Theres no such thing as "evil". There are actions and reactions based on favorable or unfavorable consequences.
@jameswooten3212
8 күн бұрын
@@grantrizmo2002cb Islam teaches that, murder, forced slavery of the innocent, rape, and pedophilia are acceptable against non-Muslims. For some these could be considered favorable consequences.
@betsalprince
11 күн бұрын
Bahnsen only defines 'evil' in theological terms and makes the absurd assertion that moral condemnation necessarily requires invoking moral absolutes. This is why presuppositional apologetics only appeals to certain kind of Calvinists and makes any theist-atheist or interfaith dialogue unproductive.
@cogitofide
11 күн бұрын
we should distinguish between Opinions and Condemnation. if moral condemnation does not require moral absolutes then it becomes entirely subjective. Saying something is 'wrong' is then no different from saying 'I don't like it' or 'It does not align with my cultural norms'. Traditional defintions of words like morality, right and wrong or condemnation imply a universal judgement that something is objectively wrong, regardless of time or culture. Unless someone wants to engage in lexical revisionsm and redefine these words to allow for subjectivity And yes he does define evil in theological terms. I don't see why that is a problem, as long as it is consistent with his presuppositions. The naturalist is free to use his presuppositions to define 'evil' as well
@artemthetrain14
11 күн бұрын
@@richardlaiche8303"a god that isn't objective" what does that even mean?
@betsalprince
10 күн бұрын
@@cogitofide I don't have a problem with moral condemnations having subjective moral grounds because I view morality as an emergent property of human interaction. Two Christians who believe in the same God can morally condemn each other. In practice, you saying something is 'wrong' to another Christian is no different from saying "it does not align with my religious norms". Appealing to moral absolutes just gives you a smug sense of moral superiority.
@cogitofide
10 күн бұрын
@@betsalprince so your distaste of others appealing to moral absolutes and calling it 'smug', is just another subjective opinion? is there some rule that says people can't feel superior or that being smug is wrong ? I'm just asking for a smug friend. He also happens to be a moral relativist and he believes that feeling superior and being smug is not wrong
@betsalprince
10 күн бұрын
@@cogitofide Yep, it is my subjective opinion. I can look at a piece of dog shit on the ground and say it's disgusting. You already have that friend. His name is Yahweh and he lives in your mind. If you actually read the Bible, you'd know that he also happens to be a moral relativist when it comes to things like slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc., and he believes that feeling superior and being smug is not wrong (expect when others do it because he gets jealous). Anyhow, keep thinking about these things. Take care.
@JohnNewby-o8d
9 күн бұрын
God does not explain his actions because he does not exist
@jameswooten3212
8 күн бұрын
Where’s your proof? I offer the proof of you and the object you are reading this on as proof for the existence of God. You can’t seriously believe everything came from nothing.
@JohnNewby-o8d
8 күн бұрын
@@jameswooten3212 i do not believe something came from nothing that is what christians believe about the creation of god. If god existed he should be revealing him self perhaps by making a you tube video
@jameswooten3212
8 күн бұрын
@@JohnNewby-o8d when you make the argument that something created God you’re just pushing to the inevitable conclusion that God just is. “I am”. God reveals himself everyday in you and in your heart, as well as in KZitem videos. kzitem.info/news/bejne/sJykt6Wakqd3rX4si=cm8IaBZUPwGDdSwL
@pillsareyummy
8 күн бұрын
God does exist! I saw him the other day at McDonald's, ordering a Sausage McMuffin with Egg at 7:00pm!!
@pillsareyummy
8 күн бұрын
@@jameswooten3212Where did God come from?
