The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Reply to Chapter 3-Why Did God Create?

[Olivianus]

I posted all my final replies to Chapter 3 here: http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/apologetics-vs-atheism/the-end-of-christianity-ed-loftus-reply-to-chapter-3-part-3-final-reply

I guess we'll go through the major items one at a time.

Loftus asks, “Why did a completely fulfilled, triune supreme being, who neither needed nor wanted anything, bother creating at all? Why would he do it knowing this world would have so much ubiquitous suffering in it and knowing he would inexplicably have to suffer an atoning death for us? He knew billions of people would suffer eternally for his decision.” (90-91)

I. Why did God create?

The Covenant of Redemption is behind this but I will explain that in subsequent points immediately after this one. The answer to this question is the primary concern of Paul in Ephesians chapter 3. God’s decree from the beginning was a productive decree in which He would glorify Himself.  To the Son, “a bride adorned for her husband,” Rev 21:2, a body in which he is the head ( Col 1:18, 1 Corinthians 12), and a kingdom of many brethren which will have no end (Rom 8:28-29, Dan 7:14); To the Spirit, “as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house,” 1 Peter 2:5, and “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit,” Ephesians 2:20-22; To the Father, the eternal purpose of Christ is made manifest when He brings to light, “what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places,” Ephesians 3:9-11; and after the Son delivers up this kingdom to the Father, He will be all in all ( 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). So why did God create? It is an expression of love between the persons of the Trinity and the full wisdom of God the Father is seen and glorified through it.Samuel Rutherford said,

“In God’s way of nature, he can make dispensations to himself, so in the ways of grace, we cannot find him out. However, sure of crabbed and knotty timber, he makes nerw buildings; and it is very base and untoward clay, that Christ, who maketh all things new, cannot frame a vessel of mercy of. To change one specie or kind of a creature into another, a lion into a lamb, and to cause the wolf and the lamb dwell together, and the leopard lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the  fatling together, and a little child to lead them, is the proper work of omnipotency, whatever be the preparations, or indisposition of sinners.” Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, pg. 281. The general idea is that our sinfulness provides an opportunity for God to glorify himself and display his glory in a way that could not happen without a fallen creation. This is depicted in the sinful woman’s contrition in Luke 7:49. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+7&version=NASB

[joebbowers]

You just keep posting new threads without responding to the arguments made against your old ones. I guess it's nice not to be held accountable for your actions.

[Historicity]

Since the fictional god of the Bible is modeled on a human mind He has to create or He will die of boredom.

[Tero]

Can God create a human who would beat him at chess 1 of 10 times?

[Quesi]

Olivianus-

Do you understand that you are engaging in public monologues that no one understands but you?  I am certain that your words make sense to you, and that they build upon thoughts that you have been carrying around in your head for a while, but they are really not making an impact on the people that I think you want to reach.

May I make a humble suggestion?  Rather than writing words on obtuse topics, why don’t you get out of the house and have some human interactions?  Volunteer somewhere.  Talk to people.  You could say a few sentences, and then the other person could say a few sentences, and you could listen to the other person’s words and form thoughts and opinions and responses to what the other person is saying.  Human interaction is good for the spirit.  And perhaps you could do something good for your community as well.       

[HAL]

So ... why did god create?

[Quesi]

So ... why did god create?

HAL, I think he has already established that God "created" in order to make the lamb dwell with the wolf, and as "an expression of love between the persons of the Trinity."
I don't think that there is much more to say on the topic.

Now, I think God wants him to get out and get some sun on his face and ensure he is eating a vitamin-rich diet, and most of all, I think God wants him to practice his human interaction skills by engaging in simple dialogues with other human beings.  Perhaps even a trusted Pastor.  Anyone. 

[HAL]

HAL, I think he has already established that God "created" in order to make the lamb dwell with the wolf, and as "an expression of love between the persons of the Trinity."

These gods, they sure have a lot on their plates don't they?

[Quesi]

It would appear so. 

[sun_king]

You guys are aware that you are talking to the author of my signature statement???

