MFM wrote: P1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (i.e the Greatest Conceivable Being or GCB) who exists in the actual world, and is the perfect and uncaused creator of the universe.
Well, that's what the New Testament says--many are called but few are chosen. Moreover, some Christians say that God is not all-loving, anyway.*God doesn't want his creations to go to Heaven, or doesn't want all of them to. (loose omnibenevolence)
dobbie wrote:I would have to put on the brakes right there. I ask what is omnipotence, and the other qualities. What form do they take and where's the evidence for them? Meanwhile, the irony is that science can measure the size of an atom but can't find convincing evidence for God in the actual world. In short, the premise there doesn't work for me.
Well, that's what the New Testament says--many are called but few are chosen. Moreover, some Christians say that God is not all-loving, anyway.
from Dobbie: Well, that's what the New Testament says--many are called but few are chosen. Moreover, some Christians say that God is not all-loving, anyway.
MFM wrote: Well, the New Testament also has Paul claiming that God is "not willing that any should perish, but gain eternal life".
Well, if "all-loving" is erroneous--that is, some Christians claim that God isn't all-loving--I don't see how it's supposed to bolster it. In other words, the premise represents a view that many theists don't hold; so I suppose that they would flatly disagree with the premise itself. Now what?'All-loving' isn't necessary for the argument, it just bolsters it.
dobbie wrote:Well, it's like this. The New Testament says conflicting things about salvation, such as, "Many are called but few are chosen." "God doesn't will that any should perish." "God decides who will be saved and who won't be.
What to make of such flip-flop talk is up to the individual. But meanwhile, saying that it has to be just one way, that it has to mean one thing, in view of the conflicting NT statements, won't work.
The way I see it, however, not all people are divinely destined to be saved, and that's why many people will go to the bad place, according to the NT.
My above remarks are an attempt to demonstrate that the original argument has overly limited boundaries. And my view is that the limitations are revealed in the opening premise. In fact, in my opinion, a common problem with syllogisms is that the premise doesn't work well for some people. Now what?
Well, if "all-loving" is erroneous--that is, some Christians claim that God isn't all-loving--I don't see how it's supposed to bolster it. In other words, the premise represents a view that many theists don't hold; so I suppose that they would flatly disagree with the premise itself. Now what?
You requested some feedback for the heck of it, and I supplied some for the heck of it, of course, from my point of view. So far, your counter-arguments to stuff I've said has swayed my view not at all. I assume that the whole point of presenting the original argument is offer a "watertight" or influential argument, but that is not what happens. As is, it merely gives rise to controversy. So, if it's to work better, something should be done about it, if possible. Or at least issue a disclaimer saying: that the premise is presented in an unavoidably limited sense, but let's see where such a premise takes us anyway. And that's my feedback.
MFM wrote: Aside from the fact that my premise's supposedly "limited" scope applies to and is intended for the overwhelmingly majority of Christians (i.e non-predestinationists), your objection(s) don't do much of anything I think.
Nuh-uh. You're not really serious, are you? Shouldn't I and others be the judge of whether you've refuted anything successfully? You think the premise doesn't need any degree of modification? It states points of view according to certain Christians, who can be wrong about the Christian nature of salvation even if they are "most Christians." A majority factor can have little to do with it. Your premise should state that it addresses the majority group as you see it.I've refuted your claim of it being "limited" ...
So, those who do hold to it don't count? It's plain enough that many people never get "saved." What's more, some even leave Christianity after adhering to it for years. Thus a "potential" to be saved has little or nothing to do with salvation since, as I understand salvation, only God can save souls. That is, a person can't save him- or herself in the first place. The Holy Spirit calls people to be saved, and saves them by giving them faith to be saved. Christians can't save non-Christians; only God can save them. Thus it's as if God decides who gets saved and who doesn't. Well, enough of this point of view on this issue, since it depends on which Christians you talk with.given most Christians don't hold to predestinationism.
The NT doctrine itself lacks in epistemic coherency. No matter which church of Christianity it is, epistemic incoherency always raises its head again. It's everywhere in Christianity!I'd prefer that to an argument that has no bite, especially when the argument applies to the majority of those in question, and even more so when those to whom it doesn't apply hold a position that isn't even epistemically coherent.
MindForgedManacle wrote:An objection I found interesting from my 2 of my fellow atheists is that my argument makes the assumption that a deity's revelation would reveal everything and only the details on one particular path to some sort of salvation, when it seems to be of growing popularity (in some circles) to believe that, say, all religions light a path to salvation in differing - but relatable - ways. Although I think that's a good objection, theists of the sort like William Lane Craig and other fundamentalist-like believers can't really use that objection though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest