[jayceeii]

Craig’s questioner in this case seems to me to be a very unusual human, openly admitting inward faults and seemingly taking ownership of any possible depravity. But I’ve noticed this, that for certain people looking at a depravity might not necessarily imply ownership. That is to say, while it is possible to imagine following through on the physical actions, the inner dynamic might not necessarily allow it, and absent any examples of the deplorable action the individual might never have conceived of it. It may be possible to think of even more horrible things than any human has yet conceived, which is to say notice a barrier or limit to native depravity. (Anyone who can think of this had better stay silent, to prevent the idea going around.) And yet it was seeing some horrible things that set the imagination soaring along a negative continuum, and absent the initial depravity, again, no depravities arise. And you can see if no depravities arise in a society a kind of thick mental insulation is built up, so that all the thoughts are a long distance from any depravity. People are seen in that instance as only being capable of good, and more good.

[wonderer]

I haven’t been able to figure out how to respond to the OP.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

Are you using only mobile?

[wonderer]

When I posted that last post (and this one) The software said I was responding to JC2.<div>

I have had several posts disappear and haven’t bothered to try again.

No option to include a quote of what I want to reply to. So no way to read what it is I am responding to, on the screen I’m writing on.

Substantial lag in the screen catching up to what has been typed on the keypad at times.

</div>

[Walter]

“When I posted that last post (and this one) The software said I was responding to JC2.<div>

I have had several posts disappear and haven’t bothered to try again.

No option to include a quote of what I want to reply to. So no way to read what it is I am responding to, on the screen I’m writing on.

Substantial lag in the screen catching up to what has been typed on the keypad at times.”

I have quoted you by copying your text using the controlC/controlV on my keyboard, but I hope there will be an easier way in the future.

[jayceeii]

I tried to edit my post without a log, and the software said, “Your reply can’t be changed right now.” Then the three dots disappeared so I could not edit the post again or delete it if I wanted.

Now I notice there is no option to delete a post in the three dots.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  jayceeii. Reason: Post did not show up where intended

[wonderer]

Weird <divs> showing up.

[wonderer]

Can’t find a way to edit a post to improve punctuation.

[Walter]

Wonderer

After you have posted, there are dots on the top right hand side of your post. If you click on those, you get several options, one of which is editing a post.

(I have edited my post to add the text between brackets. I mean the three dots next to the arrow you can use to reply to someone).

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Walter.

[wonderer]

I don’t see the three dots showing up on things I have posted. I only see the three dots on other people’s posts.

Edit: So on this post I did get the three dots, and was able to edit. Older posts of mine still aren’t showing the three dots. Weird.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  wonderer.

[wonderer]

Might want to put up a bug report sticky.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

Yes, actually that’s a good idea.

[Walter]

No, the questions are not on par, because what Craig seems to forget here is that it’s not merely about a just God but also about a good God.

And a good God would allow for His creatures to experience good things and not bad things.

And if creatures only experience good things, they do not ‘deserve’ any bad things.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Walter.

[jayceeii]

Craig has a point, that failure to consider both sides of the question indicates the response is largely visceral rather than intellectual. And the nature of this visceral response is often that the individual judges himself righteous, without allowing as did Craig’s questioner, that the nature of man is sinful. But you also have a point, that God would not be good, in the sense of being a skilled Maker, if all the creatures were so awful He could not bear their presence and therefore denied them Heaven.

But on Earth right now we only have a theory of good people. Jesus mentioned the pure in heart, the East stipulates self-purification is possible in enlightenment, and the Christians count on an in-flight purification on their way to Heaven. If you look around there are no groups saying, “We are the pure ones,” and as I demonstrated earlier the atheists must admit the doctrine of Original Sin applies to them too, unless they are going to claim to be outside the human class, fundamentally different from criminals, for instance.

The point of my earlier post (not sure how to link to it in the new forum) is that someone who was pure in heart might have a difficult time recognizing it as finding those around him engaged in evil acts, from sympathy he supposes he might do similarly. He could only get a clear idea of himself as pure, and even begin to prove it, if there were such a group saying, “We are the pure ones.” So he thinks, “I would like to go over there. I think I would not need laws, my sympathy is enough to prevent acts of crime, and possibly I wouldn’t have any ideas of crime were I not confronted by the ‘negative ingenuity’ of so many all around me.”

[kravarnik]

While such a position may be somewhat logically tenable for universalists, it is virtually untenable for atheists and skeptics, because in order to judge and present “good” as universal for both himself and the Christian, whose God they try to undermine, then they have to have a way to establish morality is universal and objective. But in godless worldviews one cannot ground morality as universal and objective for all subjects and reality.

Not only this, but the entire proceeding is predicted by the Scriptures and presented as the central issue that divides man from God and has man fall: that man(and demons) attempt to usurp the position of God, of God’s Word, in defining what’s good and right. It is, essentially, the original temptation and fall, thus sin: that one knows better, than God, what is “good” for one’s self. The problem of evil, in this regard, is simply First Adam’s rationale in sophisticated form.That one has faith in his own word, which defines good and justice.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  kravarnik.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  kravarnik.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  kravarnik.

[wonderer]

I still haven’t figured out any way to control how the forum software will slot my posts into the discussion. As I write this it says above, “Reply to: jayceeii”.

However, this is intended to be a reply to the OP.

[Beego:] “What do you think about this line of reasoning from the questioner? Do you think the two questions are, as Dr. Craig suggests, intellectually on par?”

I think judgements of deservedness are an aspect of human monkey-mindedness that have tended to be adaptive for humans in human societies. I don’t think there is anything objective about saying X deserves Y. So I suppose I see the two questions as on par, in the sense that whether Y is positive or negative it would still be mistaken to think it is a matter of objective fact that is being considered.

[Beego:] “If you’re not a Christian, do you find yourself asking either of these questions? If people usually ask the former one, why do you think many avoid or just never consider the latter?”

I don’t find myself asking either question and I don’t really have any idea whether, or how often, other atheists may ask either question. Often atheists ask questions to probe/stimulate the thinking of theists. Such questions from atheists might appear to have a basis in thinking along the lines of QOTW, but perhaps that is mostly a matter of atheists communicating with theists in terms that are relevant to the theists.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  wonderer.

[Johan]

I’ve found quoting other posts to be a little clunky too, so I might just stop doing it in my replies (maybe that was the intention all along?). I’ve also noticed the lag when writing out messages.

As for the op, the questions are both similar but different. I actually agree that if there was a god who was perfectly just ans you had to be sinless to get to heaven, then any god that allowed people that has sin into heaven wouldn’t be just. Vicarious redemption through others is necessarily a violation of justice so Jesus paying the price for our sins necessarily violates justice.

Calling god both perfectly just ans perfectly merciful is necessarily a contradiction making that god impossible.

I can see the appeal of changing the problem of evil to the problem of good in an attempt to be a redicito, but it just highlights other problems.