He cannot go out because there is nothing called "out" and he is of course not "in". Human interaction is not possible because we can never be sure that they are humans. After a while there would be an irrelevant and bizarrely obtuse statement like  "A sickeningly prodigious profile lay down on the riverbed tests the thesis that your theorem would unleash. Therefore the proposition blah blah blah ... "

And a reference to the bible like 2 Kings 18:27 http://bible.cc/2_kings/18-27.htm

[Boots]

The Covenant of Redemption is behind this but I will explain that in subsequent points immediately after this one. The answer to this question is the primary concern of Paul in Ephesians chapter 3. God’s decree from the beginning was a productive decree in which He would glorify Himself. 

Wait a second--THIS is the argument you're going with??  God is such an arrogant, cocky bastard that he needs peons to torture in order to "glorify himself??"

Your god is a dick--by your own argument.

[Olivianus]

You just keep posting new threads without responding to the arguments made against your old ones. I guess it's nice not to be held accountable for your actions.

I check for new replies to my threads and reply to them everyday. The only exceptions are Wednesday and Thursday.

[Olivianus]

Since the fictional god of the Bible is modeled on a human mind He has to create or He will die of boredom.

Could you define the logos of a human mind and distinguish it from another kind of mind? I need to understand what you are talking about before I respond.

[Olivianus]

Can God create a human who would beat him at chess 1 of 10 times?

No. God's actions are governed by his nature which is rational.

[Olivianus]

Boots

Wait a second--THIS is the argument you're going with??  God is such an arrogant, cocky bastard that he needs peons to torture in order to "glorify himself??"

The way you are using the word arrogant and cocky ignores a fundamental issue: God and man are not in the same moral category. God commands men not to steal. Can God, on the Christian worldview steal? How can a being which has created everything steal? The reason why it is wrong for men to be arrogant or self absorbed is precisely because that is God's PREROGATIVE.

[ParkingPlaces]

Boots

Wait a second--THIS is the argument you're going with??  God is such an arrogant, cocky bastard that he needs peons to torture in order to "glorify himself??"

The way you are using the word arrogant and cocky ignores a fundamental issue: God and man are not in the same moral category. God commands men not to steal. Can God, on the Christian worldview steal? How can a being which has created everything steal? The reason why it is wrong for men to be arrogant or self absorbed is precisely because that is God's PREROGATIVE.

What would my reason be to worship a god who is creepier than me? What would my motivation be? The threat of hell? That ain't enough. I need some positive reinforcement. That's the way I was made.

[One Above All]

If it's wrong to be like your god, then is your god also not wrong to be the way it is? Do the same rules of logic and morality not apply to it?

Before you answer, look up "Special pleading" on Wikipedia.

[Olivianus]

I think Lucifer forgot. I don't reply to him.

[joebbowers]

I think Lucifer forgot. I don't reply to him.

To paraphrase David Spade... Ya kinda did.

[One Above All]

I think Lucifer forgot. I don't reply to him.

I will accept your admission that I am correct.

[joebbowers]

I quite often do not respond to people when they are rude, or they have intentionally misunderstood and twisted my argument using strawmen, or if I have already addressed the issue, or if they ask me to define or explain something they could easily find on Google, etc. You and others often take this lack of response as an admission of defeat and claim victory. I really hate it when you guys do this. It's arrogant and childish.

In this case, you have a good point. You can call him out for avoiding your question, but just because someone ignores you doesn't automatically make you right.

[One Above All]

In this case, you have a good point. You can call him out for avoiding your question, but just because someone ignores you doesn't automatically make you right.

Pretty sure you've been here before Olivianus registered. If you had seen why he "refused" to reply to some members, you'd understand why I declared victory. Regardless, the logical inconsistency I pointed out is there. There's no doubt about that.

[joebbowers]

I know he has a history of dodging arguments, and we can assume it's because he can't formulate a response to them. That assumption may or may not be right depending on the topic, but regardless gloating about it is just bad form.

[Graybeard]

The reason why it is wrong for men to be arrogant or self absorbed is precisely because that is God's PREROGATIVE.

Now read on...

I think Lucifer forgot. I don't reply to him.

I am amused at how Hal is bowing out like he's some moral superior when he's been acting like a horse's ass for weeks now.

You guys siously don't give a moments thought to the nonsense you write here. 

Hal,
And now that I've shown your stupidity I have a question, are you embarssed?

Parking Places

Nope. Those guys are way too liberal for me. Like all the rest of these replies, typical insolent nonsense with no argumentative substance and complete disregard for the arguments before you.

