Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christianity

[Tart]

To say someones beliefs is just "wishful thinking" and in the imagination is an accusation that suggest people are creating things in their mind, that they are creating beliefs that might not necessarily be true or have any evidence supporting them, but declaring it as truth...

This is actually a very common criticism against those who hold beliefs in a God.

But what I am coming to realize is that my beliefs in Christianity, seem to be based and rooted in the evidence, and are subject to change accordingly to the evidence. The only reason I ever believed in God was because Jesus Christ was shown to support that idea. That I had no idea what something like "salvation" was until it was logically explained, and made sense of by the witnesses. That my hope and faith are byproducts of the testimony of the witnesses, and the reasonable ideas that they gave for the belief in the God of Christianity... My belief is dependent on the evidence, and subject to change according to the evidence.

Indeed, it seems to me that my beliefs are not something I created, from wishful thinking and the imagination. But are instead founded in the evidences of Christianity...


On the other hand, I see nonbelievers and atheist come to conclusions about Christianity that there is no supporting evidences of. That their conclusions arent support by evidence, but instead by their own reasoning in their imagination, and their "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

There are many examples, and its easy to spot them. All you have to do is ask for evidence. For years i have been asking atheists for evidence to back up their beliefs about Jesus and Christianity.. And many have tried, but have given no solid evidence or reasoning that there was no Jesus, or he didnt meet the prophecies of the Messiah, or the witnesses made the entire story up, or that people lied about the entire religion. It seems like there is just no solid evidence supporting any of these things..

For example, one user recently claimed that there was probably 2 Jesus's, but had no supporting evidence of that (like this was created in his imagination). Another claimed that Jesus was created by the Romans in 300AD, but when pressed it turned out the only evidence for this claim was a pronunciation problem he thought up in his head from a language he never spoke (many may recognize this claim). Or another example is that Jesus was a creation from other myths, like the movie zeitgeist claims, but this has been totally discredited by scholars, and it turned out that people just thought this up in the early 1900's in their imaginations.

Granted, some of these claims are rooted in atheism, and may be atheist siting other atheist. Like if someone sited zeitgeist (where zeitgeist is a totally imagined up, created, explanation of Christianity not supported by any evidence), that would mean they are siting evidence, but its still just rooted in the imagination. It seems like the roots of all these claims are people creating beliefs in their heads of who Jesus was, how Christianity came to be, and the where it came from, and not basing it off the evidence or letting the evidence lead to their conclusions... (if they did, i believe they would be Christians (like Lee Strobel for example))

I mean, atheists and non believers cant even agree with themselves here... All these beliefs are all over the place, like Paul hallucinated his encounter with Christ, or Paul didnt even exist. Or Rome created Jesus and Jesus didnt exist, or Jesus was really a man but not the Son of God... I mean we see all of these claims, and they dont even support themselves...

It seems to me that, not only the best explanation is the one given in the scriptures by the prophets and the witnesses, but it is the only reasonable explanation...

But the Bottom line here is... Who is creating a belief here? My belief are simply observations of Christianity. I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true... And it seems like all these other claims are things people are thinking up in their heads, like for example "Jesus is a myth".... The "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

Here is a supporting quote from an Agnostic New Testament Scholar.

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"~Bart Ehrman

[William]

[Replying to post 109 by Tart]

This is a poor standard set for Christianity... It is a double standard...

Until one remembers that there are dire consequences promised for not believing. Such as is the case, one expects more from that which claims to be The Truth. Simple as that, it is.

Saying my interpretation of prophecy is askew, when you are basing that off of nothing, is almost like a cognitive bias... Almost like creating a conclusion in your head, of an argument you are unaware of...

You misunderstood. When no one can agree altogether about prophesy, one has to look at the fault laying with the prophesy itself.

Do you have any specific examples of this?

The history of Christendom is a specific example of manifest destiny - from Rome onward.

As far as what the evidence shows? You didnt really discuss any of the evidence, just why you dont believe it. If you want to think critically about the evidence, id invite you to come and make sense out of the evidence... To have good explanations for its existence, and not just discarding it in your own personal doubt.

