think we can all agree that that is a terrible idea for every other proposed claim in the world. I wouldnât need some undeniable proof to believe. Just the same amount reasonable evidence that anyone would ask for any claim lest they be called gullible. So the problem remains, if there is a god and I canât find sufficient evidence then Iâm not SUPPOSED to believe. That is the point.
The point of the two verses cited is that there already is enough evidence (not proof⌠but why that is was referenced, too). Check your messages.
There is a difference between having enough evidence and accepting that evidence and coming to know him.
Some biases are correct. 
We all have confirmation bias in accord with our worldviews.
ââŚarent any atheists.â Ive had a time, with the idea that anyone really - really believes in whatever god theyâve chosen.
Wanting to believe ( love, win at gambling, whatever) is step one in self deception.
Equivocation with the word " faith" is so tiresome
How am I deceiving myself in wanting to believe?
If God is God, why would God have anything to do with me?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
