Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Bling

Why did God create us if he knew we would sin

262 posts in this topic

The fact that there exists no scientific evidence in support of it.

That's not really contrary evidence. "scientific evidence" comes in many firms including statistical significance . There is no "overwhelming" scientific evidence. On the contrary there is all kinds of circumstantial, anecdotal, and personal evidence. Those that wish to bury their heads in flawed empiricism... Be my guest, but by standard definitions believing that empiricism has the answers and anything outside of empirical evidence is non existen, and that it is not flawed is a delusion in of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, The real question is why did he create us just to take it back???????? :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not really contrary evidence. "scientific evidence" comes in many firms including statistical significance . There is no "overwhelming" scientific evidence. On the contrary there is all kinds of circumstantial, anecdotal, and personal evidence. Those that wish to bury their heads in flawed empiricism... Be my guest, but by standard definitions believing that empiricism has the answers and anything outside of empirical evidence is non existen, and that it is not flawed is a delusion in of itself.

Exactly, anecdotal and personal evidence does not constitute as anything other than just that. However, evidence that can be observed, reproduced and tested over and over again to meet the same results does. We have literally nothing other than anecdotes and hear-say in support of these spirits. While it does not entirely disprove their existence, it really does the concept of spiritual entities no favours in support of its position.

I would much rather accept the results of "flawed empiricism" than accept the story of Joe Plumber as being undeniable, irrefutable fact. Spiritual entities have as much evidence in their favour as faeries, goblins, gnomes, elves, pixies, nymphs, leprechauns, etc. At least empiricism is making an attempt to find the answers instead of blindly accepting a story as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, anecdotal and personal evidence does not constitute as anything other than just that. However, evidence that can be observed, reproduced and tested over and over again to meet the same results does. We have literally nothing other than anecdotes and hear-say in support of these spirits. While it does not entirely disprove their existence, it really does the concept of spiritual entities no favours in support of its position.

I would much rather accept the results of "flawed empiricism" than accept the story of Joe Plumber as being undeniable, irrefutable fact. Spiritual entities have as much evidence in their favour as faeries, goblins, gnomes, elves, pixies, nymphs, leprechauns, etc. At least empiricism is making an attempt to find the answers instead of blindly accepting a story as fact.

Well good.. That's fine that you put your faith in empiricism... I don't blame you a bit... But let's stop calling beliefs illogical or delusions shall we. There is no basis for that either. If you want to be empirical fundamentalists why not truelly be one? All bodies of evidence carry weight. Empiricism carries pretty heavily, but unfortunately empiricism carries burdons that are different but not more authoritative ( unless you prescribe to dogma) than other kinds of evidence. If I see something it's real untill prooven otherwise. Here lies the separation. Some people like yourself only rely on consensus. This is truly religous in nature. Don't you see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good.. That's fine that you put your faith in empiricism...

Faith, by definition, is a belief independent of evidence... which is quite the contrary of what I am doing. I am basing my belief ON evidence, which is the complete opposite of faith.

I don't blame you a bit... But let's stop calling beliefs illogical or delusions shall we.

Well, when certain beliefs prove that they are otherwise, then perhaps I will; until then, I refuse to do so.

If you want to be empirical fundamentalists why not truelly be one? All bodies of evidence carry weight.

Not all, no; it vastly depends on what types of evidences you are making reference to.

If I see something it's real untill prooven otherwise.

That is an unhealthy train of thought to bear, especially considering that it may indicate a serious, underlying medical condition.

Here lies the separation. Some people like yourself only rely on consensus. This is truly religous in nature. Don't you see?

I rely on consensus when it is reinforced by evidence that I have access to, whether that be via scientific journals, articles, etc. I would not rely on consensus if the consensus had no evidential basis for their collective agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith, by definition, is a belief independent of evidence... which is quite the contrary of what I am doing. I am basing my belief ON evidence, which is the complete opposite of faith.

Well, when certain beliefs prove that they are otherwise, then perhaps I will; until then, I refuse to do so.

Not all, no; it vastly depends on what types of evidences you are making reference to.

That is an unhealthy train of thought to bear, especially considering that it may indicate a serious, underlying medical condition.