From what I can gather from your answers so far. I think it would a waste of my time. I have my answers, and generic Christianity proved itself inadequate as a foundation for truthfulness.

The fact that you skimmed right over a very pertinent observation regarding what Jesus said about the multitudes being deceived in his name shows me that you are unwilling to examine Christianity in light of that.

Therefore, I am satisfied that you are not being truthful at all about your claim that you use critical thinking in relation to examining your beliefs which Christianity itself has taught you. I think you believe you are being truthful...

You are throwing away the cornerstone...

Little statements such as this are meaningless. One is required to do more than simply make one line statements and expect another to understand what it is you are speaking to.

And Jesus warned us against the Pharisees, the religious leaders that do so to abuse power and rule over people... So... Im not really sure the problem here.

How more clearly can I express the fact that it is those in such positions of authority which created Christianity, which Jesus warned you about. Why are you so hestitant to listen to his warning and apply it to the very thing you believe in - Christianity itself.

Jesus didn't create Christianity. You have be told that he did, and believe this to be the case so you become one of the multitude deceived IN HIS NAME. *Christianity*...that thing you believe has shown you 'the truth'.

Yes, so this would be about the evidences of Christianity. Making sense out of its existence, who it got here, where it came from, and how you make sense out of it being without a god (or not true)... Im not interested in you just doubting, becuase thats expected of anyone who doesnt believe, but instead making sense out of the evidence in a consistent and coherent manner...

See my answer above.

And im also interested on YOUR beliefs in God, what you believe and why you believe them.

GOD is All that Is Real and no thing exists outside of GOD.

That is the most sincinct answer I can give you.

For more details, these can be found in my Members Notes.
William
My Notes~Leaving a Trail.

[Don McIntosh]

The sticking point, I think, is where Plantinga says this: "A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all."

So how does this work with respect to the Christian concept of God's "Heavenly Kingdom"?

If you accept Plantinga's position then a heaven where there is no evil would not be as "valuable" or as "free" as the world we currently live in.

So I don't see how Plantinga's philosophical ideas could be used to support a religion that proposes and eternal life that Plantinga would consider to be a valueless state of a perfect heaven where free will to choose evil cannot exist.

So Plantinga's philosophy wouldn't be compatible with the Christian concept of Heaven where no evil choices are permitted. There can be no free will in heaven then, according to Plantinga's philosophy.

That's a great point and I agree. Surprise!

In fact I wrote an article a few years ago pointing out that same dilemma:

'But the free will theodicy suffers a serious weakness, in that it ultimately holds out very little hope for humanity; and hopelessness would be an evil in itself. In a moral universe characterized by free will, we should recall, sin must be permitted. That means we must accept and expect the continuance of abuses, torture, tragedy and the like for as long as this present world exists. Worse, the primacy of free will in the plan of God leaves no prospect of hope even in the next world. If God values human volition as highly as claimed by free will defenders, then the human will, like the will of God, can be expected to operate unrestricted, "in heaven as it is on earth." Presumably, then, in God's eternal kingdom I could just as easily become either the victim or the perpetrator of sin and its attendant consequences. If not, then according to the very premises of the free will defense, I cannot be truly free. Clearly something more than free will is needed to retain a coherent theodicy ensuring human well-being.'

While the free will defense succeeds in showing that the existence of God (as defined in classical theism) and the existence of evil (apparently gratuitous suffering) are not contradictory, it falls short of reconciling the two in a satisfactory way. Plantinga is the first to acknowledge this.

There are at least a couple of ways for Christians to address the problem. One is the negative critique, to point out that evil is equally a problem for most views of the world. For example, there appears to be a serious "problem of evil" confronting naturalism:

1. Nature is all that exists.
2. Nature is neither good nor evil.
3. Evil exists.

Pick any two. Given naturalism there is essentially no place for evil in the universe, so that what we describe as "evil" is merely an unfortunate by-product of biological evolution. Hinduism, for another example, regards evil as an illusion. Clearly the reality of evil is a problem for a world view that explicitly denies the reality of evil.

