Is God real?
- Thread starter Deleted member 546149
- Start date
- Views 5,006
- Replies 105
The thing is the bible states God gave up dominion over the earth and his kingdom. He gave it to Jesus and Jesus will not intervene on our behalf unless we have gone past the point of being able to save ourselves because he believes in us. So be like Jesus and believe in who you are and what you can do.
@Lacius It stands to reason that I will not accept your lack of evidence as evidence that "god" doesn't exist and that you will not accept anecdotal evidence as evidence that "god" does exist.
Also, how you define "god" determines how you perceive facts in relationships to it. There is most definitely an assumption of what "god" is if you perceive reality to be lacking of evidence.
It's too bad though, that the Schrodinger's cat experiment analogy was lost on you.
Also, how you define "god" determines how you perceive facts in relationships to it. There is most definitely an assumption of what "god" is if you perceive reality to be lacking of evidence.
It's too bad though, that the Schrodinger's cat experiment analogy was lost on you.
The very idea of god is so poorly defined, that the question "does god exist?" is laughable, and that's only from a deistic perspective. the more specific you get, the worse it becomes. If you take any specific religion, write out every single property of god and try to fit them together, it always ends up as an unworkable, self contradicting mess. Most religious people will just ignore this stuff and reaffirm their faith by repeating that they believe and their faith is unshakable.
@DoubleDate I wasn't talking about the Bible when I said belief in God comes at a great cost. The cost is sacrificing your own desire to have your beliefs comport with reality. In order to believe in a god, you have to give up skepticism and embrace irrationality. That's the price, and it's a big one that nobody should be willing to pay.
It is not disrespectful to acknowledge in a conversation about whether or not a god is real that there is no evidence that a god exists. If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then that person must also require evidence for their beliefs, and that means that person cannot believe in a god. If, instead, a person cares more about the belief in God than whether or not the belief is true, then that person can believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want. It's not rational, but it's their prerogative.
@BlazeMasterBM You and I are 100% in agreement that belief in a god has to be based on "faith." However, "faith" is the excuse a person gives for their beliefs when they don't actually have a good reason for their beliefs. It's belief without evidence, and it's irrational.
You and I are also in agreement that God isn't just "a regular average person like you and me." The God of the Bible is an immoral thug, and the average person like you and me is many times more moral than the God of the Bible. The fact that God allows extreme suffering is a moral problem for the God of the Bible, and that's not even getting into the moral atrocities God commits in the Bible. It isn't a violation of people's free will to stop atrocities, to not commit genocide, to not make immoral proclamations like "stone the gays to death" or "rapists must marry those they rape" or "you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a few days." The existence of atrocities and the other things I've listed above don't do anything to increase well-being or make life worth living. You're defending something because you feel like you have to in order to believe a god exists, not because your defense is rational.
Regardless of the Problem of Evil, the immorality in the Bible, etc., there is no rational justification for the belief in a god, and a belief in a god requires "faith."
@tabzer I never claimed that a lack of evidence for the existence of a god is evidence that a god does not exist. That is not how logic works, and that is not how the burden of proof works. It is irrational to automatically believe in a claim until it has been disproven. Otherwise, you would have to believe in my invisible unicorn or the teapot that orbits Mars until a time at which these things have been disproven. Even worse, if these were your standards for believing things, you would have to believe every single unfalsifiable claim given to you, since they cannot physically be disproven, even if the claims are irrational.
You claim that I will not accept evidence that a god exists, but I absolutely will accept evidence that a god exists if it's sound evidence that actually demonstrates that a god exists. Anecdotes are tricky, since they're usually just more claims and don't actually demonstrate anything. For example, if someone has the anecdote that they were diagnosed with cancer, prayed to get better, and they got better, that does not demonstrate that a god exists. That only demonstrates that a person had cancer, a person prayed to get better, and that the person got better. It doesn't demonstrate that a god exists or did anything about the cancer.
The difference between you and me, apparently, is that I'm a skeptic who wishes to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. In order to do this, I embrace logic and evidence, since that's the only way to accomplish my goal. You, on the other hand, appear to care more about the god belief than whether or not it's true. In other words, I can easily change my mind, but with your current mindset, there's probably nothing anybody could say anytime soon that would change your mind.