I rely on consensus when it is reinforced by evidence that I have access to, whether that be via scientific journals, articles, etc. I would not rely on consensus if the consensus had no evidential basis for their collective agreement.

No you are not you are basing your beliefs that spiritual people are delusional on No evidence what so ever other than your own beleifs. You have no idea what personal evidences some if those people have. You personal beliefs force you to consider them insane if they have personal evidence, but non of these assumptions are based on any kind if empiricism only the idea that people can be insane. Don't you see how illogical it is to claim Somone is insane because they have experiences that you don't? How do you know it is not you that is insane or deficient in some way?

All types.

Not if clinically cleared with a clean bill of health from both doctors and psychologists alike. Luckily most psychologists do not carry the same bias you do.

Empirical evidence right? If you lived on a planet billions of years from now during the epoc that all the galaxies have expanded away from each other faster than the speed of light, and you ran across an ancient satalight from another world that described the expansion of space, other galaxies, quasars and other intergalactic phenomenon you would forever be stuck in ignorance.

Faith in institutions is still faith. Luckily there are those that don't believe everything they read or at least look at it critically.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also wrong ... Many people have seen spiritual entities. History is quite full of them. I'm not trying to proove anything. I'm looking for this "UNDENIABLE FACT" that makes people who have beliefs delusional. You do see that that is the real claim here don't you? With zero support I might ad.

You must be kidding me, right? I usually take a back seat on this forum out of respect, but if you wish I can supply you with all the information needed to prove how delusional believing in non-corporeal beings is.

History is full of people swaying the story in their favor, and that includes tall tales.

First I will check with a Mod to be sure that what I will be saying is ok and within the limits of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they saw one but they can't prove it

Indeed! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be kidding me, right? I usually take a back seat on this forum out of respect, but if you wish I can supply you with all the information needed to prove how delusional believing in non-corporeal beings is.

History is full of people swaying the story in their favor, and that includes tall tales.

First I will check with a Mod to be sure that what I will be saying is ok and within the limits of this forum.

Go right ahead lets see the evidence you have? I'm curiouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go right ahead lets see the evidence you have? I'm curiouse.

First I will need you to clarify what you are looking for;

You said

"I'm looking for this "UNDENIABLE FACT" that makes people who have beliefs delusional."

. . . and it's spelled curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I will need you to clarify what you are looking for;

You said

. . . and it's spelled curious

Sure... Even a little evidence. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so?

seeker79 is suggesting that without suffering we cannot appreciate happiness.

Unfortunately, all that suffering people experience is suffering.We that are not suffering can experience happiness, of course, but that is not because some people are suffering.

Just as an example, those starving to death, or being mistreated in other ways, in many parts of the world, do not make me one whit happier.And my happiness does not decrease their suffering.The arguement is an attempt to impose some sort of order on what are actually random events- the old "why does god allow bad things to happen to good people" conundrum.If you take god out of the picture, complex explanations are not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have undeniable, irrefutable fact to prove that they do not exist; but if an individual were to assert that they do just because there is no evidence to suggest that they don't is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam.

And if they assert they do because they have encountered them, you refuse to believe them; which is also a argument from ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem here is that some people with no personal experience of very real paranormal/ supernatural events etc., just refuse to countenance their existence. At all. Ever. For anyone.

They try to impose their disbelief on people who know better, precisely because they have had real physical experiences with real objective evidences.

I can only guess at their motivations and world views/beliefs in attempting this hegemony.

It is ok for a person without experience to claim personal disbelief, but they cannot logically or correcly claim their ignorance is superior or outweighs the experience of others. They cant claim to KNOW, based on lack of experience, more or better than a person whose claims are based on experience. That's just dumb, as well as rude.

If i meet a real little grey man on a clear summer's night, who provides to me the same evidences /criteria for his independent existence as everything else in my world, then it doesnt matter what ANYONE else believes (for or against) the existence of aliens.

I would damned well KNOW they were real. And if i had such an encounter that would mean that, for everyone else on earth, aliens were just as rea,l even if no one else had encountered one. What is real is real, whether it is observed by one person, a million, or none at all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeker79 is suggesting that without suffering we cannot appreciate happiness.