Another way is the further development of theodicy. What I have proposed is a "theodicy of incompleteness," basically the idea that the solution to the problem of reconciling freedom and eternal happiness, like God himself, transcends the "system" of the present world. This proposal is, I think, consistent with both logic and Scripture, and is outlined here:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017 ... eness.html

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The sticking point, I think, is where Plantinga says this: "A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all."

So how does this work with respect to the Christian concept of God's "Heavenly Kingdom"?

If you accept Plantinga's position then a heaven where there is no evil would not be as "valuable" or as "free" as the world we currently live in.

So I don't see how Plantinga's philosophical ideas could be used to support a religion that proposes and eternal life that Plantinga would consider to be a valueless state of a perfect heaven where free will to choose evil cannot exist.

So Plantinga's philosophy wouldn't be compatible with the Christian concept of Heaven where no evil choices are permitted. There can be no free will in heaven then, according to Plantinga's philosophy.

That's a great point and I agree. Surprise!

In fact I wrote an article a few years ago pointing out that same dilemma:

'But the free will theodicy suffers a serious weakness, in that it ultimately holds out very little hope for humanity; and hopelessness would be an evil in itself. In a moral universe characterized by free will, we should recall, sin must be permitted. That means we must accept and expect the continuance of abuses, torture, tragedy and the like for as long as this present world exists. Worse, the primacy of free will in the plan of God leaves no prospect of hope even in the next world. If God values human volition as highly as claimed by free will defenders, then the human will, like the will of God, can be expected to operate unrestricted, "in heaven as it is on earth." Presumably, then, in God's eternal kingdom I could just as easily become either the victim or the perpetrator of sin and its attendant consequences. If not, then according to the very premises of the free will defense, I cannot be truly free. Clearly something more than free will is needed to retain a coherent theodicy ensuring human well-being.'

While the free will defense succeeds in showing that the existence of God (as defined in classical theism) and the existence of evil (apparently gratuitous suffering) are not contradictory, it falls short of reconciling the two in a satisfactory way. Plantinga is the first to acknowledge this.

There are at least a couple of ways for Christians to address the problem. One is the negative critique, to point out that evil is equally a problem for most views of the world. For example, there appears to be a serious "problem of evil" confronting naturalism:

1. Nature is all that exists.
2. Nature is neither good nor evil.
3. Evil exists.

Pick any two. Given naturalism there is essentially no place for evil in the universe, so that what we describe as "evil" is merely an unfortunate by-product of biological evolution. Hinduism, for another example, regards evil as an illusion. Clearly the reality of evil is a problem for a world view that explicitly denies the reality of evil.

Another way is the further development of theodicy. What I have proposed is a "theodicy of incompleteness," basically the idea that the solution to the problem of reconciling freedom and eternal happiness, like God himself, transcends the "system" of the present world. This proposal is, I think, consistent with both logic and Scripture, and is outlined here:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017 ... eness.html

If a grizzly bear attacks and eats a human, is the bear evil? Or is that just the nature of being a top predator. Humans eat bear meat on a fairly regular basis. Are they evil?

Evil does not exist! Evil is not a quantifiable force in the world. Evil is an opinion. So "evil" depends on one's point of view. Most of what people consider "evil" can to be found in the horrific things humans do to other humans.

If I were discovered disemboweling babies, many would consider me "evil." Unless, perhaps, I claimed to be doing it under the direct orders from God. Then there are those who would give me a pass on disemboweling babies.

Numbers 31

[15] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
[16] Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Joshua 6

[20] So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
[21] And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.


Joshua 11:

19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Ezekiel 9

[4] And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
[5] And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
[6] Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
[7] And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

Samuel 1 15:

[2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I personally consider hacking children and babies to death with swords to be an example of "evil." That's my opinion, and it is unlikely to change.

