Archived

Teleological Argument

Read 9211 times

alex1212

  • **
  • 761 Posts
    • View Profile
Divine Psychology and Scharp
« on: June 25, 2016, 01:20:57 pm »
I don't see why Scharp seemed to think divine psychology was some sort of devasting objection, but perhaps he didn't and was just saying that it is something that needs to be taken into account. That also seems, at least to me, to be a very pejorative term. As Scharp acknowledged, the psychology objection can't work against deductive arguments. But also, the objection doesn't even apply to most/a lot of arguments for and against God's existence. Not only that, but he seems to fail in distinguishing sound uses of it and unsound uses of it. For example, it's self-evident that, necessarily, if God exists, then God would love humans. Also, if God exists, God would disapprove of murder.

So, I'm sorry Kevin but we can debate what God would do a lot of the time, and we do this correctly all the time in real life with fellow humans. I'm sorry if it's not always obvious, but that's philosophy.

Hence, the divine psychology objection seems to assume a few things. For one, it assumes that what God would do just wouldn't be plain obvious a lot of the time or way more apparent than what humans do! Secondly, it seems to assume that there isn't a distinction between sound uses and unsound uses of divine psychology. As I already noted, we correctly identify in real life, all the time, what humans will do in various circumstances.

He also begged the question with skeptical theism being sound (he brought it in because of its possible relationship with divine psychology), and seemed to misunderstand how skeptical theism actually proceeds. The whole issue is whether skeptical theism is sound, and skeptical theism can't work against IBE arguments from evil or deductive arguments from horrific evil. So no, Kevin, the argument from evil has not been sent to the abyss...at least not yet. Overall, Scharp was way too dismissive of a lot of the arguments for AND against God's existence. He needs to deal with the arguments and not just offer a simple handwave to all the arguments of a particular formulation...inductive arguments.

But note: I am not saying that divine psychology is never a good objection. When it comes to the fine-tuning argument, it seems that the divine psychology objection is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

1

alex1212

  • **
  • 761 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2016, 10:18:40 am »
Derp

2

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2016, 01:48:55 pm »
For example, it's self-evident that, necessarily, if God exists, then God would love humans. Also, if God exists, God would disapprove of murder.

I fail to see how that would be self-evident.  Loki for example would qualify as a god, but would not have those traits.  Johnny, the god of the slime alien from Vargas 7.4 who will simply use us as an intergalactic snack on his trip to see the black hole at the center of the Milky Way eat its next star, also fits the bill of being a god, but doesn't love humans.

I have a hard time believing that someone would even say that if a god exists that it would necessarily love humans.  That just seems so patently false to me.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

3

alex1212

  • **
  • 761 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2016, 03:16:08 pm »
For example, it's self-evident that, necessarily, if God exists, then God would love humans. Also, if God exists, God would disapprove of murder.

I fail to see how that would be self-evident.  Loki for example would qualify as a god, but would not have those traits.  Johnny, the god of the slime alien from Vargas 7.4 who will simply use us as an intergalactic snack on his trip to see the black hole at the center of the Milky Way eat its next star, also fits the bill of being a god, but doesn't love humans.

I have a hard time believing that someone would even say that if a god exists that it would necessarily love humans.  That just seems so patently false to me.

I'm talking about God, a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. It follows, necessarily, that if a being is all-loving, then that being will love its creatures. That's just what all-loving means.

4

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2016, 05:52:34 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

5

alex1212

  • **
  • 761 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2016, 12:40:05 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

I'm talking about the God of classical theism. I said "if" God exists, an all-powerful/all-good being. Your objection is just a red-herring.

And can you respond to all the other things that I said in the OP?

6

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2016, 02:06:47 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

I'm talking about the God of classical theism. I said "if" God exists, an all-powerful/all-good being. Your objection is just a red-herring.

And can you respond to all the other things that I said in the OP?

Ok, there isn't a god of classical theism.  Classical theism is polytheistic.  This monotheistic god concept is very new.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

7

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2016, 02:26:32 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 02:28:53 pm by Dogbyte »

8

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2016, 02:46:40 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.

I see, what action would demonstrate that a god doesn't love humans?  Obviously, killing them all would not qualify, so what would?  Killing them all, and then allowing them to be tortured in the depths of Hell?

On a slightly more serious note, the argument you're putting forth is that because I haven't proven someone wrong, that they are right.  That's a shifting of the burden of proof.  The case has not been made to demonstrate that the god in question actually loves humans. 
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

9

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2016, 02:53:19 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.

I see, what action would demonstrate that a god doesn't love humans?  Obviously, killing them all would not qualify, so what would?  Killing them all, and then allowing them to be tortured in the depths of Hell?

On a slightly more serious note, the argument you're putting forth is that because I haven't proven someone wrong, that they are right.  That's a shifting of the burden of proof.  The case has not been made to demonstrate that the god in question actually loves humans.

This is a response to your serious note, i am not putting forth any argument related to the OP, I am merely pointing out that your objection would be an actual objection, if you demonstrated where your assertions necessarily follow to the conclusion you arrived at. There was no conclusion i reached that included someone else was right because you havent proven them wrong, this never happened. What did happen was that I wrote a response that involved your objection, and the lack of showing how you arrived at it.

