Hi! I’m new to this chat I just would like to ask anyone I need at least 4 people who would let me ask questions it’s a project for my bible class?

[David101]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.
3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

1. I always ask people, if God were not real, why does evil and suffering exist? The answer would be the same regardless, mankind is the cause. God did not create us with sin in mind and for a sinful world, we chose to go down that path.
2. Well, one hundred years ago would people believe having connection to the entire world instantly in the palm of your hand was possible? This world is what God deems it so, this premise does not challenge God's existence, only that of miracles. Therefore, assuming they're accepting God is real, they should accept his will is all powerful. Therefore all things he wish shall be, regardless if we can explain it through science or not.
3. We have only ourselves to blame for the hardships and misery of this world. We live in a society that has made the murder of babies into a well oiled machine, yet we have the hubris to claim morality over the God who gave us a perfect world we destroyed. God does not kill these babies, but he, unlike us, has true grace abound and will save the innocent and offer forgiveness to the repentant.

 

[theanointedwinner]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.
3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

for your first sentence, let me give you an analogy for the assumption that you made on your first sentence.
your assumption is this: if an all-loving God exist, evil will not exist

to correct your flawed assumption: just like how a calculator doesn't have to keep operating 24/7 to be considered a great tool to help you crunch numbers.

an all-loving God doesn't have to keep intervening to prevent evil 24/7 to be considered an all-loving God who ... I know how hard it is to understand, but I believe that God allow free will for this reason ... imagine if we don't have the free will to sin, it would be arrogant to say that "even if we were given the free will to sin, we will not sin"

um, hello "Adam and Eve willfully sin, by choice"

and I believe that, we were given the free will to commit evil to stop being self-righteous about it

that, if we were to boast, boast not of ourselves but to boast in the Lord, the source of all good, and all that is "loving"

God also wants our humility

that's for sentence 1

 

[preacher4truth]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.

You're making a moral rule and assumptions based on that rule: "Since this is true, this cannot be true."

What is this moral belief or assumption of right and wrong based upon?

2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.

Unless God lives outside of the realm of time, and, as God, transcends these laws.

3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

Please supply a passage of Scripture as a reference so something specific can be addressed.

 

[theanointedwinner]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.
3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

for your second sentence,
as far as I know, scientific experiments are repeatable with consistent results.

Statistics is also an academic study, miracles would be a hypothetically possible "outliers", and just because statisticians would want to look for the theoretical average, doesn't mean that outliers cease to exist. You also know what "statistically impossible" is a common phrase that refers to the statistically improbable. Just because it's highly unlikely to just walk outside right now, look through the telescope to see that all the planets are aligned in a perfectly straight line doesn't mean that the planet alignment cannot happen. The odds of that happening is so slim, that the finite amount of scientific experiments being tested will barely ever achieve that miraculous outlier results, and even if it did happen, science will just test the hypothesis again and again, and dismiss it as non-existent just because scientist assumes that there's a scientific error, even claim "unknown scientific error", etc. Scientist looks for the statistically most probable, the most frequently occurring most repeatable events.

In short, just because scientist have standards that pushes out what they consider nonexistent, even if they exist, doesn't prove that miracles don't exist. It only prove that the scientific standard is capable of oversimplified bias, but humans are humans with finite understanding so they must work with oversimplified understanding first before they discover further.

and, for the sake of the argument,
if (assuming) miracles are impossible, then afterlife would be impossible, because to be able to experience life after death is would be a miracle (depending on how you define miracles)

if the afterlife is impossible, then where is the justice in having unrepentant evil people getting away with committing evil?

if God is condemned as evil by human beings, a good apologetic question is, "by what standard do you judge good or evil? congress? by what standards do we judge the politicians to be corrupt?

and where is the legitimacy of that standard?

if moral is relative, then why are people so bothered at the idea that God will judge whoever God deem as sinners, and condemn sinners in hell for all eternity? why find that morally offensive? why hate God because of that? clearly, morals are not relative, or else, they should accept that God condemns sinners in hell, and they should be perfectly ok with that, because morals are relative to the one who decides, right?

if moral is absolute, then what backs up the absoluteness of morality? and where does this absoluteness come from?

 

[theanointedwinner]

3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

for the third sentence,

define "worthy"
define "innocent"

by what standard do you decide what's worthy?