And the next time a believer brings up the whole "free will" argument, ask where, exactly, humans were promised free will. No such promise is contained in the Bible.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 109 by Tart]

I believe in the Bible, the explanation in the scriptures given by the prophets and the witnesses, and it seems to me that they were generally unified in their beliefs, yet some opposed them, and some had misguided beliefs in Christianity... But that is everywhere.. People arent unified in scientific beliefs, or political beliefs, or philosophical beliefs, theological beliefs, etc...

Can you show evidence that the scriptures were given by the prophets or any witnesses?
I mean if you can't I don't see why anyone should believe you.

You mean give evidence that the scripture were written by the prophets and the witnesses?

Sure, the evidence names these people, by name, as being the author of their books. Like the Book of Romans, actually names "Paul"... Which means, Paul signed his name to each letter he wrote, to other individuals... And this is how we write letters today, to other people. We would declare our names on the letters we write.. Paul is named on having written 13 Epistles. Likewise James, Peter, John, and Jude are also named as authors of certain epistles, which they confess knowing Jesus, and being eyewitnesses. Likewise the books of the prophets name their names.. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Micah, etc...

Is there any good reason to doubt? That these are false?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 109 by Tart]

This is a poor standard set for Christianity... It is a double standard...

Until one remembers that there are dire consequences promised for not believing. Such as is the case, one expects more from that which claims to be The Truth. Simple as that, it is.

The fact that there are consequences for not living according to the Word, does not some how, all of a sudden change logic, and give rise to Christianity being false because people disagree...

That isnt a good logical assumption to make.. People disagree all the time on everything, even morals... People even disagree on set moralities, like in the law, and it doesnt mean that because they disagree it is therefor false

I mean, if that was true, the law (which has consequences for not following) would be invalid... Because someone disagreed about it... This is holding Christianity to unjustified standards of evidence, because you dont agree with it...

This demonstrates cognitive biases in your reasoning...

Saying my interpretation of prophecy is askew, when you are basing that off of nothing, is almost like a cognitive bias... Almost like creating a conclusion in your head, of an argument you are unaware of...

You misunderstood. When no one can agree altogether about prophesy, one has to look at the fault laying with the prophesy itself.

Do you believe sometime people are wrong, and sometimes people are right? And that sometimes people debate where one might be wrong and one might be right?

Do you have any specific examples of this?

The history of Christendom is a specific example of manifest destiny - from Rome onward.

Does this somehow discredit Jesus as the Messiah?

As far as what the evidence shows? You didnt really discuss any of the evidence, just why you dont believe it. If you want to think critically about the evidence, id invite you to come and make sense out of the evidence... To have good explanations for its existence, and not just discarding it in your own personal doubt.

From what I can gather from your answers so far. I think it would a waste of my time. I have my answers, and generic Christianity proved itself inadequate as a foundation for truthfulness.

The fact that you skimmed right over a very pertinent observation regarding what Jesus said about the multitudes being deceived in his name shows me that you are unwilling to examine Christianity in light of that.

Actually i fully believe people can misuse his name... It would be like claiming to be a follower of Christ, or claiming to "love God", yet your actions show difrently.

That i believe is what Jesus was talking about... But i suppose you believe that He was saying, that when people use the name of Jesus they are deceivers?

Is that accurate? Anyone who uses the name of Jesus as the Truth is a deceiver? And you believe the scriptures support that?

Therefore, I am satisfied that you are not being truthful at all about your claim that you use critical thinking in relation to examining your beliefs which Christianity itself has taught you. I think you believe you are being truthful...

Can you again outline what im not being critical about here? I am more then happy for you to specifically outline what im not being critical about, so i can understand you better.

You are throwing away the cornerstone...

Little statements such as this are meaningless. One is required to do more than simply make one line statements and expect another to understand what it is you are speaking to.

This would be throwing out Jesus Christ... Which you apparently claim anyone who uses the name of Jesus is wrong... Is that correct?

And Jesus warned us against the Pharisees, the religious leaders that do so to abuse power and rule over people... So... Im not really sure the problem here.

How more clearly can I express the fact that it is those in such positions of authority which created Christianity, which Jesus warned you about. Why are you so hestitant to listen to his warning and apply it to the very thing you believe in - Christianity itself.

