A Few Questions

These are some questions that I asked a Church-of-Christ preacher after reading an article that he wrote. I don't recall ever getting an answer from him:

Mr -----,

Here are a few questions that I have concerning information in one of your blog posts:

1. Why did God create us in the New Testament scenario, if he knew all would sin, and knew that the many vs the few would eternally perish (Mt. 7:13-14)?  2 Peter 3:9 says that it is not God's will that ANY perish. Did God not have the ability to achieve his will that none perish?

2. If God is omniscient and could see what would happen if he created Satan, why would he go ahead and create Satan knowing that in his attempt to be victorious over Satan, billions of humans would have to eternally perish?

3. Why would God, who doesn't need man (Acts 17:25), nevertheless, go ahead and create man to get some things that he only wanted (victory over Satan, whom he didn't have to create; fear and obedience from man; companionship from man, etc.), but didn't need, knowing that to get these things that he didn't need, billions of sentient humans would have to eternally perish?

4. You said that Jesus [dying] on the cross, ...sealed the greatest victory possible. But how could this be considered "the greatest  victory possible" when Satan deceives the whole world (Rev 12:9), disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and blinds the minds of the unbelieving ( 2 Cor 4:4), resulting in Jesus losing the majority of souls to Satan (Mt 7:13-14)?

5. You said that man is a "tool" by which God gets glory. But God doesn't need anything from man, thus he doesn't need glory. Why would God put his beloved(?), flawed humans under the influence of such a powerful being for evil as Satan (whom he didn't have to create) to get something that wasn't necessary--knowing that to get this glory that he doesn't need, billions of sentient humans would have to eternally perish?

Well, I've got a lot more questions I could ask. But I'll stop for now. You've got a lot on your plate with these five.

Ken Hawthorne

The Absence Of Positive Evidence

What does the absence of positive evidence for an
extraordinary claim mean? Farrell Till answers this
important question. From the Errancy Discussion 
list, 2-15-99:

You just can't seem to understand this principle, can you? The absence of positive evidence that the virgin birth of Jesus happened does not constitute proof that it did NOT happen; however, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, the absence of positive evidence that it happened does constitute legitimate reasons not to believe that it happened. If you can't see the difference, then you need more help than I can give you, Matt.

Let's take the Muslim claim that Muhammad divided the moon into two parts. The absence of positive evidence that this event happened does not constitute negative evidence, i.e., evidence that it did NOT happen. However, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, the absence of positive evidence that it happened constitutes very legitimate reasons not to believe that it happened.

Playing The Odds

From TSR, March/April 1991:

by Farrell Till 

If I am right and you are wrong...." How many times have bibliolaters said this to skeptics after all rational efforts to defend the Bible have failed? What they are saying is that one should believe the Bible in order to be on the safe side, just in case it really is God's inspired word. This argument, if that is what they intend it to be, is merely a variation of Pascal's wager, a theistic argument made famous by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal. "If you gain, you gain all," Pascal argued. "If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

Aside from the obvious fact that one cannot believe--sincerely believe--a thing just to be on the safe side, the absurdity of Pascal's wager is seen in the utter impossibility of practicing it. One should believe in God just in case God really does exist. Okay, what next? After one wagers on God's existence, what religion does he choose to practice his faith in God? Does he become a Christian or a Moslem? A Zoroastrian or a Hindu? If he chooses Christianity, what brand of it does he select? If he becomes a Methodist, how does he deal with the possibility that Catholicism may be the true religion? To meet the requirements of Pascal's wager, one would have to simultaneously become a believer in all religions in the world, and this would be utterly impossible, since many religions forbid beliefs in others.

A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario (2)

From the Errancy Discussion list, 9-11-97:

NANCY
Yes, Matt. What one *can* do and what one *does* do are two different things. That is why I find the xtian god so damned abhorent. He could prevent innocent children from suffering, but he chooses not to. He could have made himself known to everyone, and thus have saved countless millions from the neverending torment *he* chooses to impose upon those he is supposed to love, yet he prefers to torture his creation. He made his  own son suffer for the sins of others even though he is perfectly capable of forgiving sins without human sacrifice. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the xtian god is a sadistic bastard who gets his jollies from human suffering. If a human stands idly by while others suffer or causes others to suffer, as the xtian god does, we call him a heartless, inhuman monster. Perhaps we should just call him God.

MATT
What would you do if your son/daughter was being raped by a group of men. Intervene or stand back and watch?

TILL
I'd intervene, but let me head Matt off at the pass to show him that what he probably has in mind is going to work against him.  He probably intends to say that God didn't intervene when his "son" was being killed by a mob, and so that shows how much he loved humankind. If that is what he has in mind, let him take note that he has just proven our point. The anthropomorphic imagery of a "heavenly Father" grieving over the suffering and death of his son is shown to be nonsense, because any ananthropomorphic father who had the power to do so would prevent a mob from killing his son. Since the "heavenly Father" didn't do this, he is undeniably unlike earthly fathers. Therefore, it is fallacious to reason that the "heavenly Father" suffered grief as an earthly father would have done in the same circumstances.

Farrell Till

A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario (1)

From the Errancy Discussion list, 9-10-97: 

TILL
Even the suffering angle is fallacious. If Jesus was himself God, then he too was omniscient and omnipotent, so he had nothing to fear during his trial and crucifixion, because he knew that he wasn't really going to die. If he had all power, then he could have anesthetized himself so that he wouldn't feel anything, so if he suffered any pain, it was his own fault. Furthermore, how could a preacher know that "pain" would be the same to a god, whose ways are always higher than man's ways? This whole tear-jerking scenario is too ridiculous for words. 

MATT
I could not hold off responding to this post by you any longer Till :) What is ridiculous is your complete misunderstanding of what is claimed happened to Christ on the cross, and what the sufferings of Christ involved. Suggest you learn what Christians believe this was as you obviously do not have a clue based on your above comment. Once you have educated yourself on this perhaps you would consider retracting the last line of your above post as being down to your ignorance of Christianity rather than a true representation of the same.

TILL
What exactly have you answered? You remind me of a couple of Christian airheads that I am having exchanges with on another list. They claim that they don't have to explain or prove anything because their faith is sufficient enough to show that they are right. My contention is that the anthropomorphic nonsense about a "heavenly father" grieving over the death of his son is completely idiotic, because it offers no explanation of why an omniscient, omnipotent deity who would know that his "son" was eternal would have any reason to experience grief that could be compared to an earthly father whose son is killed. Blame yourself and not me for the stupidity of this scenario. To be blunt about it, Matt, who gives a rat's ass what Christians believe? The issue is not what Christians believe but whether what Christians believe is logically defensible.

Farrell Till