Unfortunately, all that suffering people experience is suffering.We that are not suffering can experience happiness, of course, but that is not because some people are suffering.

Just as an example, those starving to death, or being mistreated in other ways, in many parts of the world, do not make me one whit happier.And my happiness does not decrease their suffering.The arguement is an attempt to impose some sort of order on what are actually random events- the old "why does god allow bad things to happen to good people" conundrum.If you take god out of the picture, complex explanations are not required.

No, I'm sure it dosnt, nor I, however not experiencing those things certainly does dosnt it? Indeed your observance of another's suffering should make you grateful of your own place. It also provides you with a choice. Help or not help. Do you show compassion and turn it into action or do you feel bad for them and go about your day. You have a choices to decrease their suffering so yes some of your happiness adds to their suffering in the form of an oportunity cost. You don't have these choices without these realities. No choices... No sentience, no definition of who you are.

They are not random in the slightest. There is a long string of causality stemming from choices that lead to nearly every bout of extreme suffering experienced. Yes including cancer, and natural disasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone once told me that each human's existence/experience is merely a perspective of one consciousness.

So, we express, in our lives, the process of this consciousness' thought... kind of like living out someones stream of thought.

When "bad" things happen it is a result of our/the consciousness' negative thoughts.

I was told that this is how the collective consciousness works to create a common experience for the world.

I hope I relayed all that correctly. It is a huge concept for me to grasp and goes so much deeper than a few sentences that I have to take a break from thinking about it sometimes or I just end up confusing myself. :dizzy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really appreciate. It's more like even "not understand what it is". Without the contrast you cannot understand it.

Just try to explain apple with just the word apple. The conversation would go like this.

dude one Apple?

dude two Apple.

dude one Apple?!??!

dude two Apple.

At this point if I was dude one I'd end up killing dude two out of pure frustration.

People put to much faith in titles or descriptions. Two people think of the word fairy as completely different things without knowing what the definition is between two people you cannot tell what exactly what fairy is.

It's basically the problem between creationists and evolutionists. They both can't understand that Let there be light and this is a monkey is the same process. Something changes somebody gives what changed a name. They are not whining about different processes they are only arguing about the timelime. Almost like a weird debate of which is better a yard stick or a meter stick.

You may think that non-corporeal beings don't exist but you may want to think about that differently because a character in a book is nothing more then a non-corporeal being. Think of how the Christian god affected your life. A story-book character with no actual body has so much push and sway with the real world.

A ghost maybe a ghost or a hallucination(Or anything else since people complain if I leave something out) the only thing that that really changed was the name.

Again this is why the phrase Evil is absolute(and is the only thing that is evil) was written in the first place. Anything that is limiting to one option or one outlook is usually wrong.

dude two. All Life is good!

dude one. Really? what about Hilter(Any bad guy he was alive.)

dude two. Oh never thought about it that way

See Life isn't good 100% of the time it has to be a neutral thing.

If I see anything in the forest running around like any version of a fairy..... guess what to me that damned thing is gonna be a fairy. I'm not gonna run around and claim fairies exist but I'm sure gonna get drunk with my friends and tell them the I saw a fairy story. There is where the dude no way and then I respond with you had to be there to see it.

Seriously the Idea the base concept of God is the same as love, it's the same as evolution, it's the same as freedom

Everybody is looking forward the beginning or creation, abiogensis, big bang, let there be light, speciation. Nothing more then relative terms. The word God is nothing more then the most complex and most simple version of this process.

Our whole existence depends on the fact that things change.(Even time is a form of change) We only time we can understand is when we compare and contrast.

A tad bit preachy I could possibly the whole I am not here to abolish the law but to fulfill it speech in front of it this and it would fit perfectly. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mr. Walker,

I find it interesting that you should say this since it is effectively contradicted directly within the bible... besides the concept of omniscience, there is at least one specific example of God demonstrating that he does know the outcome of events made by personal choice. even more, he seems to know the outcome of all possible events made by a persons choice.