It is not disrespectful to acknowledge in a conversation about whether or not a god is real that there is no evidence that a god exists. If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then that person must also require evidence for their beliefs, and that means that person cannot believe in a god. If, instead, a person cares more about the belief in God than whether or not the belief is true, then that person can believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want. It's not rational, but it's their prerogative.
@BlazeMasterBM You and I are 100% in agreement that belief in a god has to be based on "faith." However, "faith" is the excuse a person gives for their beliefs when they don't actually have a good reason for their beliefs. It's belief without evidence, and it's irrational.
You and I are also in agreement that God isn't just "a regular average person like you and me." The God of the Bible is an immoral thug, and the average person like you and me is many times more moral than the God of the Bible. The fact that God allows extreme suffering is a moral problem for the God of the Bible, and that's not even getting into the moral atrocities God commits in the Bible. It isn't a violation of people's free will to stop atrocities, to not commit genocide, to not make immoral proclamations like "stone the gays to death" or "rapists must marry those they rape" or "you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a few days." The existence of atrocities and the other things I've listed above don't do anything to increase well-being or make life worth living. You're defending something because you feel like you have to in order to believe a god exists, not because your defense is rational.
Regardless of the Problem of Evil, the immorality in the Bible, etc., there is no rational justification for the belief in a god, and a belief in a god requires "faith."
@tabzer I never claimed that a lack of evidence for the existence of a god is evidence that a god does not exist. That is not how logic works, and that is not how the burden of proof works. It is irrational to automatically believe in a claim until it has been disproven. Otherwise, you would have to believe in my invisible unicorn or the teapot that orbits Mars until a time at which these things have been disproven. Even worse, if these were your standards for believing things, you would have to believe every single unfalsifiable claim given to you, since they cannot physically be disproven, even if the claims are irrational.
You claim that I will not accept evidence that a god exists, but I absolutely will accept evidence that a god exists if it's sound evidence that actually demonstrates that a god exists. Anecdotes are tricky, since they're usually just more claims and don't actually demonstrate anything. For example, if someone has the anecdote that they were diagnosed with cancer, prayed to get better, and they got better, that does not demonstrate that a god exists. That only demonstrates that a person had cancer, a person prayed to get better, and that the person got better. It doesn't demonstrate that a god exists or did anything about the cancer.
The difference between you and me, apparently, is that I'm a skeptic who wishes to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. In order to do this, I embrace logic and evidence, since that's the only way to accomplish my goal. You, on the other hand, appear to care more about the god belief than whether or not it's true. In other words, I can easily change my mind, but with your current mindset, there's probably nothing anybody could say anytime soon that would change your mind.
@tabzer
"It doesn't make sense to say God exists or God doesn't exist to me, because there is clearly an idea and that idea came from somewhere. The idea, at least, exists and nobody that I have communicated with gave me a satisfactory definition of that idea. I always knew that there was more and I will pursue that until I don't believe so.
If you are content with severing part of your brain that wonders, imagines, and hopes... go with @Lacius."
The idea of God exists because of primitive humans that didn't have the knowledge we have today, invoke God into things they couldn't explain at the time. It's essentially the God of the gaps argument.
They had no idea how tornadoes were made, no idea why lightning storms happen. So in order to explain what they couldn't explain with primitive science they say it must be God making those things happen. But as science progressed and we learned how tornadoes are formed and can explain things with science, God is an ever receding thing. And the more we discover God as an explanation for why things happen it recedes more and more every year.
And another point I disagree with severing part of your brain that wonders and imagines. If anything having God as an explanation for why things happen stops that wondering. Lighting happens because God makes it happen. End of Story. God is an almighty being and can do things beyond our control. It stops our wonder. It's stops on us figuring out on how things are made.
But if we don't use God as an explanation. We look for answers. We wonder and ponder why things are the way they are. And it leads us to scientific discoveries. It leads us to learn how thunder storms are formed, how tornadoes exists. It provides answers that invoking God does not.
It'll also help us reach type 1 civilization status in the future where we have full control of our planets resources. And have control on the creation of tornadoes. In the future we will have technology that can stop tornadoes from occurring. And make the Earth more habital land safer then today. We will become the "God's" that can create and stop tornadoes. We can tame nature and make it work for us.