10

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2016, 03:30:13 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.

I see, what action would demonstrate that a god doesn't love humans?  Obviously, killing them all would not qualify, so what would?  Killing them all, and then allowing them to be tortured in the depths of Hell?

On a slightly more serious note, the argument you're putting forth is that because I haven't proven someone wrong, that they are right.  That's a shifting of the burden of proof.  The case has not been made to demonstrate that the god in question actually loves humans.

This is a response to your serious note, i am not putting forth any argument related to the OP, I am merely pointing out that your objection would be an actual objection, if you demonstrated where your assertions necessarily follow to the conclusion you arrived at. There was no conclusion i reached that included someone else was right because you havent proven them wrong, this never happened. What did happen was that I wrote a response that involved your objection, and the lack of showing how you arrived at it.

Then the slightly less serious part of that reply comes into play.  I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).  That, alone, should prove that such a being does not love humans.  If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

11

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2016, 03:59:10 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.

I see, what action would demonstrate that a god doesn't love humans?  Obviously, killing them all would not qualify, so what would?  Killing them all, and then allowing them to be tortured in the depths of Hell?

On a slightly more serious note, the argument you're putting forth is that because I haven't proven someone wrong, that they are right.  That's a shifting of the burden of proof.  The case has not been made to demonstrate that the god in question actually loves humans.

This is a response to your serious note, i am not putting forth any argument related to the OP, I am merely pointing out that your objection would be an actual objection, if you demonstrated where your assertions necessarily follow to the conclusion you arrived at. There was no conclusion i reached that included someone else was right because you havent proven them wrong, this never happened. What did happen was that I wrote a response that involved your objection, and the lack of showing how you arrived at it.

Then the slightly less serious part of that reply comes into play.  I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).  That, alone, should prove that such a being does not love humans.  If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?

Quote
I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).

How did you show this, by asserting it to be the case? Indiscriminately? How? Not to mention the fact that we are discussing, the potential cause of some events that you probably do not believe really happened to begin with...but what about your own understanding of the doctrine of God? You are positing that a characteristic of God like being all loving is not compatible with the event you mention in the Bible. Is there any room that you may have an incomplete understanding of the preceding events leading up to the Flood? I only make this assumption because you seemed to be unsure of the correct number of Flood survivors, if that assumption is wrong, please forgive me.

Nevertheless, what is your answer to the question: "Why did God bring the Flood to kill almost all of Earth's inhabitants?" 

How does this event "alone" prove that God cannot be all loving? If His actions were the result of humans who possess free will, how does punishment make this all loving property somehow mutually exclusive? This is what you are trying to show.

Quote
If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?

What would? A Creator that violates the free will of His creations would be a demonstration of a lack of love. I can love my child but hate his behavior, and approve of the ensuing punishment. However, it cannot be said that I love my child, and at the same time force him into action against his own volition.  That act of force against his will, denies the intrinsic worth that love requires. So I would view this as an example of what a lack of love would look like.


12

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2016, 04:07:25 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.

I see, what action would demonstrate that a god doesn't love humans?  Obviously, killing them all would not qualify, so what would?  Killing them all, and then allowing them to be tortured in the depths of Hell?

On a slightly more serious note, the argument you're putting forth is that because I haven't proven someone wrong, that they are right.  That's a shifting of the burden of proof.  The case has not been made to demonstrate that the god in question actually loves humans.

This is a response to your serious note, i am not putting forth any argument related to the OP, I am merely pointing out that your objection would be an actual objection, if you demonstrated where your assertions necessarily follow to the conclusion you arrived at. There was no conclusion i reached that included someone else was right because you havent proven them wrong, this never happened. What did happen was that I wrote a response that involved your objection, and the lack of showing how you arrived at it.

Then the slightly less serious part of that reply comes into play.  I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).  That, alone, should prove that such a being does not love humans.  If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?

Quote
I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).

How did you show this, by asserting it to be the case? Indiscriminately? How? Not to mention the fact that we are discussing, the potential cause of some events that you probably do not believe really happened to begin with...but what about your own understanding of the doctrine of God? You are positing that a characteristic of God like being all loving is not compatible with the event you mention in the Bible. Is there any room that you may have an incomplete understanding of the preceding events leading up to the Flood? I only make this assumption because you seemed to be unsure of the correct number of Flood survivors, if that assumption is wrong, please forgive me.

Nevertheless, what is your answer to the question: "Why did God bring the Flood to kill almost all of Earth's inhabitants?" 

How does this event "alone" prove that God cannot be all loving? If His actions were the result of humans who possess free will, how does punishment make this all loving property somehow mutually exclusive? This is what you are trying to show.

Quote
If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?

What would? A Creator that violates the free will of His creations would be a demonstration of a lack of love. I can love my child but hate his behavior, and approve of the ensuing punishment. However, it cannot be said that I love my child, and at the same time force him into action against his own volition.  That act of force against his will, denies the intrinsic worth that love requires. So I would view this as an example of what a lack of love would look like.

