God is cruel

I think under the assumptions in the OP, what protomenace is getting at is that he/she cannot see the evidence that God created everything because God has created him/her without that ability.For God not to be cruel under the opening premises, and to fit in with your stance, then everyone should be able to look at our world and conclude that God created it.There may well then be the problem of which god it was of course, but the opening premises negate your 'free will' defence.Brian.

HI Mike, Not under the premises of the OP, which is what I think proto is on about. He/she is claiming that God made him/her ONLY with the ability to accept empirical evidence as the work of a creator. He/she doesn't include a choice in the OP. But, again, this is not what the OP is on about. Proto is claiming that God did not give him/her the ability to recognise that there is a choice. You are going outside the parameters of proto's argument.The only conclusion, under the premises of the OP's argument is that God is cruel.However, we can only say that God is cruel from our own perspective. While I would say that it was cruel of God to order Joshua to tell his soldiers to murder all the men, women, and children in Jericho, or it was cruel to murder innocent Egyptian babies, others may think that these deeds weren't cruel at all.Brian.

Hi Mike, I agree, it is a very weak argument, but proto did say that for the purposes of this discussion we were to assume that his/her premises are true. Anything we add to that is in addition to proto's premises.But, like any argument, the premises need to be tested to see if they are valid or not. Proto makes a logical conclusion based on the premises, but the premises may be false. Sin has also been defined as separation from God, so it may well be a problem for atheists. But, atheism is a very big sin. It doesn't even sit well with the decalogue. But for the atheist to acknowledge many sins would require the athiest to acknowledge that there is a God.Wouldn't you say that to deny that Jesus triumphed over death was a sin? Atheists are neither sheep nor goats. Regarding the Bible, there is hardly anything in it that is solid and conclusive, some group always manages to interpret the text to fit what they want it to.Brian.

Quite easily.We regularly have other 'gods', such as money that we worship.Regularly take God's name in vain.Never keep the sabbath.Regularly covet goods and wives.To deny Christ's victory over death rules out salvation according to Paul.If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. So, Paul maintains that Jesus did rise form the dead and Christianity is worthy of having faith in. Atheists deny Jesus' resurrection, therefore we think Christian salvic path is a fairytale.I've said a million times, if it isn't necessary to believe in the resurrection then Jesus' execution was a circus act.According to Christianity, salvation comes through Jesus Christ. I think Jesus was either a con man, a self deluded nut, some sort of social reformer, or a phantom. I can't see me checkin in at the pearly gates.Brian.

Hi CS, I do not believe in god(s).Brian.

They aren't. But an athiest is more likely to say "f*ckin Jesus H Christ" when they hit their thumb with a hammer than a Christian is. Yes, but he still maintains that you should take the resurrection as a real event. It's 100, 000, 003 now Which particular creeds? Apostle's creed, Nicene Creed,Athanasian creed?

It is THEE Christian belief. But, for a Christian to be a Christian they would have to belive in their hearts that this was true, and if the resurrection wasn't true, then the Gospels are unreliable and worthless.The Nicene Creed is pretty specific about who Jesus came to save, namely:We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made. It then goes on to say: For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man. It is pretty obvious that the 'us' referred to are the 'we' in the first part.Apostles Creed:I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

​

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

​

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

​

Amen Not much use to me LOL.The Athanasian Creed is more or less a proclamation about the Trinity.Brian.

Hi, I think it is safe to assume that Adam and Eve knew that in the day that they ate the fruit they would only spiritually die! Brian.

Hi Proto, Being logically sound doesn't really mean much when you yourself have made up the premises.For example:All four legged creatures are cats
Saddlers Wells had four legs
Therefore Saddlers Wells was a cat.This argument is logically sound as well.Brian.

Hi RR, This is different from my Bible (NIV), which states:Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." But they were dying anyway.Adam and Eve were not immortal, they would have died regardless of whether they ate the fruit or not.Brian.

Hi Sidey, Oh there will be some self-justifying excuse, my bet is on praying for help to understand.What I will say is that a physical death cannot be justified from that passage, that is why the apologists came up with the 'spiritual death' excuse.But, ultimately (love that word), they didn't know it was bad to disobey God, they didn't know what 'bad' was. At the same time, they didn't know it was 'good' to obey God because they didn't know what 'good' was either.I think the easiest way to accept this is to understand how ancient writers constructed their tales. They really weren't that bothered about the soundness of a story, after all their audience was hardly a collection of critics.Brian.

Also depends on which version of the Bible you take as being the 'true' version.Holman's Christian Standard Bible is different:Genesis 2:17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." It clearly says 'on'.Here is an even more problematic version, the Contemporary English Version.except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!" They were to die before the day was over!We can even narrow it down with another version! The Message:except from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Don't eat from it. The moment you eat from that tree, you're dead."The very moment you eat from it.It must be a nightmare being a literalist.Brian.

Hi Cs, Do you take Jesus' execution and resurrection metaphorically?Brian.

I just wondering why you take Jesus' shenannigans literally, yet take Genesis metaphorically when they are both equally unsupported and implausible.Brian.

Hi, Adam was dying anyway regardless of whether he ate the fruit or not. Adam and Eve were mortal, so they,just like all of us, began to die the second they were created.The story is severly flawed.Brian.