Jesus didn't create Christianity. You have be told that he did, and believe this to be the case so you become one of the multitude deceived IN HIS NAME. *Christianity*...that thing you believe has shown you 'the truth'.

The prophets and the disciples made Christianity. And in fact, they were persecuted by the religious leaders.. Paul, Peter, Stephan, John... These men are the authors of the New Testament, and Disciples of Christ..

Yet we have the religious authorities stoning these people, killing them, charging them with crimes, and putting them in jail, so they can protect the Jewish Temple, which they worshiped in place of Jesus..

That doesnt seem to support what you are saying about Christianity.

Yes, so this would be about the evidences of Christianity. Making sense out of its existence, who it got here, where it came from, and how you make sense out of it being without a god (or not true)... Im not interested in you just doubting, becuase thats expected of anyone who doesnt believe, but instead making sense out of the evidence in a consistent and coherent manner...

See my answer above.

And im also interested on YOUR beliefs in God, what you believe and why you believe them.

GOD is All that Is Real and no thing exists outside of GOD.

That is the most sincinct answer I can give you.

For more details, these can be found in my Members Notes.
William
My Notes~Leaving a Trail.

Ok, so there for I dont exist outside of God, neither do my beliefs, and Christ, and Paul, and Peter... And even the religious leaders you talk of, all exist in God... According to you?

[benchwarmer]

Ok benchwarmer, I dont think it is my job to prove anything to you..

Let me get this straight. You wanted to talk about some prophesies. You gave two. I showed them to be a failure. You failed to respond to my points, so I guess you concede I was right?

And now you are circling back to your position of not wanting to prove anything to me. Fine, do you not even want to give it a whirl? At this point, IMHO, I have shredded your argument, you have not taken issue with any of my points against the prophecies in question, and now you are just basically complaining that I will raise doubts. Well of course I will, I have given good reason to do so. You've given nothing.

This is more like a debate. Where i show what i believe, you show what you believe, as they are rival beliefs... So you can throw mud in the water all you want, and doubt the evidence... This just shows you doubt.

No, this is not LIKE a debate, it IS a debate. Care to weigh in and give counterpoints or will you just continue to basically complain I don't believe?

What 'mud' have I thrown in the water? Do you mean the facts and questions I raised? Instead of complaining, why don't you simply bring all your evidence to bear and clear up the issue? Is it perhaps because you have none?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 114 by Tart]

I don't agree.
They seem to share the same style and much of their words and phrases, as if they came from a master document or were written by the same person.

Two people writing the same material would write it in different ways.

So, simply ascribing different names to them would diminish doubt of anyone who did not inspect them closely, or the gullible, but a careful examination would give rise to the wise questioning those very details.

[William]

[Replying to post 115 by Tart]

Ok, so there for I dont exist outside of God, neither do my beliefs, and Christ, and Paul, and Peter... And even the religious leaders you talk of, all exist in God... According to you?

Correct.
Ultimately your beliefs in Christianity are inconsequential in relation to that.
You will still have to deal with them as per the different phases you have yet to experience after this one, if you chose to continue believing they are Truth, but ultimately your and everyone's destiny is assured. No one is left behind or regarded as outside of GOD.

If you are saying that Jesus had a contrary message, and that is your belief, then that is what you are being asked to critically evaluate.

[Divine Insight]

The sticking point, I think, is where Plantinga says this: "A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all."

So how does this work with respect to the Christian concept of God's "Heavenly Kingdom"?

If you accept Plantinga's position then a heaven where there is no evil would not be as "valuable" or as "free" as the world we currently live in.

So I don't see how Plantinga's philosophical ideas could be used to support a religion that proposes and eternal life that Plantinga would consider to be a valueless state of a perfect heaven where free will to choose evil cannot exist.

So Plantinga's philosophy wouldn't be compatible with the Christian concept of Heaven where no evil choices are permitted. There can be no free will in heaven then, according to Plantinga's philosophy.

