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 2
manbearpigg

Problem of Evil

283 posts in this topic

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the problem of evil but just in case here it goes:

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).

2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)

3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.

The COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) What we perceive as evil can be good in GOD's plan

2) In order to know and experience GOOD there must be a relative EVIL (light/shadow theology)

3) As an ANT cannot fathom the renaissance or computers, WE cannot fathom GOD's actions.

This is my COUNTER-COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)

2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?

3) If God is all loving, what happens to those who are not fortunate enough to know or even hear one of the three major Abrahamic Religions? (CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUDAISM)

And here is my Counter-Counter-Counter-argument:

1- Why do you presume that if God exists then his primary goal is that we all be happy here on earth?

That's basically it. The premise that God is good, sin exists, God is omni-present/benevolent/etc so he should stop it, but he doesn't so God doesn't exist. But what if the entire basis of that premise is flawed? What if God has other plans for us other than having a good and fun time in the here and now?

Seriously, what proof do you have that God exists besides personal testimonials?

I have none (none that can be empirically studied, at least, which is pretty much what you were asking for). I'm not offering proof, it's illogical of you to demand it of me.

what proof do you have against the fact that people have existed before the founding of these religions?

People did exist before the founding of these religions, that's not in debate (only a Young-Earth Creationist would argue such nonsense). But that doesn't mean that the religions are therefore false. Just as (in my opinion) God had ways of reaching people before Christ, so also did he have ways of reaching people before Abraham. Further back than that, I cannot say, but I believe God had his methods.

what would you say if i told you that the modern bible was CREATED in 325AD by the first council of NICAEA?

I'd say you don't know your history as well as you think. The Bible we know of was CODIFIED at Nicaea. But it was not CREATED there. The texts already existed for centuries. The Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) had already been codified centuries before Nicaea, done by the Jews about 200 years before Christ. Nicaea came to select New Testament texts, all of which were around long before Nicaea, none of them "created" from nothing in 325 AD.

Where is your God now?

Right where I left him, behind the sofa... err, I mean he's still with me, right where he's been ever since I turned to Christ 13 years ago. I believe that he dwells inside me by virtue of the Holy Spirit.

And just so I don't double post -

God: osiris: zeus: odin

Mary: isis: hera: freya

Jesus: ra or horus: dionysus: thor

All share virgin birth

No, they don't. Methinks you've been reading too many conspiracy sites. Try real historical research first.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is my Counter-Counter-Counter-argument:

1- Why do you presume that if God exists then his primary goal is that we all be happy here on earth?

That's basically it. The premise that God is good, sin exists, God is omni-present/benevolent/etc so he should stop it, but he doesn't so God doesn't exist. But what if the entire basis of that premise is flawed? What if God has other plans for us other than having a good and fun time in the here and now?

I can't speak for the Almighty so i dunno but my problem with that logic is that a God whom a majority of religious believe in (or at least the concept of him) is even willing to create such a painful reality for the majority of us. Yes you and I are happy behind our computers but a huge portion of the world is already living in hell.

If you say that the God you believe in is ok with suffering and dying people for the "plan", I rest my case.

I have none (none that can be empirically studied, at least, which is pretty much what you were asking for). I'm not offering proof, it's illogical of you to demand it of me.

I don't think its illogical at all. when you make a statement (any kind of statement) you should be able to back up with viable proof or at least credible testimonies.

It's the same as everything else, if you don't have proof then you don't know for sure so you can't make a statement about it.

People did exist before the founding of these religions, that's not in debate (only a Young-Earth Creationist would argue such nonsense). But that doesn't mean that the religions are therefore false. Just as (in my opinion) God had ways of reaching people before Christ, so also did he have ways of reaching people before Abraham. Further back than that, I cannot say, but I believe God had his methods.

I believe every major religion has a great central message of peace and love so no i don't think it's "false". its actually the "opium of society" and we need drugs.

however some of the outrageous claims many religions and their holy books tend to make discredits a large portion of it yes. If you look at it logically, the more contradictions and un-scientific stands a holy book claims, the less truth is in that book itself thus credibility to what message that book preaches is also lost.

I'd say you don't know your history as well as you think. The Bible we know of was CODIFIED at Nicaea. But it was not CREATED there. The texts already existed for centuries. The Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) had already been codified centuries before Nicaea, done by the Jews about 200 years before Christ. Nicaea came to select New Testament texts, all of which were around long before Nicaea, none of them "created" from nothing in 325 AD.

you are right and i knew that as well. it didnt seem important to detail in the facts but that is the reason why i said the MODERN bible since the compilation of all those different books did not come to being until the council decided, thus creating the MODERN or standard bible we use today. Why you dissing my history yo? don't be a douche man.

Right where I left him, behind the sofa... err, I mean he's still with me, right where he's been ever since I turned to Christ 13 years ago. I believe that he dwells inside me by virtue of the Holy Spirit.

And just so I don't double post -

No, they don't. Methinks you've been reading too many conspiracy sites. Try real historical research first.