"It doesn't make sense to say God exists or God doesn't exist to me, because there is clearly an idea and that idea came from somewhere. The idea, at least, exists and nobody that I have communicated with gave me a satisfactory definition of that idea. I always knew that there was more and I will pursue that until I don't believe so.
If you are content with severing part of your brain that wonders, imagines, and hopes... go with @Lacius."
The idea of God exists because of primitive humans that didn't have the knowledge we have today, invoke God into things they couldn't explain at the time. It's essentially the God of the gaps argument.
They had no idea how tornadoes were made, no idea why lightning storms happen. So in order to explain what they couldn't explain with primitive science they say it must be God making those things happen. But as science progressed and we learned how tornadoes are formed and can explain things with science, God is an ever receding thing. And the more we discover God as an explanation for why things happen it recedes more and more every year.
And another point I disagree with severing part of your brain that wonders and imagines. If anything having God as an explanation for why things happen stops that wondering. Lighting happens because God makes it happen. End of Story. God is an almighty being and can do things beyond our control. It stops our wonder. It's stops on us figuring out on how things are made.
But if we don't use God as an explanation. We look for answers. We wonder and ponder why things are the way they are. And it leads us to scientific discoveries. It leads us to learn how thunder storms are formed, how tornadoes exists. It provides answers that invoking God does not.
It'll also help us reach type 1 civilization status in the future where we have full control of our planets resources. And have control on the creation of tornadoes. In the future we will have technology that can stop tornadoes from occurring. And make the Earth more habital land safer then today. We will become the "God's" that can create and stop tornadoes. We can tame nature and make it work for us.
@tabzer Also to back what I say we already have ideas to create tornadoes and are looking into it as another source for renewable energy with a machine called the atmospheric vortex engine.
Back in ancient times people would say God created tornadoes. But God is an ever receding things as we learn more about our world and how it works and now humans have the power to create tornadoes ourselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_engine
https://www.engineersgarage.com/atmospheric-vortex-engine-twister-power/
Back in ancient times people would say God created tornadoes. But God is an ever receding things as we learn more about our world and how it works and now humans have the power to create tornadoes ourselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_engine
https://www.engineersgarage.com/atmospheric-vortex-engine-twister-power/
@Lacius that simply goes back to my point about God not really being held to the same standards as we are. What I mean is, there's 2 types of atrocities that come to mind: Those caused by man (murder, r@pe, etc.) and natural atrocities (disease, storms, etc.). The ones caused by man are not the work of God, but the work of a person's free will. God does not intervene in these situations because, like I said earlier, that person will get their judgement once they eventually die. Or, they can repent, and possibly be saved. After all, the Bible teaches forgiveness.
As for disasters caused by God, such as a deadly disease or a destructive tornado or earthquake, I actually heard an explanation at church today. It's simply part of his plan. God wants us to overcome these obstacles and learn from them. A person can NEVER grow physically and mentally if they don't suffer at all. Plus, it's simply part of his "plan", as it was described to me. God's reasons for doing these things are probably beyond our comprehension, but I hope my previous points can at least explain why suffering is necessary.
And you're right. There is no evidence, no data, no strong reason that compels you to believe. It's just something you have to feel, believe, and understand for yourself. If someone doesn't believe, that's their own choice. I have no proof that God is real, but I still believe. That was my choice. I feel like I have felt the presence of God and witnessed his acts and the effects of praying before. I understand if others are skeptical. But I still believe, and though that may seem ridiculous to some people, it's something I feel strongly about that gives a bit of meaning to my life.
As for disasters caused by God, such as a deadly disease or a destructive tornado or earthquake, I actually heard an explanation at church today. It's simply part of his plan. God wants us to overcome these obstacles and learn from them. A person can NEVER grow physically and mentally if they don't suffer at all. Plus, it's simply part of his "plan", as it was described to me. God's reasons for doing these things are probably beyond our comprehension, but I hope my previous points can at least explain why suffering is necessary.
And you're right. There is no evidence, no data, no strong reason that compels you to believe. It's just something you have to feel, believe, and understand for yourself. If someone doesn't believe, that's their own choice. I have no proof that God is real, but I still believe. That was my choice. I feel like I have felt the presence of God and witnessed his acts and the effects of praying before. I understand if others are skeptical. But I still believe, and though that may seem ridiculous to some people, it's something I feel strongly about that gives a bit of meaning to my life.
