atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
What it doesn't disprove is the existence of a God whose actions sometimes cannot be understood or explained by humans. And this is precisely the kind of God that Paul writes about in Romans.
Therefore a God in whom we cannot reconcile goodness and complete power doesn't contradict scripture. In fact it's exactly how scripture describes God, whether we like it or not.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
You're still not getting the point.
The point is it's wrong to say that suffering disproves the God of the Bible, because the Bible itself says that God allows unjust things to happen. So the idea of an all powerful God who allows bad things is not alien to the Bible. It's in there in black and white.
You can say you find Paul's solution unsatisfactory. But it seems wrong to pretend it doesn't exist or the Bible doesn't include the teaching that God's actions cannot be questioned.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
My point is that there is something wrong with the assertion that suffering disproves the God of the Bible when the Bible itself talks about these very issues and includes it in its depiction of God. It seems to me the Bible at different points says three things about God:
1. He is all powerful.
2. He is perfect in love.
3. We can't always understand why God acts as he does.
Your argument that the God of the Bible doesn't exist relies on the first two points to the exclusion of the third. You may say Paul is stupid or you don't like the parts of the Bible that say God is inscrutable. But these parts of the Bible nevertheless exist. And they don't claim there are easy answers to God's righteousness, they say humans can't understand or it's not our place to question God.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
I think Nicholas Wolterstorff's answer was the most human.
You've not addressed the fact that the Bible itself acknowledges that God's actions may seem unjust, and that humans don't have satisfactory answers sometimes. Paul said bluntly:
"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?" (And the rest of Romans 9)
Paul didn't pretend to know the answer. He said humans don't have the right to question God on his actions.
The Bible writers were apparently not ignorant of the problem of evil, nor did they ignore it. Their conception of God often included the idea that his qualities are difficult to reconcile and that we don't have good answers to why God acts in certain ways.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
I think Nicholas Wolterstorff's answer is the most human. He says he lives with the question without the answer. I think many thoughtful believers approach the problem this way.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
There is no possible reason for an omnipotent loving god...
Well that's your opinion. Clearly many believers do have their reasons for believing in God despite suffering, And others don't know the answer but trust there must be an answer.
Not one of them has a sensible answer.
No answer which you find sensible. Which is not necessarily the same thing.
As the OP points out, to assert there is no possible answer to the problem of evil, is basically an assertion that the human mind, or your human mind in particular, has such a perfect and complete grasp of reality that there is simply no possible chance of there being a solution to the problem that you haven't already figured out or judged to be satisfactory. That's a pretty bold claim.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Did the OP even bother checking the news before posting this predictable drivel?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
I don't know what news you watch, but the news I saw included: Muslim mayor of London condemning the attack. Plus Muslim leaders standing beside Anglican, Catholic and Jewish leaders at Westminster Abbey after the attack.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Natural evil is proof that the god of christian theism does not exist.
Two things wrong with this.
First is that it excludes the possibility God may have a reason for allowng suffering we either don't understand or possibly cannot understand. In Romans 7-9 Paul argues that humans are not in a position to question God's righteousness.
Another problem with the assertion is that there are many millions of believers who do believe in God who are well aware of suffering. Many Christians have reflected on the subject and philosophers have explored solutions. They don't think it's proof God doesn't exist.
check out the latest watchtower:.
"your defense?
be determined to stick to jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface.
I also find this an interesting comment:
Surely there is ample evidence to show that you can trust the channel that Jehovah has used for nearly a hundred years now to lead us in the way of the truth
Why did they say "nearly a hundred years", when Russell started the movement nearly 150 years ago? I guess it's because of their new "faithful slave" teaching that claims the slave same into existence in 1919 or something like that, and only includes the "governing body", not anointed JWs in general. They say we should trust them because they claim to have been the slave for a hundred years. A more relevant question might be: why trust a "slave" that only figured out who it was and when it came into existence a couple of years ago, and was apparently wrong about its own identity for most of its so-called period of tenure.