Yes they do, and no i don't do conspiracies, only factual things I see. Its not hard to see that our money system is in chaos and there are the same people profiting at every turn. Its FACTUAL when i claim that AIG JP MORGAN G/S GM etc. funds both side of the political spectrum. Its real when i say that there are people who control the world and they don't mind breaking peace for profit. Are they reptiles, aliens, NWO, freemasons? I don't think so but I don't know.

and guess what, you don't know either. We may NEVER know.

nothing is 100%, just like god.

oh, and im not trying to an ass, sorry if i came off that way.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the problem of evil but just in case here it goes:

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).

2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)

3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.

The COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) What we perceive as evil can be good in GOD's plan

2) In order to know and experience GOOD there must be a relative EVIL (light/shadow theology)

3) As an ANT cannot fathom the renaissance or computers, WE cannot fathom GOD's actions.

This is my COUNTER-COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)

2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?

3) If God is all loving, what happens to those who are not fortunate enough to know or even hear one of the three major Abrahamic Religions? (CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUDAISM)

Seriously, what proof do you have that God exists besides personal testimonials?

what proof do you have against the fact that people have existed before the founding of these religions?

what would you say if i told you that the modern bible was CREATED in 325AD by the first council of NICAEA?

Where is your God now?

What proof do you have that God doesn't exist?

You didn't even respond to your own counterargument underlined and in bold. Most likely because you have no response.

Where is my God now? Probably facepalming at your pathetic attempt to out think him.

If you want to talk science, go ahead. If you want to sit down and have a civil dicussion on some of these topics (since you presented a few), then go ahead. However, if you want to post a snide topic backed by no further evidence than the spiritual members you're addressing this to, simply in an attempt to belittle them and make you feel powerful, then please refrain for the sake of your own integrity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT:*oops, double posted somehow...*

Edited by AquilaChrysaetos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the problem of evil but just in case here it goes:

Although i'm almost sure you will misinterpret my words, or completely fail to understand the logic behing my answers, there's always 2% chance that what i write will actually mean something to someone :) so just in case here it goes :)

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).

No 1 is wrong, God has limitations. He is His own limit. In a sense that when He states something, He has to follow through. He cannot go against His words.

The existence of absolute categories that we called "good" and "evil" must assume that there is a rule or a law that defines what is good and what is evil. Think about that Law, as a fence that divides what is good, and what is evil. Without that fence, there would be no difference between good and evil. Therefore, God is limited to only one side of the fence, while his Adversary has no limitations in that matter, so in a way he is more powerfull than God. It's like a game of chess, where one playe plays strictly by the rules of the game, and other is allowed to cheat. Who will likely win?

2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)

No 2 is result of God creating creatures with free will. Even if you take perfectly created being, teach him everything, and you give him an option to choose between abiding the law and breaking the law, during eternity, eventually Law MUST be broken. Therefore existence of evil IS consequence of free will. But Evil has limited span. After the appointed time comes, and all creatures witness the results of breaking the Law, Evil will cease to exist.

3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.

Would be logical if No 1 would be true. It is not, since God will not compromise creatures free will with His actions, therefore no 3 is false. However, there is a limitation in God tolerance of free will, it is called Justice, read about that in next part

The COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) What we perceive as evil can be good in GOD's plan

No 1. is valid, but with some explanation: By Law God did not only define what is good and what evil, He also defined the consequences of doing evil. That is called justice. So if you see a woman beating the man, you could see it as evil thing, but it also might be the case that this woman is administering justice to the man due to his previous evil actions. Therefore the act of woman beating man could not be evil. So, only with full understanding of the story behind it, can we judge is some action good or evil.

2) In order to know and experience GOOD there must be a relative EVIL (light/shadow theology)

In a sense this is true, but it is not valid for eternity. Evil will cease to exist after all creatures experience its consequences. In christian theory, it is when Jesus returns.

3) As an ANT cannot fathom the renaissance or computers, WE cannot fathom GOD's actions.

Not true, God is based on same logical principles as human logic is, because He created logic. Also we can understand actions of God because He gave us the privilege to bear and raise our children, and His behaviour is similar to parents behaviour.

This is my COUNTER-COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)

He could create universe populated with robots without free will in which there would be no evil. But he chose not to do so.

2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?

That is a mystery to me, but have in mind, God knew that He would have to suffer terribly for his children if He gave them free will. Yet he chose to do that. In a sense, it is similar to woman who chooses to have a baby, although she's aware that she will go through great pain in order to deliver her child. Only answer i came up with is LOVE.

3) If God is all loving, what happens to those who are not fortunate enough to know or even hear one of the three major Abrahamic Religions? (CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUDAISM)

Every single being is born with Law implemented in his mind. It is called consciousness. Anyone who hasn't had a chance to learn about God in that way, will be judged by his consciousness.

Edited by Amalthe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).

2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)

3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.

This is my COUNTER-COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)

2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?

