RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:27 pm
The argument pertains only to hypotheses and means if there is no way to test a hypthesis to either prove or disprove it, it is an invalid hypothesis.
Well, then, would we would have to say that Atheism is an "invalid hypothesis"?
Absolutely, when it is an ideology, as though the denial of something were a kind of assertion (which I think would apply to the evangelical type of Atheist). Many people who are called atheists, however, just reject both hypotheses, that there
is or
is not a God, as invalid.
That seems harder to do, unless they can show that the concept "God" is rationally incoherent -- not merely to show that the concept does not refer to a real entity, of course, because we already know they can't do that -- but that to speak of a Supreme Being or First Cause is rationally impossible.
But speaking of "rationally impossible," I don't think any of them have even
tried to do that, let alone succeeded.
[I"m skipping the, "label," discussion. There are more important questions than semantics.]
Okay. I think it's important, because the right "label" is necessary in order to avoid amphiboly and other equivocation errors. But okay.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:03 pm
Romans 1 speaks of this. You'll no doubt know the passage. It says,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them;
for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
There's an even stronger passage in Romans 2:14&15
....
Of course both passages are theologically problematic, not least of which is Paul's assertion that one's "nature" leads one to obey the law (in the passage quoted),
Look again, RC. The whole passage does not say one's knowledge automatically "leads one to obey the moral law." ...
This is exactly the kind of discussion that opened my eyes to the truth. If there is a law and one does what the law says, to any honest person, that is obeying the law. The verse plainly says that gentiles, "do by nature things required by the law." Your explanation is an example of what I call spurious interpretation: "of course that's what it says, but it's not what it means."
Not at all, RC.
Note that it says "
when the Gentile..." Not "Because all Gentiles." It's speaking only of those particular cases in which a Gentile behaves himself in a more lawful, upright way than a Jewish person may, as he may in some cases. It's not at all saying "All Gentiles always obey the law," or anything like that.
The problem, I must suggest, is that you left out the context. The whole passage is addressing the question, "Do Jews, since they have the Law, get a break or a better deal than Gentiles, who do not have the Law." (I"m sure you know that "Greek" was a catch-all term among the Jews for "Gentile," since many of the Gentiles they knew were part of the larger Greek culture, but I mention it here for any other readers.)
The discussion, then, is "What happens if a Jew has the Law, but doesn't keep or obey it? Isn't he still better than a Gentile?" And the answer is, "No: a Gentile who obeys the law-written-on-his-heart is better than a Jew who has the Mosaic Law, but doesn't keep it. However (and this is the key point) to say that a Gentile is more moral behaviourally than a renegade Jewish person of this kind is not to say that the Gentile keeps the law he has perfectly, or that he is saved by doing so. And we can see that clearly when Paul sums up his argument so far, in chapter 3:
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And the path of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
That's pretty categorical and clear. No Jew and no Gentile is getting a special break for being a morally-better person than any other. For even though, in comparison to each other, the Gentile may well turn out to be morally better than the Jew, or the Jew than the Gentile, it does not matter, since
the distance between both and the moral nature of God is so vast that neither comes close anyway. 
And so Paul continues,
"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin."
In sum, then, nobody -- no Jew and no Gentile -- gets to plead that he worked hard at being a good person, and by doing so, became good enough in his own efforts (or "works") to earn his own salvation.
And, in fact, the passage goes on to contrast this hopeless belief with the much-better hope of the message of salvation:
"
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..."
I'm referring to what I thought would be obvious: what kind of being could create other beings with the certainty that most of them would suffer eternal torment?
Well, in the first place, we need to get our head clear of any idea of the Catholic "Hells" portrayed in so many old paintings and still in children's books. Dante's spiral or the dancing demons are found nowhere at all in the Bible. They're a pure fiction. Hell is spoken of in Scripture as a place of separation...it's what one gets when one has freely chosen not to stand in any relationship to God, and God has, reluctantly but necessarily, honoured your free will to be free of Him.
Unfortunately for people who make that choice, God is revealed in the Bible as "the giver of all good gifts," and as "the father of light," and the blesser of creation. Every good thing we have is actually derived from God. So someone who, in their free will, chooses not to know God is not merely demanding the right to disassociate himself from God forever, but also is demanding the consequence of being without all that God offers and means.
Now, that's Hell. And that's why God does not want anyone to choose it. But free will means that some will. That's the cost of freedom, because a freedom that is not allowed to choose badly is also not free to choose rightly. It's not free to choose at all, actually.
No matter how you attempt to justify it, you'll be claiming God does exactly what Romans 3:8 rejects.
I think not: and I think you can see that from the above passages.
If I do something, knowing the inevitable consequence of my action is the suffering of others, when there is nothing requiring me to take such action, I would be soundly condemned. You want me to believe there is a, "loving God of mercy," that does exactly that.
No good God would
arrange the suffering of others, if
arranging were all there was to it. Granted.
But that's not what God does. He doesn't "arrange" for us to end up in any state. We do.
The "mercy" part is this: that God has done literally everything He could do to make the right choice available to us, short of shutting down our freedom and "arranging" everything so we had no choice in the matter. But as I say, if you're going to have any choice at all -- volition, freedom, identity, options, an independent will, any of that -- you're going to have to be allowed to make a wretched choice if you are committed to doing it. Anything less, and God is not honouring your will, or recognizing you as an individual.
An "arranged" freedom is an oxymoron. It's no more possible than the making of a squared circle or a married bachelor.
I can forgive almost anything except compliments. I'll make an exception in this case, since you've added so much to my enjoyment.
Call it a mere "statement of obvious fact." That makes it less egregious than a "compliment."