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of God's glory
sinned = not innocent
fall short = God is more worthy than humans, so humans shouldn't judge on this matter

as hard to accept as it may be, babies are born into sin, inherited from Adam and Eve


for the sake of the argument,
assume the child is truly innocent, then even with physical death, God can still bring that innocent child to heaven

this idea seems to justify mass abortion from sinful human's perspective (human's are not so innocent after all, huh?)

if humans believe that committing evil can result in the greater good, they will do it. Hitler appealed this kind of logic to the German soldiers in Nazi Germany, that the mass murder of 6 million Jews can somehow bring about the greater good for Germany.

if Hitler is an extreme example, how would mass-abortion, not be an extreme example?

if child grew up to be evil people, where did they get their "evil tendencies" from, if people assume that babies are born innocent. "monkey see, monkey do", which all goes back to square 1, every evil people was once a child, was once a so-called innocent baby. If everyone was born innocent, there will be no evil to learn from or practice, because evil is just not the nature of the innocent.

evil is not the nature of the innocent
people are capable of evil
Therefore, people are not innocent

people are not innocent
babies are people
Therefore, babies are not innocent

Therefore, "innocent children" do not exist as we have proven the two to be a contradiction in term

"innocent children" do not exist
nonexistence cannot be killed, for they don't even exist to begin with, let alone killed
Therefore, not a single innocent children is killed (and if there's one, it's Jesus, killed and died for our sins ... would you want to hear the gospel?)
Therefore, the status of God being worthy of worship remains a possibility, and not a single human alive is capable of proving that God is worthy of worship, and only those souls in heaven can only sing of God's glory

 

[maxwel]

Quick Look At The Arguments:

Each of these propositions are incredibly weak.


1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
This is a simple false dilemma which has been proven to be false, quite thoroughly, in academia.
It cannot logically hold up under it's own weight... it is provably false.
I don't think any serious philosophers argue this dilemma any more

This is just a terribly bad argument.

On top of the fact it's provably false and any child can split the dilemma in under 5 seconds; if you're a materialist, you really can't even get past the first premise and prove that evil exists, or that human suffering is a bad thing.

It's just stupid. Tell your teacher it's stupid.


2. Since miracles contradict science, they cannot be true.
This starts with a presupposition that is never proven or even addressed... so no refutation needed.
You have to first prove that miracles contradict science, and since you're making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

If you go back to David Hume for your proofs, you wind up using a very poor definition of miracle. A proper definition of miracle instantly resolves any presumed contradiction.

Use a proper definition of miracle, and any proof for the first premise collapses.

Done.

Very bad argument.


3. God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.
Again, you toss out a presupposition without proof, and without even an attempt to address it.
Who says god kills innocent children?
You are making the assertion, so you'll have to prove God kills innocent children.
If you can't prove God kills innocent children, your argument fails... I don't have to do anything except listen.

*Once you do attempt some particular "proof" for this presupposition, we have LITERALLY DOZENS of different ways to tear it down. This isn't a hard one.



Conclusion:
1. All of these propositions make for terrible arguments.
2. I can't imagine these silly arguments, so poorly worded and so poorly supported, are really part of an apologetics class. I find it hard to believe.
3. Get your money back, this class is terrible.



...

 

[Gracie_14]

Honestly, guys, I have absolutely liked the way you guys answered the statements. Very well done. And spot on. Hope it had shone some light.

 

[PennEd]

These premises are so bad it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

 

[Adstar]

Thanks so much can’t wait to ask you some questions!

Send me a Message with your questions any time you like..

 

[Adstar]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.

If this statement was true then no human would love another human on earth because suffering exists on earth.. If God is not loving because of suffering then the same argument should work with humans as well.. But it doesn't..

Also what if suffering is a needed component of achieving Gods eternal perfect plan..

2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.

If a God exists ( and He does ) then miracles are so easy for Him because He is God.. Science is limited to the measuring and observation of the known Universe.. Since God created the universe then God is separate from the universe and thus science cannot measure or observe God.. Science is a limited tool designed for the things of this universe.. it is not designed to measure or detect God..

3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

Think about it:::
God ending the lives of an innocent child in this imperfect world is a blessing to the innocent Child.. They do not have to experience the physical and emotional suffering of living a full life in this corrupt planet.. They get a early mark into Gods perfect eternal existence and are saved from all that suffering stress and worry that comes upon us all as we live our lives on earth..