I assure you, God is real, but He works in mysterious ways that people don’t always notice
But unfortunately Satan is real too, and he wants to pull you away from doing things that are right
But unfortunately Satan is real too, and he wants to pull you away from doing things that are right
@BlazeMasterBM Your explanations for why God doesn't intervene in atrocities don't make a lot of sense. You don't take away a person's free will when you intervene to stop an action. If a person were about a murder someone, but I stepped in and prevented that murder, I didn't do anything to change the free will of the murderer. I merely prevented the murder. That's a nonsense rebuttal.
As for natural disasters, there's no reason I've heard to think a person requires a nature disaster obstacle in order to grow as a person. It's also impossible to grow as a person when you and your entire family are killed in a tornado, for example, so I'm not sure how that's helping anybody grow.
When someone says "it's beyond our comprehension," that's usually code for "the question is too hard and we don't have a satisfactory answer other than one that makes our god look bad."
It is your right and your prerogative to believe a god exists if that's what you want to do, as long as we're not pretending that the belief is anything other than irrational. However, I would say that belief should not be something that's based on what we want. I don't hold a single belief because it's something I want to believes. My beliefs are the result of being convinced of something because of the available evidence. In other words, the word "belief" is defined as "acceptance of a claim as true," not "acceptance of a claim as something we want to be true."
The last thing you said about God giving meaning to your life is not something I desire to take away from you or anyone else, but I find it difficult to believe a life has more meaning in a universe where a God created you for his purpose with omniscient knowledge of everything you've done, are doing, and will ever do. In that kind of subjectively deterministic world, it almost makes life meaningless. If we pretend that you went off to college, but the government decided which major you studied and what you would do when you graduated from college, you'd be responding "the government gives my life meaning." It is my opinion that your life's meaning would instead come from picking your own major and deciding yourself what you want to do after graduation, not because they were part of someone else's plan.
@Plazorn If you want to say you believe in a god, that's fine, but it's inappropriate to "assure" someone that a god exists when there is no evidence that a god exists. It is an irrational belief. There is also no evidence that natural disasters are caused by humans (excluding the things we do to our environment that directly cause or exacerbate some disasters). There appears to be no correlation between the amount of "sin" in a place and the amount of natural disasters that hit that place. The natural disasters are pretty much what you would expect if a god didn't exist.
As for natural disasters, there's no reason I've heard to think a person requires a nature disaster obstacle in order to grow as a person. It's also impossible to grow as a person when you and your entire family are killed in a tornado, for example, so I'm not sure how that's helping anybody grow.
When someone says "it's beyond our comprehension," that's usually code for "the question is too hard and we don't have a satisfactory answer other than one that makes our god look bad."
It is your right and your prerogative to believe a god exists if that's what you want to do, as long as we're not pretending that the belief is anything other than irrational. However, I would say that belief should not be something that's based on what we want. I don't hold a single belief because it's something I want to believes. My beliefs are the result of being convinced of something because of the available evidence. In other words, the word "belief" is defined as "acceptance of a claim as true," not "acceptance of a claim as something we want to be true."
The last thing you said about God giving meaning to your life is not something I desire to take away from you or anyone else, but I find it difficult to believe a life has more meaning in a universe where a God created you for his purpose with omniscient knowledge of everything you've done, are doing, and will ever do. In that kind of subjectively deterministic world, it almost makes life meaningless. If we pretend that you went off to college, but the government decided which major you studied and what you would do when you graduated from college, you'd be responding "the government gives my life meaning." It is my opinion that your life's meaning would instead come from picking your own major and deciding yourself what you want to do after graduation, not because they were part of someone else's plan.
@Plazorn If you want to say you believe in a god, that's fine, but it's inappropriate to "assure" someone that a god exists when there is no evidence that a god exists. It is an irrational belief. There is also no evidence that natural disasters are caused by humans (excluding the things we do to our environment that directly cause or exacerbate some disasters). There appears to be no correlation between the amount of "sin" in a place and the amount of natural disasters that hit that place. The natural disasters are pretty much what you would expect if a god didn't exist.