3) If God is all loving, what happens to those who are not fortunate enough to know or even hear one of the three major Abrahamic Religions? (CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUDAISM)

What are good and evil made out of?

As they arent made out of matter or energy neither actually exist. They are nothing more than ideas in our heads which is why people would agree with the following contradiction -

1. Torturing a freedom fighter is evil.

2. Torturing a terrorist is good.

As good and evil arent real they arent properties possessed by God.

God hasnt created the reality you live in. The experience you call reality is actually created in your mind by your own sensory perception. Therefore the question isnt why did God create such a nasty reality for me? Its why cant you manage your own ideas, thoughts and perceptions to create a good reality for yourself?

When you're positive the whole world shines with you but when you're negative all it does is rain. Why? Its all perceptions thats why.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the Almighty so i dunno but my problem with that logic is that a God whom a majority of religious believe in (or at least the concept of him) is even willing to create such a painful reality for the majority of us. Yes you and I are happy behind our computers but a huge portion of the world is already living in hell.

If you say that the God you believe in is ok with suffering and dying people for the "plan", I rest my case.

Suffering is transitory. Eternity is eternal. In that context, while suffering may be transitory, so also is joy only transitory. What is the point of a transitory joy if God has an eternal purpose in mind. As such, I am accepting of the fact that suffering is a necessity. After all, if suffering wasn't in our world, how could I (a Christian) ever understand the necessity for Jesus' suffering on the Cross (and yes, I believe it a necessity for eternal life that Jesus suffered and died and rose again).

I don't think its illogical at all. when you make a statement (any kind of statement) you should be able to back up with viable proof or at least credible testimonies.

It's the same as everything else, if you don't have proof then you don't know for sure so you can't make a statement about it.

I have no empirical proof. That does not, however, mean I do not have proof. Just because this proof won't convince you doesn't mean it has not convinced me. And I know you were asking for scientific proof in your last post, which is why I said I have none.

I believe every major religion has a great central message of peace and love so no i don't think it's "false". its actually the "opium of society" and we need drugs.

however some of the outrageous claims many religions and their holy books tend to make discredits a large portion of it yes. If you look at it logically, the more contradictions and un-scientific stands a holy book claims, the less truth is in that book itself thus credibility to what message that book preaches is also lost.

The Bible wasn't written as a scientific textbook. Why are you surprised that there is not much science in it? Many of the things supposedly scientific (eg, the Creation account/s in Genesis 1-2) are actually not written to be historical/scientific accounts of Creation but are in fact theological discourses on the nature of God.

you are right and i knew that as well. it didnt seem important to detail in the facts but that is the reason why i said the MODERN bible since the compilation of all those different books did not come to being until the council decided, thus creating the MODERN or standard bible we use today. Why you dissing my history yo? don't be a douche man.

So we're arguing semantics of the term "created" versus the term "codified". I think you'll find that our modern Bible was "codified" at Nicaea is far more consistent with terminology than "created". Created implies (though admittedly not explicitly states) a certain amount of invention, and is therefore a misleading term to describe what actually happened.

But it seems we are largely in agreement on the overall concept and just don't necessarily agree with the terminology used. I think "codified" better explains what actually happened.

Yes they do, and no i don't do conspiracies, only factual things I see.

So Horus had a virgin birth? I was under the impression that Osiris and Isis had sex and the outcome was Horus. True, ti was a clay penis because Isis was unable to find all the bits of Osiris that Seth had chopped up and spread around the world, but fashioning a clay penis in place of the real thing does NOT suggest a virgin birth. I'm not certain Isis was even a virgin when she had sex with Osiris (I'm no scholar). Sorry, I reject your statement that virgin births were present in both Jesus and Horus (and Ra, and whoever else you included in that list).

Its not hard to see that our money system is in chaos and there are the same people profiting at every turn. Its FACTUAL when i claim that AIG JP MORGAN G/S GM etc. funds both side of the political spectrum. Its real when i say that there are people who control the world and they don't mind breaking peace for profit. Are they reptiles, aliens, NWO, freemasons? I don't think so but I don't know.

and guess what, you don't know either. We may NEVER know.

nothing is 100%, just like god.

Ok, I'm not American, so AIG, JP Morgan, G/S, GM, etc.... don't mean anything. Funding both sides of the political spectrum, again it matters not to me as an Australian).

oh, and im not trying to an ass, sorry if i came off that way.

For the most part, you didn't come off as an ass, but your last comment in the OP in which you stated "Where's your God now?" did tread a fine line as to how I perceived your comments. Thanks for the clarification though, no need to apologise :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3) Man lost his relationship with God, and because of this, man turned his heart to worshipping idols and false gods. God in His own good time repaired that relationship. What happened before and what happens after is to be determined by God.

Like the absent father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and yes we have created the modern "god" .

If we travel to the 15th century to the dawn of the religious reformation, our modern christians would have been burned at the stake for heresy no doubt.

Reinventions and reforming old gods to fit the new is an old game no?

God: osiris: zeus: odin

Mary: isis: hera: freya

Jesus: ra or horus: dionysus: thor

All share virgin birth, creationism, human sacrifice, demi-gods.

And yes i am forgetting zorasterism and mithrasim but i need to research more before speaking on these subjects.

Sorry i cant quote im on my phone...

That could all be true.. It is religion after all, and there are no real ways to say these virgin births did or did not exist. If you get into all of this, you will have turned the OP around and it can go on for ages.into one big derailment If you believe in what you have read, then there is no harm in it...Do what you feel is best and listen to yourself and preform your own research... But this is getting far away from your OP and what your thread is actually about ..I find your OP more interesting.. Derailing it in my view is pointless

Back to the OP.. You mention - 2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?... This means, if god is all knowing, he will know what the future holds, he will know exactly what you will do and how all pans out... For him to be all knowing, he should be able to know these things... Even if he tests us, he will already know what the result will be..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I'll actually make this into a new discussion* /DELETED

Edited by Sean93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffering is transitory. Eternity is eternal. In that context, while suffering may be transitory, so also is joy only transitory. What is the point of a transitory joy if God has an eternal purpose in mind.

I thought that eternal suffering occurs in hell and eternal joy occurs in heaven.

As such, I am accepting of the fact that suffering is a necessity. After all, if suffering wasn't in our world, how could I (a Christian) ever understand the necessity for Jesus' suffering on the Cross (and yes, I believe it a necessity for eternal life that Jesus suffered and died and rose again).

The question I was going to include with the above statement was, if transitory joy is potentially pointless in God's eternal purpose, then it seems to follow then that whatever purpose the transitory suffering of Jesus served is also potentially pointless. But you then carve out an exception here, understandable since it's central to your belief system, for transitory suffering.

Regardless, I have always thought that the word 'necessity' really doesn't work well when discussing God, it implies either that God is not omniscient and couldn't think of another way to accomplish the same thing, or that god is not omnipotent and that he is constrained by some type of rules external to him. It simply is not necessary that Jesus suffered and died and was resurrected, God could have easily set up many other ways for eternal life to be realized.

I have no empirical proof. That does not, however, mean I do not have proof. Just because this proof won't convince you doesn't mean it has not convinced me.

But what it does potentially do is put your god belief on the same level epistemologically as thousands of other fantastic claims that have been made by people who also do not have any proof that will convince anyone else but are convinced nonetheless. I may be wrong, but I would guess that you think a lot of those claims are not actually well supported. I'm not sure why the fact that the proof that has convinced you has not convinced the majority of human beings who exist, many whose internal proof has led them to contradictory conclusions to your own actually, does not then temper your conviction that your proof is valid in the first place.

The Bible wasn't written as a scientific textbook. Why are you surprised that there is not much science in it?

But the Bible was written and sold as a book that contains the truth, and we are warned in a couple spots I thought to not subject some of its 'truths' to reason which may lead you astray from faith. Regardless, the biblical account of creation was held by a large number (majority?) of Jews and Christians for the vast majority of history to be literally true and factual, and it's not like the major Christian churches responded to the findings of cosmology, geology, and biology that the earth and universe are billions of years old with, 'Oh, thank you for clearing that up for us, you of course are correct and we have been misinterpreting Genesis for millenia obviously'; quite the contrary. Are you surprised that these scientific findings weren't more immediately embraced by Christianity (with full recognition that I'm using that term very generally)? There were a lot of 'reasons' given for not accepting these findings that came straight from non-scientific quotes from a book that does not have much science in it.

To note that the Bible is not a scientific textbook seems to be a little bit of a red herring; I don't think anyone disputes that. The issue seems to more accurately be that believers are instructed to accept (some of, at least) what the Bible says as being the truth, based on whatever foundation, and I'm not aware of many Abrahamic religions that embrace the attitude of, 'you should believe what the bible says about this until science disputes it'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The creator, whom some define as God, created evil as a survival tactic for the human race. Without wars, murder, disease...etc., we would be overpopulating this planet which would lead to our demise. When we put an end to war and disease, we'll be in deep **** if we haven't curbed overbreeding. I don't know what our benevolent/malevolent may have in store, but it could be some new evil plague or population control via asteroid. Who knows? If you're wondering how I learned all this, it's in my book about my afterlife experiences. You may find it quite interesting, let alone mind-bending. To view my book *snip*

Edited by Paranoid Android
No commercial links allowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffering is transitory. Eternity is eternal. In that context, while suffering may be transitory, so also is joy only transitory. What is the point of a transitory joy if God has an eternal purpose in mind. As such, I am accepting of the fact that suffering is a necessity. After all, if suffering wasn't in our world, how could I (a Christian) ever understand the necessity for Jesus' suffering on the Cross (and yes, I believe it a necessity for eternal life that Jesus suffered and died and rose again). [/background][/size][/font][/color]

This might only be my own opinion but I believe an all Powerful God who is not limited by anything (even himself?) can create an alternate reality without the need for transitory suffering. I can't conceptualize it since my perception is limited by my humanness. Maybe it's just me but I feel that GOD is being redundant in his creation-suffering-eternal bliss when it can easily be creation-eternal bliss.

