Evidence of God vs Evidence for no god

[Thurisaz]

When the Bible describes God as regretful, do you suppose that this may not point to a lack of omniscience, but rather, a lack of omnipotence?

No. That interpretation makes no sense.

 

[Thurisaz]

A good act is one that is virtuous. One that helps another person, or brings joy to another person.

And when the things that help another person and brings joy to them are in conflict?

Claiming that evil is simply the absence of good is pretty much nonsensical.

It's philosophically valid, and so far from nonsensical. If you want to argue, you might want to read a few books on the subject first to understand what is being talked about and not try to pull stuff out of your ass.

Simply walking down the street is not good or evil.

No one simply walks down the street.

Saying that evil is the absence of good is a claim that gets made to explain how God can allow evil.

Yes, I believe Augustinus originated the claim for that reason. We can, however, ditch that, for I believe evil itself is a thing in the world, and while it obviously lacks goodness, that does not tell us much. Evil can be defined as sin, or breaking away from doing God's will. It can also be defined as getting enjoyment from the unjust suffering of others, if you want a secular perspective. Here's a good take on it:
"Why am I a Christian? Because I believe in evil. I believe in objective, material, tangible evil that insensibly envelops every single one of us sooner or later. I believe in the fallen nature of Man, and I am aware that there is no shortage of evidence, scientific, testimonial, documentary, and archeological, to demonstrate that no individual is perfect or even perfectible by the moral standards described in the Bible. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ is the only means of freeing Man from the grip of that evil. God may not be falsifiable, but Christianity definitely is, and it has never been falsified. The only philosophical problem of evil that could ever trouble the rational Christian is its absence; to the extent that evil can be said to exist, it proves not only the validity of Christianity but its necessity as well. The fact that we live in a world of pain, suffering, injustice, and cruelty is not evidence of God's nonexistence or maleficence, it is exactly the worldview that is described in the Bible. In my own experience and observations, I find that worldview to be far more accurate than any other, including the shiny science fiction utopianism of the secular humanists." - Vox

I would then ask you, what is the nature of God?

The omnipotent creator of the universe we inhabit.

 

[TankAbbott]

 

[m52nickerson]

And when the things that help another person and brings joy to them are in conflict?

It becomes a mix.

It's philosophically valid, and so far from nonsensical. If you want to argue, you might want to read a few books on the subject first to understand what is being talked about and not try to pull stuff out of your ass.

So, just appealing to authority? That's weak. Regardless of the books written, it is still nonsense.

No one simply walks down the street.

Yes they do. What else would they be doing?

Yes, I believe Augustinus originated the claim for that reason. We can, however, ditch that, for I believe evil itself is a thing in the world, and while it obviously lacks goodness, that does not tell us much. Evil can be defined as sin, or breaking away from doing God's will. It can also be defined as getting enjoyment from the unjust suffering of others, if you want a secular perspective. Here's a good take on it:
"Why am I a Christian? Because I believe in evil. I believe in objective, material, tangible evil that insensibly envelops every single one of us sooner or later. I believe in the fallen nature of Man, and I am aware that there is no shortage of evidence, scientific, testimonial, documentary, and archeological, to demonstrate that no individual is perfect or even perfectible by the moral standards described in the Bible. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ is the only means of freeing Man from the grip of that evil. God may not be falsifiable, but Christianity definitely is, and it has never been falsified. The only philosophical problem of evil that could ever trouble the rational Christian is its absence; to the extent that evil can be said to exist, it proves not only the validity of Christianity but its necessity as well. The fact that we live in a world of pain, suffering, injustice, and cruelty is not evidence of God's nonexistence or maleficence, it is exactly the worldview that is described in the Bible. In my own experience and observations, I find that worldview to be far more accurate than any other, including the shiny science fiction utopianism of the secular humanists."

Saying that evil is simply breaking away from God's will has never been about a good definition of evil, merely trying to explain how God can allow evil to exist.

The omnipotent creator of the universe we inhabit.

Well, as we have established, to truly omnipotent.

 

[Fawlty]

God must have been pretty tired when he rerouted the nerves of the giraffe's voice box around its heart.

 

[Fatchops]

God must have been pretty tired when he rerouted the nerves of the giraffe's voice box around its heart.

For those that haven't seen it.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Most Jews today are atheists, so yeah, you got that right. I'm guessing Judaic Jews are an entirely different thing - do you have something other than a hunch to back that claim of yours up? Like I said, I'd be surprised, for according to their religion and belief that Christ was an impostor the pictured punishment would be in line with other acts of similar heinousness.

Just a quick search found this article. It's obviously not representative of all Judaists but it shows how the specific verse in the Babylonian Talmud was not representative of all.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/28027/Default.aspx

And yet the first Christians were Jews, to whom the idea of a personalized God was anathema.

The first followers of Jesus of Nazareth were the Ebionites that believed he was the Messiah. Your brand of Christianity was specifically targeted at Hellenized gentiles because it matched their previous myths.

If so, the influence is - surprisingly, almost completely - absent from the Testaments. When the most powerful argument for plagiarism is the lingual parallelism in Genesis 1, that's pretty thin influence for a culture that was dominant in the region.

Actually there is much more than just Genesis, here is an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15283-zoroastrianismning

"Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians"

Yes there is still a debate on timelines and the hypothesis that perhaps it was the Jews that influenced the Iranians but to deny that there is similarities and parallels is strange for a scholar such as yourself.

And yet Judaism was and still is pretty darn clean of those influences. The amount of influence it has had on Christianity is pretty much limited to philosophical terminology.

Once again, there is scholarly debate on the influences of Hellenism on Judaism and Christianity that you must have studied, here's another article from Jewish Encylopedia:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7535-hellenism

And as for Christianity, the rest of my replies will cover that topic.

The. There is but one. I don't discount the possibility of other cultures having had their prophets of sorts, who might have had some kind of contact to the powers that influence the world.

How do you know it's not the other way around?

I think you're reading a bit much on an account that is not historical in nature and more like a morality play. When describing what one has no words for, one must use words one has to come close enough for the gist of the story to be understood.

Understood, this is an allegory but it does demonstrate what the author believed to be true. When he states that Satan accompanied the Sons of God there is no indication that they saw him as an enemy of the heavenly court.

Does Satan ever, anywhere, directly confront or threaten anyone in the Bible? No. That is not his way. He uses lies and guile.

He's dealing with God here, how does he use lies and guile against God?

That claim is bovine excrement, no matter how one wishes to twist the perspective.

Job 1:16
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"

The author believed the plagues came from God

Heresies.

As your version of Christianity would be to them, having more swords at the time does not make your church founders right.

No, they're trying to justify the fiction that Jesus was merely a man.

Disagree, exploring one aspect of his nature would not rule out the other

If that's a fair description of it, there's little reason to research that at all.

It's unimportant, I'll concede this point

I'm not concerned about that.

Why wouldn't you be? It's an example of my thesis

In case of theology it's easily understandable, seeing as it uses terminology they invented. As for the morality and ethics... I'm having a hard time seeing any obvious connections.

So you are conceding that Christian Theology was born out of Hellenism, I guess we can move on to ethics. Have you read article comparing Stoics to Christian ethics?

I do not believe that. God is an entirely different beast than gods of the Greek pantheon.

Of course Jesus was different, he was blend of many greek gods/heros coupled with a fusion Platonic and Aristotelian theology. God being portrayed as infinite, unchanging, perfect omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient was born out of the Platonic Theory of Forms.

Your thesis is odd. Even the Genesis account rejects the Mesopotamian one. Christianity is not dualist. It is a direct descendant, or as I tend to say, the religion Judaism should have been. It has no discernible features of Hellenic culture or religion.

I think I've demonstrated and provided articles that support my theory as plausible.