While some writers of the bible claim omniscience for god, god does not act as person with omnisicience. He interacts with humans as if the future is malleable, and alterable. He also fails in some attempts at things eg in his cleansing of the world throughhte flood because noah eventually falls to sin like all the rest of hummanity If god knew this change in noah would occur, then his plans for the ark and a new sin free world were futile. God changes his mind after listening to arguments. None of those things is possible/ workable in a world with one fixed linear timeline that god already knows will occur. The revolt of the angels and the fall of man were never "certain things", and even god, therefore, did not know the outcome, although he knew the potentials. And because there were potentials for great good as well as for great harm, He HAD to take a chance .

I agree that god might know all possible outcomes of a person's choices. He often shows me future/potential outcomes of some of my choices. But he doesn't know which choice we will make because that is never fixed and we have unfettered free will to make it.

And so he goes to considerable time and effort to influence the choices humans make, in order to maximise outcomes for them, and for societies. He teaches, which is pointless if an outcome is fixed.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this god of yours, he knowingly created man, then allowed sin, then sent his son here, had him killed for this sin?

Now THAT dude sounds like a real nut . . . a little bipolar are we there, god? :rofl:

Deliberate misrepresentation. In the bible story, which is NOT history of course, a god creates man as an immortal being, and places himin a sin free pain free wonderful environment; to learn, grow and mature. Humanity in the shape of adam and eve choose to separate themselves from this process and from god seeking immediate material wisdoms and knowledge, despite the warnings he has given them.

Everything which comes as a consequence, from the harmful natural environment, through pain suffering and death, is a consequence of human choice. The only way god could have prevented this was by eliminating humans ability to choose, then we would not BE humans, we would not be able to grow, mature, evolve, learn, and become.

God knew there was a risk, but he took a punt on us. We let him down. But we also have the chance to make it right again. In the bible story, every human who accepts this chance is restored to immortality and the life of eden. Sounds a fair deal to me.

In the less allegorical world, every human has an individual chance to make earth a heaven for them selves and for all, but we also have the opportunity to consign it, and ourselves to a living and very real hell on earth today.. Today some people on earth live in an edenic heavenly state. Others live in hell. It is all in how and what you chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deliberate misrepresentation. In the bible story, which is NOT history of course, a god creates man as an immortal being, and places himin a sin free pain free wonderful environment; to learn, grow and mature. Humanity in the shape of adam and eve choose to separate themselves from this process and from god seeking immediate material wisdoms and knowledge, despite the warnings he has given them.

Everything which comes as a consequence, from the harmful natural environment, through pain suffering and death, is a consequence of human choice. The only way god could have prevented this was by eliminating humans ability to choose, then we would not BE humans, we would not be able to grow, mature, evolve, learn, and become.

God knew there was a risk, but he took a punt on us. We let him down. But we also have the chance to make it right again. In the bible story, every human who accepts this chance is restored to immortality and the life of eden. Sounds a fair deal to me.

In the less allegorical world, every human has an individual chance to make earth a heaven for them selves and for all, but we also have the opportunity to consign it, and ourselves to a living and very real hell on earth today.. Today some people on earth live in an edenic heavenly state. Others live in hell. It is all in how and what you chose.

Or so the story goes :sleepy:

I'm always amazed how everyone misreads this verse

Genesis 2:17:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Metaphorically speaking, the Serpent (Lucifer), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out God's idea of creation. The Serpent sinks down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man (Kundalini). Thus, man can reach the knowledge which was previously only accessible to God.

In this Promethean light, we see a dishonest and manipulative god hoping to keep mankind in the dark about immortality and from becoming a god as well, and the Serpent bringing the fire to man against this god's wishes.

The Serpent showed Adam & Eve there are two paths they can follow:

Thy Will Be Done (RHP) or My Will Be Done (LHP)

Edited by Etu Malku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you are not you are basing your beliefs that spiritual people are delusional on No evidence what so ever other than your own beliefs. You have no idea what personal evidences some if those people have. You personal beliefs force you to consider them insane if they have personal evidence, but non of these assumptions are based on any kind if empiricism only the idea that people can be insane. Don't you see how illogical it is to claim Someone is insane because they have experiences that you don't? How do you know it is not you that is insane or deficient in some way?