 

[Sarahe28]

1. I always ask people, if God were not real, why does evil and suffering exist? The answer would be the same regardless, mankind is the cause. God did not create us with sin in mind and for a sinful world, we chose to go down that path.
2. Well, one hundred years ago would people believe having connection to the entire world instantly in the palm of your hand was possible? This world is what God deems it so, this premise does not challenge God's existence, only that of miracles. Therefore, assuming they're accepting God is real, they should accept his will is all powerful. Therefore all things he wish shall be, regardless if we can explain it through science or not.
3. We have only ourselves to blame for the hardships and misery of this world. We live in a society that has made the murder of babies into a well oiled machine, yet we have the hubris to claim morality over the God who gave us a perfect world we destroyed. God does not kill these babies, but he, unlike us, has true grace abound and will save the innocent and offer forgiveness to the repentant.

Thanks for replying to my statements from my bible class.
I like your answers. They were very insightful.
For #1 I do agree that man chooses his path, and that God gave us free will. So it is up to man to sin or not to sin.
In Proverbs 16:9 it says, In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps.

Then for #3 I also think that no one is truly innocent. All humans are sinners by nature. It may seem like God is taking a child's life too early but God already knew when he would bring them to heaven. Perhaps, he is saving them from a life of suffering and struggle on Earth. God created life and has the right to take it even if we don't quite understand why.

Thanks for helping me with my statements. I now have to write a paper on what I believe about this.

 

[zeroturbulence]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?

1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
Or can one.

2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot be true.
But yet it happened.

3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.
But are innocent children worthy of God.






(Just messing with ya lol)

 

[Sarahe28]

If this statement was true then no human would love another human on earth because suffering exists on earth.. If God is not loving because of suffering then the same argument should work with humans as well.. But it doesn't..

Also what if suffering is a needed component of achieving Gods eternal perfect plan..



If a God exists ( and He does ) then miracles are so easy for Him because He is God.. Science is limited to the measuring and observation of the known Universe.. Since God created the universe then God is separate from the universe and thus science cannot measure or observe God.. Science is a limited tool designed for the things of this universe.. it is not designed to measure or detect God..



Think about it:::
God ending the lives of an innocent child in this imperfect world is a blessing to the innocent Child.. They do not have to experience the physical and emotional suffering of living a full life in this corrupt planet.. They get a early mark into Gods perfect eternal existence and are saved from all that suffering stress and worry that comes upon us all as we live our lives on earth..

Thank you for your response it means a lot to me. For the first response, I agree with you but suffering is also a way of God teaching us in some moments in our life that we really need him the most like in our low moments when we think God is not there he always is.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death ,but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For #3 I also agree that if its Gods plan for an innocent child to die than God had a good plan for them that wasn't meant to be on earth suffering they were to go and be with God and that's honestly a true blessing this world is sinful and we all have trials but most innocent killed babies will never experience all of that and in some ways that's a good thing.

 

[Sarahe28]

You're making a moral rule and assumptions based on that rule: "Since this is true, this cannot be true."

What is this moral belief or assumption of right and wrong based upon?



Unless God lives outside of the realm of time, and, as God, transcends these laws.



Please supply a passage of Scripture as a reference so something specific can be addressed.

And I love the way you put all your answers over all very well said.
For the first one it is based upon the ten commandments.

For the third one a passage of scripture that I found is this Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." I also think about this statement that if its God's plan for a child not yet to know of their fate that they are being brought into something much better and that's a beautiful thing being taken out of having to go through our evil sinful world.

 

[Sarahe28]

for your first sentence, let me give you an analogy for the assumption that you made on your first sentence.
your assumption is this: if an all-loving God exist, evil will not exist

to correct your flawed assumption: just like how a calculator doesn't have to keep operating 24/7 to be considered a great tool to help you crunch numbers.

an all-loving God doesn't have to keep intervening to prevent evil 24/7 to be considered an all-loving God who ... I know how hard it is to understand, but I believe that God allow free will for this reason ... imagine if we don't have the free will to sin, it would be arrogant to say that "even if we were given the free will to sin, we will not sin"

um, hello "Adam and Eve willfully sin, by choice"

and I believe that, we were given the free will to commit evil to stop being self-righteous about it

that, if we were to boast, boast not of ourselves but to boast in the Lord, the source of all good, and all that is "loving"

God also wants our humility

that's for sentence 1

Wow your responses are so though out and well put thanks so much for answering back.
for the first one I agree although some of it didn't make sense to me but yes "Adam and Eve willfully sin, by choice." And here is my quote for this John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."