That's a great point and I agree. Surprise!

In fact I wrote an article a few years ago pointing out that same dilemma:

'But the free will theodicy suffers a serious weakness, in that it ultimately holds out very little hope for humanity; and hopelessness would be an evil in itself. In a moral universe characterized by free will, we should recall, sin must be permitted. That means we must accept and expect the continuance of abuses, torture, tragedy and the like for as long as this present world exists. Worse, the primacy of free will in the plan of God leaves no prospect of hope even in the next world. If God values human volition as highly as claimed by free will defenders, then the human will, like the will of God, can be expected to operate unrestricted, "in heaven as it is on earth." Presumably, then, in God's eternal kingdom I could just as easily become either the victim or the perpetrator of sin and its attendant consequences. If not, then according to the very premises of the free will defense, I cannot be truly free. Clearly something more than free will is needed to retain a coherent theodicy ensuring human well-being.'

While the free will defense succeeds in showing that the existence of God (as defined in classical theism) and the existence of evil (apparently gratuitous suffering) are not contradictory, it falls short of reconciling the two in a satisfactory way. Plantinga is the first to acknowledge this.

I am very glad to hear that both you and Plantinga recognize this problem with Plantinga's "Free Will Defense".

I would like to see this problem addressed in a meaningful way. However the way you have addressed it below does not appear to be valid to me.

There are at least a couple of ways for Christians to address the problem. One is the negative critique, to point out that evil is equally a problem for most views of the world. For example, there appears to be a serious "problem of evil" confronting naturalism:

1. Nature is all that exists.
2. Nature is neither good nor evil.
3. Evil exists.

Pick any two. Given naturalism there is essentially no place for evil in the universe, so that what we describe as "evil" is merely an unfortunate by-product of biological evolution. Hinduism, for another example, regards evil as an illusion. Clearly the reality of evil is a problem for a world view that explicitly denies the reality of evil.

Your conclusions about naturalism are simply wrong. You are attempting to push the theological "Problem of Evil" onto Naturalism, but that can't be made to work.

Let's look at your list:

1. Nature is all that exists.

So far so good.

2. Nature is neither good nor evil.

Again, no problem because if Nature is all that exists that everything is "amoral" (neither neither good nor evil.)

3. Evil exists.

Here's your problem right here. You are simply labeling things that humans don't like to be "evil" when your #2 has already stated that Nature is amoral and therefore it is incorrect to judge or label anything it does as being morally wrong ("evil").

In fact, we already don't even consider Natural Disasters to be "Evil" because we recognize them to be amoral. They are neither well-intended nor ill-intended, they simply are what they are which is amoral events.

So there's no way that the fact that humans label things they don't like as "evil" can be said to be a problem in Naturalism. It's not Nature that is making this judgement on actions, it's humans. And humans are simply wrong. In fact, when they go to war to kill each other they don't think of their own soldiers as being "evil". To the contrary they label their own soldiers as being "heroes" who are doing the right thing.

So the entire concept of "Evil" is a human invention. Humans decide what they will label "Good and Evil", not nature. So nature is neither good or evil, it's amoral.

So it's wrong to conclude that Naturalism has a "Problem of Evil". There is no Problem of Evil in naturalism. Things just are the way they are and it's humans who have invented this judgmental concept of "Evil".

So you are absolutely wrong to try to push the "Problem of Evil" onto a secular worldview. The "Problem of Evil" belongs solely to worldviews that hold the premise that the world was created by a "Perfect and Good" God, who is not evil. This causes the "Problem of Evil" for them because now they need to explain why there exists evil in a world that was created by a perfect and good God.

They have attempted to do this by blaming "Free Will" for the need for evil, but this can't work as we just saw, because if "Free Will" is the cause of evil then neither God, nor Heaven could be free of evil unless they were also devoid of Free Will.

So no, Naturalism does not have a "Problem of Evil". It's simply not a problem for this worldview.