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

Graybeard

For your insolence don't expect me to reply to another one of your comments until you  define these terms:

Sensation: and show how it produces perception and abstraction

Individual units of Matter

Space

Time

Motion

Your movement re-asserted him not mine. You have yet to define physical as to individuate it from sensory.  Your half assed assertion system isn't going to fly sir.

I could go on, but if Olivianus's assertion in the first quote is true, we may be in the presence of God Himself.

[Graybeard]

I. Why did God create?

[…] The answer to this question is […] He would glorify Himself.  […] So why did God create? It is an expression of love between the persons of the Trinity and the full wisdom of God the Father is seen and glorified through it.

The question that is in everyone’s mind is –“Why did He need to become more glorious to anyone, let alone the Trinity, which, allegedly, as One, is infinitely aware of its own status?"

Samuel Rutherford said,

“In God’s way of nature, he can make dispensations to himself, so in the ways of grace, we cannot find him out.

At this stage then, we must assume that the above paragraph of explanation is simply a guess and devoid of any real understanding – for we cannot understand.

Godbotherers are very keen on saying we cannot understand God... and then they tell you what He is like...

However, sure of crabbed and knotty timber, he makes nerw buildings; and it is very base and untoward clay, that Christ, who maketh all things new, cannot frame a vessel of mercy of. To change one specie or kind of a creature into another, a lion into a lamb, and to cause the wolf and the lamb dwell together, and the leopard lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the  fatling together, and a little child to lead them, is the proper work of omnipotency,

One would have thought that if He had wanted “the leopard lie [to] down with the kid.” Then he would not have made the leopard a carnivore and the kid, delicious. 

The general idea is that our sinfulness provides an opportunity for God to glorify himself

We do not know why he would do such a thing

and display his glory in a way that could not happen without a fallen creation.

The very fallen creation that He, in His Glorious Incompetency, created…

I believe that you do not understand what you are worshipping, for surely, nobody who read your explanation would.

[velkyn]

The way you are using the word arrogant and cocky ignores a fundamental issue: God and man are not in the same moral category. God commands men not to steal. Can God, on the Christian worldview steal? How can a being which has created everything steal? The reason why it is wrong for men to be arrogant or self absorbed is precisely because that is God's PREROGATIVE.

ah, the "might equals right" argument.  How wonderfully primitive.   Your god is such a pathetic little thing, Oliv.  And i do like how you tried to grab up your skirts and leaven in a huff (or a minute and a huff) calling everyone such "miserable" people, but slink back again. 

[Add Homonym]

The way you are using the word arrogant and cocky ignores a fundamental issue: God and man are not in the same moral category. God commands men not to steal. Can God, on the Christian worldview steal? How can a being which has created everything steal? The reason why it is wrong for men to be arrogant or self absorbed is precisely because that is God's PREROGATIVE.

It's convenient that you use the example "steal"; why not rape or murder?

Yes, God can rape and murder us, and he has no excuse.

God commands men not to steal.

No. Men commanded other men not to steal, in most cultures, because people in power don't like their stuff stolen. They then invented a God to say it, to give a more compelling threat. God has no moral interest in such pettiness as whether we steal.

I'd like to have a go at a theist who reckons that morals are cross cultural and from God. It's such an arrogant and baseless argument.

[Boots]

Wait a second--THIS is the argument you're going with??  God is such an arrogant, cocky bastard that he needs peons to torture in order to "glorify himself??"

The way you are using the word arrogant and cocky ignores a fundamental issue: God and man are not in the same moral category. God commands men not to steal. Can God, on the Christian worldview steal? How can a being which has created everything steal? The reason why it is wrong for men to be arrogant or self absorbed is precisely because that is God's PREROGATIVE.

There have been numerous and good replies to this, but since it was a reply to my post, I'd like a crack at it too.

1) *who says* god is in a different moral category??  Under what authority does that entity say so?
2) Did god create "good" and "evil?"  what are his definitions, and what should ours be (since you claim they are different)?  How do you know this?
3) Please address murder, rape, and torture (I'll even specify: through starvation) of innocents as you've "addressed" stealing.  How can it be right for god to do those things, yet wrong for us?
4) I find the concept of a "higher being" who is on a different moral standard, and therefore impossible to be a role model, morally repugnant.  What argument, outside of blind faith, can you provide to make this pill less bitter to swallow?