 

[Sarahe28]

for the third sentence,

define "worthy"
define "innocent"

by what standard do you decide what's worthy?

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of God's glory
sinned = not innocent
fall short = God is more worthy than humans, so humans shouldn't judge on this matter

as hard to accept as it may be, babies are born into sin, inherited from Adam and Eve


for the sake of the argument,
assume the child is truly innocent, then even with physical death, God can still bring that innocent child to heaven

this idea seems to justify mass abortion from sinful human's perspective (human's are not so innocent after all, huh?)

if humans believe that committing evil can result in the greater good, they will do it. Hitler appealed this kind of logic to the German soldiers in Nazi Germany, that the mass murder of 6 million Jews can somehow bring about the greater good for Germany.

if Hitler is an extreme example, how would mass-abortion, not be an extreme example?

if child grew up to be evil people, where did they get their "evil tendencies" from, if people assume that babies are born innocent. "monkey see, monkey do", which all goes back to square 1, every evil people was once a child, was once a so-called innocent baby. If everyone was born innocent, there will be no evil to learn from or practice, because evil is just not the nature of the innocent.

evil is not the nature of the innocent
people are capable of evil
Therefore, people are not innocent

people are not innocent
babies are people
Therefore, babies are not innocent

Therefore, "innocent children" do not exist as we have proven the two to be a contradiction in term

"innocent children" do not exist
nonexistence cannot be killed, for they don't even exist to begin with, let alone killed
Therefore, not a single innocent children is killed (and if there's one, it's Jesus, killed and died for our sins ... would you want to hear the gospel?)
Therefore, the status of God being worthy of worship remains a possibility, and not a single human alive is capable of proving that God is worthy of worship, and only those souls in heaven can only sing of God's glory

Again your responses are so long and well said. So I define worthy as someone or something that demands respect as they have done meritorious acts. I know this may not apply to God as he created all of us and we should respect all of his actions towards man.
I agree we all can turn into evil people and its sometimes a better plan for the innocent child to die because they were part of the plan God made which is going and living in God's kingdom.

 

[garee]

1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

God defines that which is good as light and evil as darkness.Although God is not evil within his own self he can cause an evil Like bringing others nations against Israel because they would not hear their God. Evil is the opposite of blessing.... good . Both are experienced throughout our lives

2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.

Two kinds of what is called science. That of the wisdom of the world and the other the unseen spiritual wisdom of God.

Since we do not know Christ after the rudiments of this world (atom and molecues We would not expect to find him under a microscope . Miracles are simply miracles no more and no less . God is God, no less


3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

Satan is the murder from the beginning. The father of lies, the spirit the spirit of error. He is responsible for his lying work of every murder whether it is Parent murdering their children, or children murdering their parents.

 

[Xethea]

Thank you To those who are willing to help me I can’t wait to reply to y’all and get some good info for my project I will reply to each of you guys separate I needed 4 people and so far I have that I’m trying to respond as soon I can but I go to school and can get busy so sorry if it takes a while for me to have the chat Again thanks to those who want to help and if you have any questions please reply to me and just a side note I’ll be printing our chat out and giving it to my teacher so just wanted to make sure it’s still ok

It's been almost a week since your post, but I can still answer or try to.

Yahweh bless

 

[Magenta]

Here are my statements let me know your thoughts on them?
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
2.Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.
3.God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.

1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
That is a non sequitir. A non sequitur is a logical fallacy. It means that one thing does not necessarily follow from another. Parents have children knowing their children are likely going to suffer, and certainly die. Does that mean loving parents do not exist? See the fallacy? Your premise does not logically lead to your conclusion.

2. Since miracles contradict science, they cannot ne true.
A miracle is the suspension of that which people assume to be natural laws. If natural laws were not suspended in the bringing about of something, it would not be called a miracle in the first place. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural.

3. God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children.
Please contextualize this. Thank you

 

[Gracie_14]

@NoNameMcgee You deleted your post...again... It was quite informative...oh well...