Please help me understand Christianity

[Compassionist]

The Biblical God allegedly made all the angels and all the biological organisms including the first pair of humans. Why didn't God make everything he made equally all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? That would have prevented all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. All-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings harm no one through malevolence or ignorance or incompetence. Also, no one and nothing can harm them. That would have been the best outcome for everyone. Instead of doing this, despite being allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, the Biblical God allegedly made Adam and Eve ignorant about Good and Evil and allegedly told them not to eat the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. How can eating fruits make one knowledgeable about good and evil? When Adam and Eve allegedly ate the forbidden fruits, God punished them and all the other biological organisms by kicking them out of Eden. He also punished all of their descendants by not letting them live in Eden. Why punish all the other organisms for Adam and Eve's mistake? Why punish their descendants? He also punished Eve and all her daughters with painful childbirth. How is any of these actions fair and morally correct? I consider all of these actions by the Biblical God to be totally evil. Also, the whole idea of Jesus dying for only three days in order to save us from an eternity in hell is absurd. Why didn't God just forgive Adam and Eve? How can the death of one individual be the redemption of all Christians? What about all the non-humans and non-Christians? Jesus was dead for only three days. He didn't spend an eternity in hell. How can being dead for only three days be the substitution for people being in hell for an eternity? Do non-human organisms also go to hell for not accepting Jesus as their Saviour? What about those who died before Jesus allegedly died on the cross? What happens to people who never heard of Jesus or have heard of Jesus but believe that he is not the Saviour (e.g. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.) How can it be ethical to punish people with eternity in hell for not accepting Jesus as Saviour? Christianity does not make any sense at all. Please help me understand Christianity. Thank you very much.

[Data]

All interlocutors are free to response, or not respond, to whatever questions are asked in this debate forum. Asking why one believes is a logical part of this arena.

It isn't though, really, is it. Why not debate the facts, the data, if you will, instead of trying to judge what someone else believes? Because you can't really debate belief. It doesn't matter why one believes what one believes. If you ask the average atheist why they believe what they do they either say they don't, or they have to give you facts, data, information of why they don't believe what they don't believe. Of course, they always say things like reality, reason, logic, science, facts, evidence but that is patently false and the debate quickly goes back to the ideological question of why don't you believe like me. The question becomes what you expect to do with the answers you receive regarding what they believe. So, if I follow you doing this and turn the tables on you, my own little inquisition to you, how do you think you will respond?

[POI]

All interlocutors are free to response, or not respond, to whatever questions are asked in this debate forum. Asking why one believes is a logical part of this arena.

It isn't though, really, is it. Why not debate the facts, the data, if you will, instead of trying to judge what someone else believes? Because you can't really debate belief. It doesn't matter why one believes what one believes. If you ask the average atheist why they believe what they do they either say they don't, or they have to give you facts, data, information of why they don't believe what they don't believe. Of course, they always say things like reality, reason, logic, science, facts, evidence but that is patently false and the debate quickly goes back to the ideological question of why don't you believe like me. The question becomes what you expect to do with the answers you receive regarding what they believe. So, if I follow you doing this and turn the tables on you, my own little inquisition to you, how do you think you will respond?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41274

[The Tanager]

Let’s work with that definition. If we feel we need to adjust as we go along, we can do that as well. I see 3 logical options:

(1) A will is completely free from any determinant/constraint
(2) A will is determined/constrained in some areas but not others
(3) A will is completely determined/constrained in every area

Do you agree? If not, why not?

I have no demands and no expectations of you or anyone else. I agree with the logical options you have listed.

Okay, so when I say ‘limited free will’ I’m talking about option (2). You have seemed to act like it can only be (1) or (3). Help my confusion there.

[The Tanager]

We can discuss conformation bias later (i.e.) the Kalam, and all others mentioned. But I still think the reason for belief is what I mentioned in the other thread. And I would love to have this belief of mine challenged.

Okay, but that is that thread and this is this thread. We are in this thread. How is that belief of yours relevant to what has been said here?

Sure, why not? We have the choice to refuse new given attempted evidence because we already know if might change our mind (i.e.) close my eyes, shut my ears, turn my brain off, etc..... Though 'hard determinism' seems hard to refute, but I'll go with this tentative conclusion for now....

Okay, so I think you are saying you are siding with free will over determinism. Then I’ll ask you the same question I asked Compassionist: would it be better to create a world (1) with free will that ends up including evils (but didn’t have to) or (2) without free will that involves no suffering (or a third option I’m leaving off)?

[1213]

I quoted the verses about rape and you just deny it. ...

Because there is not even the word rape. the whole idea is purely your interpretation and imagination, not what the Bible tells.

[POI]

We can discuss conformation bias later (i.e.) the Kalam, and all others mentioned. But I still think the reason for belief is what I mentioned in the other thread. And I would love to have this belief of mine challenged.

Okay, but that is that thread and this is this thread. We are in this thread. How is that belief of yours relevant to what has been said here?

I'm telling you I do not yet want to address topics which are not the result of your belief. What you listed are instead topics which 'strengthened' your already existing belief. What caused your belief, personal experiences, other? And what are those experiences, other?

Okay, so I think you are saying you are siding with free will over determinism. Then I’ll ask you the same question I asked Compassionist: would it be better to create a world (1) with free will that ends up including evils (but didn’t have to) or (2) without free will that involves no suffering (or a third option I’m leaving off)?

I'm actually not sure where I side? From what I've looked into about 'hard determinism', I'm not sure you can be in 'half way', as you and I are suggesting.?.?.?. It may turn out that ALL our choices are not really free? Aside from it just really feeling like we have some free will, why do you think we actually have free will?

And I would have to think more before I answered your above question, primarily due to the uncertainty of IF we have any free will or not?.?.?....

Feel free to offer the answer you believe is correct, and why you believe so? Maybe that will lead us down the same direction, or not?

[The Tanager]

I'm telling you I do not yet want to address topics which are not the result of your belief. What you listed are instead topics which 'strengthened' your already existing belief. What caused your belief, personal experiences, other? And what are those experiences, other?

Are you saying: (1) this thread is uninteresting to you and you want it to be about something else or (2) me sharing how I became a Christian is very relevant to what Compassionist and I were talking about? If it is (1), I’m not going to pursue hijacks. If it is (2), then help me see the relevancy.

I'm actually not sure where I side? From what I've looked into about 'hard determinism', I'm not sure you can be in 'half way', as you and I are suggesting.?.?.?. It may turn out that ALL our choices are not really free? Aside from it just really feeling like we have some free will, why do you think we actually have free will?

One, it is the simplest answer. Determinism has to explain (1) how reality appears to be and (2) the truth that underlies that illusion. Limited free will only has the first level.

Two, I think universal human intuitions are strong evidence for those intuitions being true unless there is some rational defeater for them, for which I see none.

Three, determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. If determinism is true, then any reason offered for it being true isn’t really why we think determinism is true and, so, there is no reason to trust those reasons as giving us truth; we simply believe/disbelieve because of our socio-biological evolution, not because of any intellectual reasons. This doesn’t mean determinism couldn’t be true, but it would undermine reason itself and the intelligibility of the world making a conversation like this useless.

Four, I think the Bible is a divine source of truth (which I believe as a result of those various arguments you don’t want to talk about) and that it teaches humans have free will. Take this away and I still think free will is true because of the other 3.

And I would have to think more before I answered your above question, primarily due to the uncertainty of IF we have any free will or not?.?.?....

Feel free to offer the answer you believe is correct, and why you believe so? Maybe that will lead us down the same direction, or not?

I believe a world with free will that ends up including evils (but didn’t have to) is better than a world without free will that involves no suffering. Both worlds have goodness, but only the first has love. I think love takes us beyond goodness, adding a deeper, richer level to reality. If we were all robots programmed to do goodness, we would lose so much that we value in human life. If you ran an experiment on me, and had Person A choose to do any loving act for me that they wanted and then forced Person B to do the same act (or even a different loving act), when I found that out, I would look at those two events very differently, praising the first, but despising the second.

[POI]

Are you saying: (1) this thread is uninteresting to you and you want it to be about something else or (2) me sharing how I became a Christian is very relevant to what Compassionist and I were talking about? If it is (1), I’m not going to pursue hijacks. If it is (2), then help me see the relevancy.

In post 28, I stated "Pardon the curiosity" And then asked "Were you a God believer (before or after) you delved into the Kalam argument, the fine-tuning argument, the morality argument, the consciousness argument, etc? If before, then, of course, the said topics are irrelevant to discuss."

For which you stated in post 31 "No need to ask for pardon" and then stated "before", and then stated "I became a Christian through personal experiences rather than these arguments, I remain a Christian, in large part, through these arguments"

Thus, I'm saying I would like to discuss why you became a believer. And the only said topic which looks to be the reason, is personal experience(s). The rest are, at best, only "re-enforcements".

If you do not want to talk about what really made you become a believer, then I guess we can dabble in free will instead? However, being it is not why you believe, seems like more of just a possible interesting talking point.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

So, it sounds like you are saying it is irrelevant to where this thread was going. I gave room in post 31 because I thought you were saying it was relevant to the claims already made. Out of respect for this thread (at least as I currently understand it), I’d ask us to have this discussion elsewhere. Feel free to start that thread, link to it here, and I’ll gladly discuss it with you there. If you want to continue discussing free will, we can also do that here.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

So, it sounds like you are saying it is irrelevant to where this thread was going. I gave room in post 31 because I thought you were saying it was relevant to the claims already made. Out of respect for this thread (at least as I currently understand it), I’d ask us to have this discussion elsewhere. Feel free to start that thread, link to it here, and I’ll gladly discuss it with you there. If you want to continue discussing free will, we can also do that here.

That's fine and all. And I will create a thread. My point however, as that I doubt virtually anyone BECOMES a Christian because of any of these arguments. You have also proven so. We do not need to understand these arguments because they are not why you are a Christian. The arguments given are mostly apologetics arguments to reinforce the beliefs they already had. You were already a Chrisitan before these arguments.