I have no empirical proof. That does not, however, mean I do not have proof. Just because this proof won't convince you doesn't mean it has not convinced me. And I know you were asking for scientific proof in your last post, which is why I said I have none. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

I don't mind hearing what has convinced you to believe. in fact, I'm quite curious. I heard a lot of testimonies from various people but still haven't been convinced yet. between you and me, I actually want to be proven wrong. I just can't believe because my logic tells me otherwise.

The Bible wasn't written as a scientific textbook. Why are you surprised that there is not much science in it? Many of the things supposedly scientific (eg, the Creation account/s in Genesis 1-2) are actually not written to be historical/scientific accounts of Creation but are in fact theological discourses on the nature of God. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

oh then i have no argument here. And yes the creation story and the 7 days backdrop is not actually 7 days if you study Judaism. In fact they are more correctly identified as 7 SECTIONS or events. However you must know that you are not in the majority as fundamental Christians here in America believe word for word as well as people back in Korea (my home).

So we're arguing semantics of the term "created" versus the term "codified". I think you'll find that our modern Bible was "codified" at Nicaea is far more consistent with terminology than "created". Created implies (though admittedly not explicitly states) a certain amount of invention, and is therefore a misleading term to describe what actually happened.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

But it seems we are largely in agreement on the overall concept and just don't necessarily agree with the terminology used. I think "codified" better explains what actually happened.

I agree, just miss-communication i guess.

So Horus had a virgin birth? I was under the impression that Osiris and Isis had sex and the outcome was Horus. True, ti was a clay penis because Isis was unable to find all the bits of Osiris that Seth had chopped up and spread around the world, but fashioning a clay penis in place of the real thing does NOT suggest a virgin birth. I'm not certain Isis was even a virgin when she had sex with Osiris (I'm no scholar). Sorry, I reject your statement that virgin births were present in both Jesus and Horus (and Ra, and whoever else you included in that list).[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Well i would argue that Horus was of a virgin birth since SET had torn Osiris' body and Isis had to conceive Horus/RA? through the spirit of Osiris and remaining bits in a clay pot(or clay dildo idk). I don't think that constitutes a normal procedure of procreation... I think Isis was a virgin before conceiving since that "story" is a depiction of the start of the gods (aka start of the world/reality). I might be in the wrong though, i'll check.

Ok, I'm not American, so AIG, JP Morgan, G/S, GM, etc.... don't mean anything. Funding both sides of the political spectrum, again it matters not to me as an Australian).[/background][/size][/font][/color]

I'm very jealous because we are screwed here. BUT don't be naive, control has no national boundaries, no sovereignty. I'm sure if you really look into the Australian politics, you'll find that much is similar in our respective countries. Yours have koalas, Tasmanian devils, and kangaroos so it's a LITTLE better.

For the most part, you didn't come off as an ass, but your last comment in the OP in which you stated "Where's your God now?" did tread a fine line as to how I perceived your comments. Thanks for the clarification though, no need to apologise :tu:

yes that was just stylistic if anything but I guess it can come off a little rude. my apologies.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could all be true.. It is religion after all, and there are no real ways to say these virgin births did or did not exist. If you get into all of this, you will have turned the OP around and it can go on for ages.into one big derailment If you believe in what you have read, then there is no harm in it...Do what you feel is best and listen to yourself and preform your own research... But this is getting far away from your OP and what your thread is actually about ..I find your OP more interesting.. Derailing it in my view is pointless

Back to the OP.. You mention - 2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?... This means, if god is all knowing, he will know what the future holds, he will know exactly what you will do and how all pans out... For him to be all knowing, he should be able to know these things... Even if he tests us, he will already know what the result will be..

Sorry my mistake, lets get back on track.

But sadly, I can't give you an answer back to "Only god knows What the Future Holds" since i can only debate things that are debatable with human understanding.

My only argument is that if God is real and he is omni-all, than he has created people like me; educated, seeing a world full of contradictions from his word and the message that the current modern faithful population holds to be true. This is getting in the borders of predestination (JOHN CALVIN ANYONE?) but logically God must have known that i would not be able to believe due to my nature. Thus if God is real and he has created me KNOWING that i would not believe, he has essentially created me to be doomed. created in order to enjoy/suffer 60+ years on earth and conclude with eternal damnation. that seems extremely unfair to me and those like minded as I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry my mistake, lets get back on track.

But sadly, I can't give you an answer back to "Only god knows What the Future Holds" since i can only debate things that are debatable with human understanding.