All types.

Not if clinically cleared with a clean bill of health from both doctors and psychologists alike. Luckily most psychologists do not carry the same bias you do.

Empirical evidence right? If you lived on a planet billions of years from now during the epic that all the galaxies have expanded away from each other faster than the speed of light, and you ran across an ancient satellite from another world that described the expansion of space, other galaxies, quasars and other intergalactic phenomenon you would forever be stuck in ignorance.

Faith in institutions is still faith. Luckily there are those that don't believe everything they read or at least look at it critically.

I'm in agreement with you Seeker. Psychiatrist's and Psychologist's most certainly take spiritual experiences more seriously nowadays and don't always dismiss you as insane and delusional. LOL! Here is a link on spirituality from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

http://www.rcpsych.a...ty/aboutus.aspx

Edited by Star of the Sea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they assert they do because they have encountered them, you refuse to believe them; which is also a argument from ignorance.

Refusing to believe an individual based solely on their claims is not an argument; providing an explanation as to why I do not believe them, and how they most-likely misinterpreted their experience would be an argument. However, a simply refusal to believe an individual is not an argument.

Not an argument

A: I saw a ghost last night.

B: I don't believe you.

versus...

An argument.

A: I saw a ghost last night.

B: I don't believe you, simply because we have no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of ghosts. What I do believe is that you saw something... but that does not mean it was a ghost.

Edited by Alienated Being
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem here is that some people with no personal experience of very real paranormal/ supernatural events etc., just refuse to countenance their existence. At all. Ever. For anyone.

The real problem here is that people often do not encounter what they think they encountered; rather, their minds try to form an explanation for a series of unexplained, mysterious events... and they believe what they want to believe.

They try to impose their disbelief on people who know better, precisely because they have had real physical experiences with real objective evidences.

But the question that needs to be asked is evidence of what? Yes, they may have had an experience with objective evidences, but that does not indicate that they had an experience with what they believe that they had an experience with.

I can only guess at their motivations and world views/beliefs in attempting this hegemony.

It's called critical thinking, and trying to find logical reasoning behind seemingly illogical and fantastical experiences.

It is ok for a person without experience to claim personal disbelief, but they cannot logically or correcly claim their ignorance is superior or outweighs the experience of others. They cant claim to KNOW, based on lack of experience, more or better than a person whose claims are based on experience. That's just dumb, as well as rude.

I have never claimed to know any more or any less than anybody. Rather, I have claimed that we can not know exactly what we have experienced based solely on the experience, rather we believe that we have experienced what we have experienced based on what our mind sees as appropriate in fitting the experience. That does not, however, indicate that what our minds decided that we have experienced is what we have actually experienced.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.

If i meet a real little grey man on a clear summer's night, who provides to me the same evidences /criteria for his independent existence as everything else in my world, then it doesnt matter what ANYONE else believes (for or against) the existence of aliens.

Then he should have no problem in providing you with the same evidence for others, as well.

I would damned well KNOW they were real. And if i had such an encounter that would mean that, for everyone else on earth, aliens were just as rea,l even if no one else had encountered one. What is real is real, whether it is observed by one person, a million, or none at all.

You would assume that they were real, however... your assumption can be very incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While some writers of the bible claim omniscience for god, god does not act as person with omnisicience. He interacts with humans as if the future is malleable, and alterable. He also fails in some attempts at things eg in his cleansing of the world throughhte flood because noah eventually falls to sin like all the rest of hummanity If god knew this change in noah would occur, then his plans for the ark and a new sin free world were futile. God changes his mind after listening to arguments. None of those things is possible/ workable in a world with one fixed linear timeline that god already knows will occur. The revolt of the angels and the fall of man were never "certain things", and even god, therefore, did not know the outcome, although he knew the potentials. And because there were potentials for great good as well as for great harm, He HAD to take a chance .

I agree that god might know all possible outcomes of a person's choices. He often shows me future/potential outcomes of some of my choices. But he doesn't know which choice we will make because that is never fixed and we have unfettered free will to make it.

And so he goes to considerable time and effort to influence the choices humans make, in order to maximise outcomes for them, and for societies. He teaches, which is pointless if an outcome is fixed.