@BlazeMasterBM what exactly do we learn from overcoming a tornado? How not to get caught in a tornado? If no tornadoes existed at all then why would we need to learn how to avoid tornadoes?
If someone were to use a gun to shoot your brother or sister and say "I killed them to make you suffer so you can learn and grow from this pain" How would you feel about that? And why would that be different then what God is doing with tornadoes and earthquakes destroying everything and the lives of people?
If someone were to use a gun to shoot your brother or sister and say "I killed them to make you suffer so you can learn and grow from this pain" How would you feel about that? And why would that be different then what God is doing with tornadoes and earthquakes destroying everything and the lives of people?
@lacius
"In order to believe in a god, you have to give up skepticism and embrace irrationality."
This is false. Regardless of what anybody believes, they will always have skepticism in their lives. As for embracing irrationality, that is something that you are actively doing in your position in the discussion. Others are trying to rationalize it, while you are settling with the notion that "people are doing irrational things". It is lazy and not thorough.
"It is not disrespectful to acknowledge in a conversation about whether or not a god is real that there is no evidence that a god exists."
It is disrespectful to inject yourself as omnipotent and an authority to strike everyone's personal evidence from consideration. The lack of evidence is a position that you hold, and it should be acknowledged as such.
"If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then that person must also require evidence for their beliefs, and that means that person cannot believe in a god"
If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then it is conflicted with doubt. It means that the person does not completely believe in god, not that they are incapable.
"I never claimed that a lack of evidence for the existence of a god is evidence that a god does not exist. That is not how logic works, and that is not how the burden of proof works."
Your position is that there is a lack of evidence, and because of that, the position should be to not believe "god" exists. You want to enter a conversation about "god" and convince people that there is no reason to believe in god, so the burden lies on you to dismantle everyone else's experiences. It would be fair for you to say,"I don't know" instead of trying to push what you believe.
"You claim that I will not accept evidence that a god exists"
I claimed that you will not accept anecdotal evidence. So far you have only verified this.
"You, on the other hand, appear to care more about the god belief than whether or not it's true"
I care about what is true about "god". You've written "god" off as "irrational", which is counterproductive in the pursuit to be rational.
@SG854 that's a rationalization but doesn't satisfy me. I had also mentioned that people who believe in god do not have a monopoly on lazy thinking.
"In order to believe in a god, you have to give up skepticism and embrace irrationality."
This is false. Regardless of what anybody believes, they will always have skepticism in their lives. As for embracing irrationality, that is something that you are actively doing in your position in the discussion. Others are trying to rationalize it, while you are settling with the notion that "people are doing irrational things". It is lazy and not thorough.
"It is not disrespectful to acknowledge in a conversation about whether or not a god is real that there is no evidence that a god exists."
It is disrespectful to inject yourself as omnipotent and an authority to strike everyone's personal evidence from consideration. The lack of evidence is a position that you hold, and it should be acknowledged as such.
"If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then that person must also require evidence for their beliefs, and that means that person cannot believe in a god"
If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then it is conflicted with doubt. It means that the person does not completely believe in god, not that they are incapable.
"I never claimed that a lack of evidence for the existence of a god is evidence that a god does not exist. That is not how logic works, and that is not how the burden of proof works."
Your position is that there is a lack of evidence, and because of that, the position should be to not believe "god" exists. You want to enter a conversation about "god" and convince people that there is no reason to believe in god, so the burden lies on you to dismantle everyone else's experiences. It would be fair for you to say,"I don't know" instead of trying to push what you believe.
"You claim that I will not accept evidence that a god exists"
I claimed that you will not accept anecdotal evidence. So far you have only verified this.
"You, on the other hand, appear to care more about the god belief than whether or not it's true"
I care about what is true about "god". You've written "god" off as "irrational", which is counterproductive in the pursuit to be rational.
@SG854 that's a rationalization but doesn't satisfy me. I had also mentioned that people who believe in god do not have a monopoly on lazy thinking.