My only argument is that if God is real and he is omni-all, than he has created people like me; educated, seeing a world full of contradictions from his word and the message that the current modern faithful population holds to be true. This is getting in the borders of predestination (JOHN CALVIN ANYONE?) but logically God must have known that i would not be able to believe due to my nature. Thus if God is real and he has created me KNOWING that i would not believe, he has essentially created me to be doomed. created in order to enjoy/suffer 60+ years on earth and conclude with eternal damnation. that seems extremely unfair to me and those like minded as I.

And there it is..God would have known the nature of his creations and why they will or will not believe...All this about him allowing you to make a choice ( calling it freedom of choice ) is pointless in the end if he already knows exactly what choice you will make and why you made it... It would be completely illogical and very stupid for anyone to try and claim that god has no way of knowing, because the second they do, they have stripped him of what makes him almighty ... The odd one will try and make it out like god is limited to powers but is more like us humans and he cannot know what you will do... It is a weak and not a good argument, but you might hear one of two that will come out with something that illogical... This is only because they cannot give a good answer to counter it, so they make it up as they go..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are good and evil made out of?

As they arent made out of matter or energy neither actually exist. They are nothing more than ideas in our heads which is why people would agree with the following contradiction -

1. Torturing a freedom fighter is evil.

2. Torturing a terrorist is good.

As good and evil arent real they arent properties possessed by God.

God hasnt created the reality you live in. The experience you call reality is actually created in your mind by your own sensory perception. Therefore the question isnt why did God create such a nasty reality for me? Its why cant you manage your own ideas, thoughts and perceptions to create a good reality for yourself?

When you're positive the whole world shines with you but when you're negative all it does is rain. Why? Its all perceptions thats why.

I also believe in universal relativity (i love Einstein) in that all things, perception, emotions, even existence, are relative to another,

The brain in a vat idea of Renee Descartes and extensively Plato (cave) holds a form of truth since the world we see is all relative to one's own ideas and mindset.

However, I disagree that the blame lies in us to create a better perception of our own realities. You can to a certain extent but one cannot deny real problems that are out of your own control. If a child in Bangalore, India is starving and cannot escape the caste system, just having a positive outlook will not feed him or change his circumstance. Just believing that I am happy will not protect me from tsunamis or the unjustified wars that my country is starting.

You are right but only to a certain extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there it is..God would have known the nature of his creations and why they will or will not believe...All this about him allowing you to make a choice ( calling it freedom of choice ) is pointless in the end if he already knows exactly what choice you will make and why you made it... It would be completely illogical and very stupid for anyone to try and claim that god has no way of knowing, because the second they do, they have stripped him of what makes him almighty ... The odd one will try and make it out like god is limited to powers but is more like us humans and he cannot know what you will do... It is a weak and not a good argument, but you might hear one of two that will come out with something that illogical... This is only because they cannot give a good answer to counter it, so they make it up as they go..

lol i guess we are in agreement here then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i guess we are in agreement here then.

That is one of the reasons as to why I do not and cannot ever follow the god from the bible.. It is not logical enough for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What proof do you have that God doesn't exist?

You didn't even respond to your own counterargument underlined and in bold. Most likely because you have no response.

Where is my God now? Probably facepalming at your pathetic attempt to out think him.

If you want to talk science, go ahead. If you want to sit down and have a civil dicussion on some of these topics (since you presented a few), then go ahead. However, if you want to post a snide topic backed by no further evidence than the spiritual members you're addressing this to, simply in an attempt to belittle them and make you feel powerful, then please refrain for the sake of your own integrity.

I don't have proof that a GOD does not exist, in fact i believe that logic tells me he has to exist. I follow Newton and Aquinas so I believe the first mover or action is "GOD".

However I have given proof why an Abrahamic God (omni-all) most likely does not exist due to the fallacies i have pointed out.

to answer my counter-argument, an ant possesses the ability to identify us humans as a THING at least. to us, we cannot even touch or interact with God as we know it. An ant is able to touch us or bite us and see us as a threat. We cannot do those things to a GOD. either the difference is much greater in us to GOD or our perception is so limited a GOD does not matter if he existed or not. His actions are unknown to us and quite possibly unable to interact with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the reasons as to why I do not and cannot ever follow the god from the bible.. It is not logical enough for me

But what form of God do you believe in? (unless you are an atheist) and where do you get your spiritual information? (holy books, meditations, chants)

I'm very interested in a variety of beliefs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that eternal suffering occurs in hell and eternal joy occurs in heaven.

The question I was going to include with the above statement was, if transitory joy is potentially pointless in God's eternal purpose, then it seems to follow then that whatever purpose the transitory suffering of Jesus served is also potentially pointless. But you then carve out an exception here, understandable since it's central to your belief system, for transitory suffering.

Regardless, I have always thought that the word 'necessity' really doesn't work well when discussing God, it implies either that God is not omniscient and couldn't think of another way to accomplish the same thing, or that god is not omnipotent and that he is constrained by some type of rules external to him. It simply is not necessary that Jesus suffered and died and was resurrected, God could have easily set up many other ways for eternal life to be realized.