Another way is the further development of theodicy. What I have proposed is a "theodicy of incompleteness," basically the idea that the solution to the problem of reconciling freedom and eternal happiness, like God himself, transcends the "system" of the present world. This proposal is, I think, consistent with both logic and Scripture, and is outlined here:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017 ... eness.html

I've read your thesis and do not agree with your reasoning.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Self-Referenced Systems:

I certainly won't go into it here but your conclusions about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem are not valid. I have actually studied Godel's incompleteness theorem in quite some depth as I have found it to be quite interesting. Godel's incompleteness Theorem actually has to do with a problem of self-referenced systems.

The example you had given and the incorrect conclusions you have drawn from it are easy to show:

Your example sentence:

"The truth machine will never say that this sentence is true."

This is actually a self-referenced systems which create the apparent paradox. The self-referenced nature of it is not readily apparent in this specific case. But we can easily modify the sentence to change this.

Your article you ask:

All this implies that as outside observers, we can somehow ascertain a truth that even a perfectly programmed truth machine cannot. This implies in turn that we, along with this special insight that only we can see, in some sense transcend any programmed system – even a system that houses all known truth. How can this be?

This is because we aren't part of that self-referenced system. To show this simply change your original sentence to read:

"Using perfect truth and honesty you will never say that this sentence is true."

Now you can see that you have become part of this self-referenced system. You can no longer claim to be "outside" the system looking in. So now you are stuck in this self-referenced feedback loop. So the only thing that made your truth machine special was because you wrote the sentence in a way to place the truth machine in this self-referenced feedback loop.

So when you say:

All this implies that as outside observers, we can somehow ascertain a truth that even a perfectly programmed truth machine cannot. This implies in turn that we, along with this special insight that only we can see, in some sense transcend any programmed system – even a system that houses all known truth. How can this be?

You are wrong to say that in some sense we transcend any programmed system.

And I have answered your question "How can this be?" above by simply pointing out why we are in a different situation from the truth machine. All we need to do is change the sentence to put us in the same situation and then we can clearly see what the problem is. It's a problem of self-referenced systems.

So there's no transcendental mystery here. It's just a failure to understand that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has to do with self-referenced systems.

You then go on to say:

Well, for one thing we have not been programmed. Human beings are evidently not reducible to machines, any more than our thoughts are reducible to abstract statements derived from formal systems of logic or mathematics. Often the undecidable statement in a proof of Gödel's theorem is termed self-referential, and this is telling; for what a machine lacks by its classical definition is self-awareness.

But we are programmed machines. We are programmed by the experiences we have and by what we learn from other human beings.

As I just demonstrated above, by simply changing the sentence around to include us in the self-referenced situation we end up being in precisely the same situation as the Truth Machine. So you are wrong to conclude from all of this that there is something special about humans.

Penrose argues that with this ability to reflect human beings alone can see both sides of a paradox, whereas a machine can only process inputs given it from outside itself.[3] In a brilliant stroke of genius eminently logical and equally paradoxical, Gödel managed to establish the critical distinction between God-given reason and mechanical computation.

I give Penrose much respect. None the less I don't agree with everything he says. If he has concluded that human being alone can see both sides of a paradox whereas a machine can only process inputs given it from outside he's simply wrong. I've shown above that all we need to do is create the situation where we are included in the self-referenced paradox, and then we are stuck in it just like any machine.

It's simply wrong to claim that humans are somehow different from machines using this argument. And so if Penrose is making that argument, then he is mistaken.

Technically Gödel's theorems only hold in the context of consistent systems featuring formal language, system-specific axioms, and rules of inference

Exactly, this is why I included "Using perfect truth and honesty" in my example sentence above. Otherwise humans could "cheat" by simply not obeying formal rules.

For example, Stephen Hawking has argued that the eclipse of classical Newtonian physics by the mutually incompatible theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity suggests incompleteness of the physical universe.