There is no concrete evidence as to whether God exists or not. I do not hold any particular faith, simply because I realized that the world is a big place, and in current day and throughout history, there have been thousands of ideas and faiths revolving around the concept of a higher deity, like God. The reason I personally broke away from the Mormon faith when I was 18 is that there are so many sects of Christianity, and each of them claim to be the "one true Church of Christ" and some even vilify those who don't subscribe to their specific faith. Hell, the parents of my old Baptist friend straight up told me that I was going to Hell, because they believed that Mormons worship Satan! Anyway, I ultimately fell away from my own faith because I came to the conclusion that religion -- not so much faith, but religion itself - is utter bullshit, and it has the consequence of turning people into fanatics to the point where they will put their faith before their love for their own family and friends. That, and I perceive the Judaeo-Muslim-Christian version of God to be rather imperfect and egotistic, even so much as to take a challenge and test Job's faith by literally taking EVERYTHING from him. In the words of Tyrion Lannister "Why are all the gods such viscous cunts?"
Anyway, for the most part, I have taken a rather pragmatic view of the concept of God. I've come to the conclusion that is there really even is a God, then he/she/it is probably rather neutral in the grand scheme of things and doesn't actively punish people for their wrong doing, and likewise just doesn't give enough of a shit about us to bother intervening, unless it's through karma. I have pretty much abandoned the idea of faith, and I believe that there are equally bad things that come out of religion, despite some of the good that they teach and strive for. And likewise, people don't need religion to learn good values. You can still teach your children the commandments (minus the 1st one) without any religious dogma behind it.
Ultimately, you're the one that needs to take all the considerations, and there are certainly people who can provide a better argument for or against God than most of us here. The only thing I would ever ask of you is:
1. Don't be judgemental of others for their faith (or lack of) and don't force your doctrine down an other's throat.
2. If you have children or a spouse, you should respect their wishes if they choose to leave the faith, and understand that they have free will.
3. Just all in all don't be an asshole like some of the horrible dads you hear about that literally disown their child for being gay or leaving the faith, or even abuse their wife and kids for not adhering to the faith.
Anyway, for the most part, I have taken a rather pragmatic view of the concept of God. I've come to the conclusion that is there really even is a God, then he/she/it is probably rather neutral in the grand scheme of things and doesn't actively punish people for their wrong doing, and likewise just doesn't give enough of a shit about us to bother intervening, unless it's through karma. I have pretty much abandoned the idea of faith, and I believe that there are equally bad things that come out of religion, despite some of the good that they teach and strive for. And likewise, people don't need religion to learn good values. You can still teach your children the commandments (minus the 1st one) without any religious dogma behind it.
Ultimately, you're the one that needs to take all the considerations, and there are certainly people who can provide a better argument for or against God than most of us here. The only thing I would ever ask of you is:
1. Don't be judgemental of others for their faith (or lack of) and don't force your doctrine down an other's throat.
2. If you have children or a spouse, you should respect their wishes if they choose to leave the faith, and understand that they have free will.
3. Just all in all don't be an asshole like some of the horrible dads you hear about that literally disown their child for being gay or leaving the faith, or even abuse their wife and kids for not adhering to the faith.
Your explanations for why God doesn't intervene in atrocities don't make a lot of sense.
@Lacius I don't believe in god, but you are making a whole lot of assumptions about god if they indeed were real. Maybe god exists and they are a jerk? Or they're bored with our world now?
@Lacius I don't believe in god, but you are making a whole lot of assumptions about god if they indeed were real. Maybe god exists and they are a jerk? Or they're bored with our world now?
I claimed that you will not accept anecdotal evidence. So far you have only verified this.
@tabzer The problem with anecdotal evidence is that people are unreliable.
You're asking people to believe in something just because you believe in it.
@tabzer The problem with anecdotal evidence is that people are unreliable.
You're asking people to believe in something just because you believe in it.
so the burden lies on you to dismantle everyone else's experiences.
@tabzer If you can't prove what you say then there is nothing to dismantle.
One could say it's arrogant to have faith in god as you are assuming that your belief is correct despite having no evidence that is universally accepted to back it up. You are in effect worshiping yourself.
From my point of view if god exists then it makes this universe really boring and I want to know about how god exists, who created him. While religious people seem to use god exclusively to answer questions in our universe, but that is just guess work.
People claim they communicate with god, but god hasn't confirmed that. They might just be imagining their communication with god.
@tabzer If you can't prove what you say then there is nothing to dismantle.