But what it does potentially do is put your god belief on the same level epistemologically as thousands of other fantastic claims that have been made by people who also do not have any proof that will convince anyone else but are convinced nonetheless. I may be wrong, but I would guess that you think a lot of those claims are not actually well supported. I'm not sure why the fact that the proof that has convinced you has not convinced the majority of human beings who exist, many whose internal proof has led them to contradictory conclusions to your own actually, does not then temper your conviction that your proof is valid in the first place.

But the Bible was written and sold as a book that contains the truth, and we are warned in a couple spots I thought to not subject some of its 'truths' to reason which may lead you astray from faith. Regardless, the biblical account of creation was held by a large number (majority?) of Jews and Christians for the vast majority of history to be literally true and factual, and it's not like the major Christian churches responded to the findings of cosmology, geology, and biology that the earth and universe are billions of years old with, 'Oh, thank you for clearing that up for us, you of course are correct and we have been misinterpreting Genesis for millenia obviously'; quite the contrary. Are you surprised that these scientific findings weren't more immediately embraced by Christianity (with full recognition that I'm using that term very generally)? There were a lot of 'reasons' given for not accepting these findings that came straight from non-scientific quotes from a book that does not have much science in it.

To note that the Bible is not a scientific textbook seems to be a little bit of a red herring; I don't think anyone disputes that. The issue seems to more accurately be that believers are instructed to accept (some of, at least) what the Bible says as being the truth, based on whatever foundation, and I'm not aware of many Abrahamic religions that embrace the attitude of, 'you should believe what the bible says about this until science disputes it'.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins could not have put it better himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what form of God do you believe in? (unless you are an atheist) and where do you get your spiritual information? (holy books, meditations, chants)

I'm very interested in a variety of beliefs.

Earlier in previous posts, I was just pulling your leg about - If it is written down 2000 years ago on paper then that's proof and my dragon gods lol

I believe in a higher power that I call god, but I do not fix this being with any religion.. It is a personal faith I keep for myself..My spiritual information came from within myself..Obviously I had heard and was taught there was a god, but even when I had religion rammed down my throat and was raised on it.. I was smart enough to be able to walk my own path and think more for myself than allow others to tell me what I should and should not do.. It's my life, not theirs...... All I did was talk to god in my own way, and took it from there.. I don't follow any rules, nor do I wish to belong to a flock and follow the sheep .. I like to keep it personal ..It is safer that way for me

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the absent father.

But here's the thing, the Christian God doesn't claim to be the Father of over all. God over all, but not Father over all. Only of His faithful. Otherwise, how can a Father reject His own children?

The Scriptures state there are heathens and there are children of the Devil. The latter hear and obey only one voice and that is the voice of their father. But the children of God hear and obey the voice of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that eternal suffering occurs in hell and eternal joy occurs in heaven.

A popular misunderstanding of scripture. After extensive study I have come to the conclusion that the alternative to heaven is most definitely not eternal suffering, and is most likely a "second death" (those are the words used to describe it in Revelation 14). The second death, much like the first, involves ceasing to exist, forever. Basically wormfood.

The question I was going to include with the above statement was, if transitory joy is potentially pointless in God's eternal purpose, then it seems to follow then that whatever purpose the transitory suffering of Jesus served is also potentially pointless. But you then carve out an exception here, understandable since it's central to your belief system, for transitory suffering.

Regardless, I have always thought that the word 'necessity' really doesn't work well when discussing God, it implies either that God is not omniscient and couldn't think of another way to accomplish the same thing, or that god is not omnipotent and that he is constrained by some type of rules external to him. It simply is not necessary that Jesus suffered and died and was resurrected, God could have easily set up many other ways for eternal life to be realized.

It's not that transitory joy or suffering is "pointless" completely, only in the context of eternity.

And yes, God could have done things another way. But he didn't. What he gave us is what we have, and suffering plays a role here. I'm accepting of that, and I've been through some pretty tough times in my life.

But what it does potentially do is put your god belief on the same level epistemologically as thousands of other fantastic claims that have been made by people who also do not have any proof that will convince anyone else but are convinced nonetheless. I may be wrong, but I would guess that you think a lot of those claims are not actually well supported. I'm not sure why the fact that the proof that has convinced you has not convinced the majority of human beings who exist, many whose internal proof has led them to contradictory conclusions to your own actually, does not then temper your conviction that your proof is valid in the first place.

You are actually wrong! Whatever I may personally believe about God, it doesn't change the fact that someone else who believes differently doesn't also have strong reasons for their alternative outlook. For me, God is not a belief, it is a fact (not a scientific fact, a personal fact - it would be unwise to confuse that). My accepting of the version of God outlined in the Bible, that is where my faith comes in. Other people who have had reason to have the same knowledge of God as I do (belief, if you will) may find faith in another version. They have very strong reasons for putting faith in a different walk. I've studied enough of alternative world views to see why they would see why they find it beautiful. I may think them wrong, but I do not think them unsupported.