Then it is clear that you do not understand the concept of love.  That's unfortunate and there's nothing I can do for you to explain why killing someone is at odds with loving them if you don't understand it.  Forcing someone to die against their will is a violation of free will.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

13

Jenna Black

  • ***
  • 2806 Posts
  • Truth is worth pursuing.
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2016, 05:20:48 pm »
Oh, you're talking about the Christian concept of god, not just a god.  Ok, well then my objection still stands.  I don't see how you could claim that god loves humans, when he literally killed every human in the world, except for 8 (I think it was 8, wasn't it?).  Clearly, he likes 8 humans, but obviously not all of them.

Disapproves of murder?  Well, not according to the bible.  God kills more than any other character in the bible, and orders/sanctions genocide.

Even if you're going to talk about Yahweh, those things are not self-evident.

If you want to produce an argument that shows why it is logically impossible that God can both love humans, and punish humans at the same time, then you could call that an objection. But as it stands currently, what your have offered is not disputing the claim that it is self evident that an all loving being loves His creation, its just a presupposition without any argument behind it. It is not very difficult to conceive of a world where humans are held accountable for their actions, but at the same time are the object of God's love.  If that is possible, then I dont see how you can object based on the examples you gave, it doesnt follow from your examples that God does not love His creation because they are held accountable.

I see, what action would demonstrate that a god doesn't love humans?  Obviously, killing them all would not qualify, so what would?  Killing them all, and then allowing them to be tortured in the depths of Hell?

On a slightly more serious note, the argument you're putting forth is that because I haven't proven someone wrong, that they are right.  That's a shifting of the burden of proof.  The case has not been made to demonstrate that the god in question actually loves humans.

This is a response to your serious note, i am not putting forth any argument related to the OP, I am merely pointing out that your objection would be an actual objection, if you demonstrated where your assertions necessarily follow to the conclusion you arrived at. There was no conclusion i reached that included someone else was right because you havent proven them wrong, this never happened. What did happen was that I wrote a response that involved your objection, and the lack of showing how you arrived at it.

Then the slightly less serious part of that reply comes into play.  I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).  That, alone, should prove that such a being does not love humans.  If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?

Quote
I showed how the Christian god concept slaughtered indiscriminately, the world's population (with the exception of 8 people).

How did you show this, by asserting it to be the case? Indiscriminately? How? Not to mention the fact that we are discussing, the potential cause of some events that you probably do not believe really happened to begin with...but what about your own understanding of the doctrine of God? You are positing that a characteristic of God like being all loving is not compatible with the event you mention in the Bible. Is there any room that you may have an incomplete understanding of the preceding events leading up to the Flood? I only make this assumption because you seemed to be unsure of the correct number of Flood survivors, if that assumption is wrong, please forgive me.

Nevertheless, what is your answer to the question: "Why did God bring the Flood to kill almost all of Earth's inhabitants?" 

How does this event "alone" prove that God cannot be all loving? If His actions were the result of humans who possess free will, how does punishment make this all loving property somehow mutually exclusive? This is what you are trying to show.

Quote
If you don't feel that such a genocidal rampage resulting in near global extinction demonstrates a lack of love, what would?

What would? A Creator that violates the free will of His creations would be a demonstration of a lack of love. I can love my child but hate his behavior, and approve of the ensuing punishment. However, it cannot be said that I love my child, and at the same time force him into action against his own volition.  That act of force against his will, denies the intrinsic worth that love requires. So I would view this as an example of what a lack of love would look like.

Then it is clear that you do not understand the concept of love.  That's unfortunate and there's nothing I can do for you to explain why killing someone is at odds with loving them if you don't understand it.  Forcing someone to die against their will is a violation of free will.
You don't seem to be familiar with the reason God Himself gave for destroying those of His creatures who were so totally evil and corrupt that they deserved to be destroyed (justice) but allowed humankind to survive through those humans who were obedient to God and not evil and corrupt.

Genesis Chapter 6

'The wickedness of man was great in the earth' (v. 5).
'Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually' (v. 5).
'The earth was filled with violence' (v. 11).
'The earth...was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth' (v. 12). (All the people on earth had corrupted their way.)

Your task is to argue that it was unjust for God to destroy these evil creatures and only save the faithful and righteous to repopulate the earth.
Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

14

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Divine Psychology and Scharp
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2016, 05:33:59 pm »
You don't seem to be familiar with the reason God Himself gave for destroying those of His creatures who were so totally evil and corrupt that they deserved to be destroyed (justice) but allowed humankind to survive through those humans who were obedient to God and not evil and corrupt.

Genesis Chapter 6

'The wickedness of man was great in the earth' (v. 5).
'Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually' (v. 5).
'The earth was filled with violence' (v. 11).
'The earth...was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth' (v. 12). (All the people on earth had corrupted their way.)

Your task is to argue that it was unjust for God to destroy these evil creatures and only save the faithful and righteous to repopulate the earth.

It is not my task to argue that it was unjust.  My point was that it is unloving to destroy your creation instead of fixing it.  A loving, omnipotent god could and would have cured the disease, rather than killing the patient.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11