I differ in my opinion based solely on the fact that God is demonstrated to know the future both probable and improbable...

Take David as an example...

Let us consider 1 Samuel 23:1-14. Note the highlighting carefully.

1 Now they told David, “Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are robbing the threshing floors.” 2 Therefore David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” And the LORD said to David, “Go and attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” 3 But David’s men said to him, “Behold, we are afraid here in Judah; how much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?” 4 Then David inquired of the LORD again. And the LORD answered him, “Arise, go down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand.” 5 And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6 When Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had fled to David to Keilah, he had come down with an ephod in his hand. 7 Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul said, “God has given him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars.” 8 And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” 10 Then said David, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.

In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first instance (23:1-5), David asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether he’ll successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases, David goes to Keilah, and indeed defeats the Philistines.

In the second section (23:6-14), David asks the Lord two questions:

1. Will his nemesis Saul come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of David’s presence?

2. Will the people of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid an attack on the city?

Again, God answers both questions affirmatively. Saul is going to come down and the people of Keilah will hand you over to him.

But here’s the interesting point... neither of those things actually happen. Once David hears God’s answer, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v. 13), he abandons his trip to Keilah. Saul never actually goes to Keilah, and therefore David is never handed over by the people of Keilah to Saul. But why is this significant?

This passage (specifically the second section) clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination. God foreknew what Saul would do and what the people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a possibility—but this foreknowledge did not mandate that those events be predestinated to happen. The events never happened, so they could not have been predestinated, despite the fact they had been foreknown by God.

God knows all the variations based on our actions and choices. He doesn't guess or calculate. He knows. We cannot limit ourselves to the word "potential".

And Gods attempt at cleansing the earth with the great flood was never solely about mankind, it was about destroying the nephilim more than anything else.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem here is that people often do not encounter what they think they encountered; rather, their minds try to form an explanation for a series of unexplained, mysterious events... and they believe what they want to believe.

But the question that needs to be asked is evidence of what? Yes, they may have had an experience with objective evidences, but that does not indicate that they had an experience with what they believe that they had an experience with.

It's called critical thinking, and trying to find logical reasoning behind seemingly illogical and fantastical experiences.

I have never claimed to know any more or any less than anybody. Rather, I have claimed that we can not know exactly what we have experienced based solely on the experience, rather we believe that we have experienced what we have experienced based on what our mind sees as appropriate in fitting the experience. That does not, however, indicate that what our minds decided that we have experienced is what we have actually experienced.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.

Then he should have no problem in providing you with the same evidence for others, as well.

You would assume that they were real, however... your assumption can be very incorrect.

You have got a couple problems here AB.

1) you are assigning likelyhoods and words like "fantastical" based on your own bias. In fact you have no data what so ever of the likely hoods in question are. Only philosophical bias.

2) You are assuming that the experiencer cannot critically think. In fact this person may be better at it than most. Why should any one consider a very real experience anything other than what it appeared to be without thought through evidence to the contrary? ( a philosophical bias of fantastical does not count), Nor does the argument that people CAN get things wrong. CAN does not equal DO.

A reasonable person absolutely should not throw away a personal experience based on the philosophical bias of other people nor the prospect that they can be wrong with out valid reasoning to believe that is the case. Just because Somone can be wrong doesn't in any way mean that they are. It is silly.

Also... Proof of philosophical bias is written all over this need for reproduction. If we can reproduce the experience of God then skeptics claim that it is material in nature because it is reproducible ( just look all over the NDE threads. The argument is used incessantly) Then, if the experience cannot be reproduced then it cannot be considered a reality by standard emprical dogma. So which is it?

Furthermore, If we are dealing with other sentience, then any reproduction would be evidence to the contrary because it would be obviouse that the other sentience is subject to some sort of methodology and does not make choices for itself. Quit obviously the sentience would make a choices wether it wants to participate or not... My guess is that God will not need to see the need to participate in our experiments. Indeed. To maintain the gift of discovering god for oneself, god would need the individual to do it for themselves. I would never have believed without the personal discovery. Even those who believe on faith don't really know until they themselves find out.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.