But the Bible was written and sold as a book that contains the truth, and we are warned in a couple spots I thought to not subject some of its 'truths' to reason which may lead you astray from faith. Regardless, the biblical account of creation was held by a large number (majority?) of Jews and Christians for the vast majority of history to be literally true and factual, and it's not like the major Christian churches responded to the findings of cosmology, geology, and biology that the earth and universe are billions of years old with, 'Oh, thank you for clearing that up for us, you of course are correct and we have been misinterpreting Genesis for millenia obviously'; quite the contrary. Are you surprised that these scientific findings weren't more immediately embraced by Christianity (with full recognition that I'm using that term very generally)? There were a lot of 'reasons' given for not accepting these findings that came straight from non-scientific quotes from a book that does not have much science in it.

To note that the Bible is not a scientific textbook seems to be a little bit of a red herring; I don't think anyone disputes that. The issue seems to more accurately be that believers are instructed to accept (some of, at least) what the Bible says as being the truth, based on whatever foundation, and I'm not aware of many Abrahamic religions that embrace the attitude of, 'you should believe what the bible says about this until science disputes it'.

The original Hebrews wrote the story (more accurately, they first told the story via oral tradition) as a direct opposition to the creation stories of the nations surrounding them. Like a backhanded slap to the Babylonians. Over time, the origin of that oral tradition was lost and yes, I agree that people believed it to be what happened. And sure, when science first began to discover the true origins there was naturally opposition. Opposition always comes if it supplants an old view (study Galileo's relationship with other scientists of his time, for example - forget the controversy he had with the Catholic Church, I believe the truly interesting part of that story comes decades earlier, when Galileo first floated the idea to fellow scientists).

But things did eventually change, and it forced people to re-examine the text. And when scholars scratched the surface, they found to their shock that the text shows evidence of a poetic structure and style. Add to that the history of the early Hebrews, how they were trying to make an identity for themselves that was different to the Babylonians (and other surrounding nations), and that the creation account seem to be written as a direct opposition to those nations' stories, then it's obvious what the purpose of the text really was, and that it shouldn't be considered scientific.

I don't see a problem with this line of reasoning.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might only be my own opinion but I believe an all Powerful God who is not limited by anything (even himself?) can create an alternate reality without the need for transitory suffering. I can't conceptualize it since my perception is limited by my humanness. Maybe it's just me but I feel that GOD is being redundant in his creation-suffering-eternal bliss when it can easily be creation-eternal bliss.

I agree that God could have created an alternative world. But he didn't, he chose to do it this way, and in this way the world has suffering in it. I don't see that as an automatic argument against God's existence (as the "problem of evil" line of reasoning implies).

I don't mind hearing what has convinced you to believe. in fact, I'm quite curious. I heard a lot of testimonies from various people but still haven't been convinced yet. between you and me, I actually want to be proven wrong. I just can't believe because my logic tells me otherwise.

Perhaps another time, in a more appropriate thread (edit: as it happens, your thread you started about "what is your religion" was that appropriate time, some of what I wanted to say I have said over there). I will say here, however, that I haven't had any divine experience where I've seen visions of God or any such, it's just several little things, innocuous on their own but over the course of my life have led me to Christ (note, I've always believed in God, however I only became a Christian when I was 19/20'ish).

oh then i have no argument here. And yes the creation story and the 7 days backdrop is not actually 7 days if you study Judaism. In fact they are more correctly identified as 7 SECTIONS or events. However you must know that you are not in the majority as fundamental Christians here in America believe word for word as well as people back in Korea (my home).

I have no statistics to back up whether it is majority or minority, but my experience in Australia is very different, ideas of Creationism just aren't that big a deal here. And from speaking to people on the internet, many places in America are like that as well. True, some parts are rabidly fundamental (eg, the parts I hear described as the South), but others the matter is not quite so clear.

Well i would argue that Horus was of a virgin birth since SET had torn Osiris' body and Isis had to conceive Horus/RA? through the spirit of Osiris and remaining bits in a clay pot(or clay dildo idk). I don't think that constitutes a normal procedure of procreation... I think Isis was a virgin before conceiving since that "story" is a depiction of the start of the gods (aka start of the world/reality). I might be in the wrong though, i'll check.

I guess we'll have to disagree, if everything about the sex part was identical except that a penis couldn't be found so they fashioned one out of clay and it worked the same, then I can't view that as a "virgin" birth. But I'll leave it there, as it really is off topic.

I'm very jealous because we are screwed here. BUT don't be naive, control has no national boundaries, no sovereignty. I'm sure if you really look into the Australian politics, you'll find that much is similar in our respective countries. Yours have koalas, Tasmanian devils, and kangaroos so it's a LITTLE better.

The two major parties, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party do not represent left and right wing politics as they seem to in America. That said, Australian politics is far from ideal, my comment was just to point out that funding American politics is a completely irrelevant point to discuss to someone such as I. Edited by Paranoid Android

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.