@BoecifusJones24
9 күн бұрын
One of the big differences between religion and science as “ways of knowing” is that in science we can almost always specify what observations or experiments would prove our theories wrong. In contrast, the faithful do not (and cannot) specify what observations would disprove their beliefs-or the whole basis of their religion. There are two reasons for this distinction. First, through judicious theological manipulation the faithful carefully insulate those beliefs from disproof, often in a hypocritical way. When evidence is found against them, like the medieval age of the shroud of Turin or observations showing that prayer doesn’t work, the faithful simply say, “No, you can’t test God.” No matter that if the Shroud of Turin did date to around 30 A. D., or if prayer did cure people in double-blind tests, those same believers would trumpet to the skies the proof of their faith. Evidence for religious beliefs is counted; evidence against them is dismissed. Needless to say, science doesn’t-and couldn’t-work that way. Second, because religious belief is irrational, the faithful often won’t let themselves even consider counterevidence. The evidence for evolution is by now overwhelming, but still around 60% of Americans think that humans were created by a god directly instead of having evolved-and a lot of the latter believe that our evolution was guided by a god. Faith has immunized these people against the plain facts. I’ve always thought that the existence of horrible tragedy and evil, particularly that inflicted on innocent people and that produced by natural forces like earthquakes and tsunamis, were prime evidence against the more loving and omnipotent species of god. But there’s a whole branch of theology-theodicy-designed to explain those things away. Let’s put it this way: if the Holocaust didn’t make people abandon their belief in a god, then nothing ever will. Religion is not a way of knowing because it doesn’t have a way of knowing that it is wrong. And without that, you don’t know if you’re right. That’s why science makes progress in understanding the world while religion is still mired in medieval theology.
@jameswooten3212
8 күн бұрын
Taxation is theft. It is the use of force to steal goods from one person to give it to others. Now explain the science of creating a “good” society! I can point to several examples of how banning religion or following the wrong one makes your experiment deliver the same bad result.
@a.i.l1074
2 күн бұрын
The scientific method isn't the beginning and end of epistemology. Even in other fields of academia, conclusions are arrived at by other methods: deduction in mathematics gives more certainty, adduction and hybrid methods give less certainty in still-respected fields like history. My own field of mental health straddles various disciplines which develop and evaluate theories differently. I'm not sure how to answer your strawman, except to say that I don't do the things you accuse me of, and I left atheism (materialism) because I felt it wasn't the most rational hypothesis. I rejected theism, like you, because it isn't falsifiable, and hid behind the claim that I didn't have the burden of proof. But when I looked at what I believed rather than focusing on what I disbelieved, I realised it also wasn't falsifiable, and actually failed to explain the world we observe
@BoecifusJones24
2 күн бұрын
@a.i.l1074 my point is that when science doesn't achieve 100% certainty, they get as close as possible and preface a lot of info with "from what we know so far..". With new information, we hone science closer and closer to 100% certainty. If you refute the science or any part of the method they used to get the info, they're all ears. They want to be as accurate as possible because future scientific endeavors will probably rely on their findings. Religion does bear the burden of proof because where Science says 'we don't know yet, but here's what we have so far.", Religion says "God did it... with angels or a snake,.. burning bush or something... back before he was nice.. go wash your feet." You can question Science all day, but there are countries built on the fact that you can't question Religion.
@thomasferebee9535
9 күн бұрын
Tell all the holocaust victims, children in sex trafficking, the humans experimented on by unit 731, the people tortured by mk-ultra, the people who have suffered and died and who are still suffering under communism, etc, etc, that their suffering is necessary for God to bring some good on the earth. That he’s doing this for their own good or for the good of the people that come after them. How can one still think that God is all good and all loving, despite the fact that He’s condemned billions of people to suffer from heinous and vulgar crimes such as these? I’m not an advocate for atheism, I’m an advocate for a development in the outdated theological conceptions of the privatio boni and the Summum Bonum.
@filmsterproductions3620
8 күн бұрын
If you believe in God truly then you should be ready to suffer for God's kingdom as it says throughout the torrah and the bible. Secondly pesupposing God is real, why would then it matter if evil exists on earth since its temporary? Thats like saying "i don't support and love my parents because of a nightmare i had." The things of the world are temporary where as your afterlife is eternal and most if not all those people whom you mentioned are likely to be with the father. One last thing idk why people aren't getting. God while he uses evil never wanted evil in the first place, didn't make an evil world, didn't tell people to do evil, we did. Thats like blaming a shopowner for your wallet getting stolen in his store.
Пікірлер: 24