This may very well be true. Don't forget "incompleteness" here is actually referring to Godel's use of "incompleteness", but we shouldn't forget that the crux of Godel's Theorem is actually "self-referenced systems". And out universe may indeed be all that exists and therefore be a self-referenced system. Thus making it "incomplete" by Godel's use of the term. But keep in mind that Godel was using the term "incomplete" in reference to whether or not propositions can all be decidable. There may very well be propositions in the universe that are undecidable, in fact, it certainly appears to be the case in Quantum Mechanics. This might indicate to us that our world is indeed a self-referenced system.

So thus far, nothing is pointing to any need for anything beyond this.

But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self-referencing, like in Gödel's theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete

This may very well be true. But if so, then all this is telling us is that we live in a self-referenced universe. It does not point to any need for anything beyond this conclusion.

Even more so, theological explanations for evil in a physical universe whose theories are inconsistent or incomplete should be expected to appear similarly inconsistent or incomplete.

Even if we accept this as being true this hardly means that we should then accept inconsistent theological explanations as being valid and true. So this is hardly an argument that could be used to support inconsistent theologies.

~~~~~~

At this point instead of responding to more quotes taken from your article I'd just like to quite a reply to your article given by a person named "im-skeptical".

im-skeptical said…
You say that this world is necessary as some kind of proving ground, so that God can put us to the test, and thereby know that we are worthy to abide with him for eternity. I think that's ridiculous, on a variety of measures.

First, why does it have to be a physical world at all? Why can't our spirits just prove their worthiness in the spiritual realm? After all, that's where we spend eternity, anyway. I fail to see the point of having this physical world at all. If anything, we need to prove that we are worthy to abide with God in THAT realm, not this one.

Also, why do we need to prove ourselves at all? If god is omniscient, he already knows whether we are worthy. So what's the point of going through the motions of this test?

But here's the big kicker for me: Why doesn't our all-powerful creator just make people who ARE worthy? He could dispense with all the sorting of good from bad by simply not making any bad ones to begin with. As much as you might protest that it's our own fault that we are bad, you can't escape the problem: God made us what we are, and he knew it all along.

I totally agree with all of im-skeptical's objections and points.

The problem with your thesis is that it not only pleads for inconsistency or incompleteness in your theology, but it also begs to allow for extreme self-contradictions.

There are just too many things the violate the idea that we were created by an all-wise, omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent creator.

The idea that this spiritual God would need to create a physical world in order to "test" the behavior of the humans he created so he could determined whether or not they are good or evil humans just simply makes no sense at all.

Why should this omniscient God allow psychopathic killers to plan out their activities in advance and actually carry them out? He would have discovered their evil intent long before they actually carried out their acts, so he could have simply given them a heart attack, or caused them to be unable to carry out their hideous deeds in some other way.

It just doesn't fly that a God would need to allow evil people to do horrible things to innocent people just because he needs to "Test Them" to find out whether or not they are good or evil people.

It's just not a defensible theology.

And what about children who die at a very young age? Did they then get out of this test for FREE?

This idea of the world being a place where humans need to prove their goodness simply doesn't make any sense on any level.

And what would it mean for a previously evil person to be "Redeemed"?

You haven't answered that question either.

In Christianity supposedly all a person who was previously evil needs to do is change his or her mind and ask Jesus for forgiveness, and suddenly they are good to go.

We would even need to consider that someone like Adolf Hitler may very well have sincerely repented in his last moments before committing suicide. Now we have Adolf Hitler running around in heaven simply because he had a change of heart at the last minute.

The problems with this theology are immense and cannot be explained away as mere inconsistencies and incompleteness. They are blatant serious contradictions.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 112 by Don McIntosh]

I just wanted to add another point from your article.

You say:

On such a view, this-worldly existence is necessary as the arena in which eternally binding choices are made

I could accept this as being reasonable if all humans lived for the same amount of time on earth and thus all being tested equally etc. But this isn't anywhere near the truth of reality.

We see babies, and young children dying all the time. That alone totally destroys any arguments that this worldly existence is a necessary arena where eternally binding choices are to be made.

How can you not see the extreme inconsistency with your argument versus real-world reality?

How were these babies and young children given an opportunity to make an eternally binding choice?

This type of argument for this theology seems so obviously futile.