One could say it's arrogant to have faith in god as you are assuming that your belief is correct despite having no evidence that is universally accepted to back it up. You are in effect worshiping yourself.
From my point of view if god exists then it makes this universe really boring and I want to know about how god exists, who created him. While religious people seem to use god exclusively to answer questions in our universe, but that is just guess work.
People claim they communicate with god, but god hasn't confirmed that. They might just be imagining their communication with god.
@lacius God did come down to prove his existence, just we weren’t born yet to witness it and rely on information passed down over generations. As for evolution created us and our complex beings. We may have evolved from something but how did that first something come to be?
He doesn’t appear all the time because u would automatically do good and believe. Ur supposed to have faith and do it of ur free will. Says in the Bible we pay for the sins of our fathers so that may have something to do with the suffering in the world.
He doesn’t appear all the time because u would automatically do good and believe. Ur supposed to have faith and do it of ur free will. Says in the Bible we pay for the sins of our fathers so that may have something to do with the suffering in the world.
@Lacius it doesn't take away someone's free will if God intervenes in every tragedy, though it makes free will pointless. "You can do anything you want, except anything bad, because God will stop you immediately." So that's not really free will. A person is good because they HAVE the opportunity to do evil, yet they refrain. And I never said someone had to be killed to grow. Lol.
You understand yin and yang, right? Without the darkness, there can be no light, you know the saying. Without anything bad ever happening, people would not know what happiness is, because everything good that happens would just be normal. So, would we just be in a constant state of melancholy or find a way to be upset at good things? Who knows... but, imagine a world where humans suffered no hardships. (and, realize, I'm not JUST talking about tornadoes.. lol) We would be completely useless. There would be no reason to improve ourselves or anything else, because there would be no problems. Life would be meaningless. If someone has a goal they want to achieve, usually they go through hardships and obstacles (again, not just tornadoes) to attain it. But if there was no obstacles, there would be no reason to work for something, because you would already have it. There would be no problems in life. Ever. I hope you understand my explanation on why God, or anyone for that matter, can't erase every single problem the world has ever known.
@SG854 good question. For starters, I hope you guys know I am not just talking about tornadoes and earthquakes when I speak of problems. Also, as I explained to Lacius, God isn't held to the same standards as us. He decides when EVERYONE dies. So him causing the deaths of people is something he does everyday, whereas if a human being were to, it would make them a murderer. God doing this VS a person killing one of your family members is, in fact, quite different. Like I said before, God has his reasons for the disasters he creates. And just because we don't know why, doesn't mean he's not real @Lacius because trying to understand every reason behind the actions of the one who created the entire universe isn't always something a regular person can wrap their head around. Again, God isn't like science. There's no way to get an explanation or reason behind everything.
@Lacius Well that "giving life meaning" example is also completely different. I agree that, in that hypothetical situation, the government wouldn't give my life meaning. But it's different because I made the conscious decision to be religious. I don't have to. There's nothing stopping me from becoming atheist by tomorrow. Except my own will. I believe that following this religion is a good thing. I feel it has worked well for my life, and done good things for me. It's not my entire reason for living, but it's something to have faith in, and someone to turn to when I have no one else. So to me, it's a pretty good thing.
I also hope you 2 understand why problems need to exist. Life can't be 100% easy and have nothing bad ever happen to anyone. Think of the society we created. Why did people make houses? To shelter them from the elements. And so on and so forth. The world you two are thinking of, is paradise, AKA Heaven. Which comes after we die.
Another reason God can't intervene in every atrocity is because his judgement comes after we die. Everyone dies someday. Your actions and faith determine what happens to you in the afterlife. So it's not like you can just go around murdering people and have nothing happen to you because God doesn't put an immediate stop to it. Your judgement comes when you die. So, you reap what you sow. That person will likely go to Hell.
You understand yin and yang, right? Without the darkness, there can be no light, you know the saying. Without anything bad ever happening, people would not know what happiness is, because everything good that happens would just be normal. So, would we just be in a constant state of melancholy or find a way to be upset at good things? Who knows... but, imagine a world where humans suffered no hardships. (and, realize, I'm not JUST talking about tornadoes.. lol) We would be completely useless. There would be no reason to improve ourselves or anything else, because there would be no problems. Life would be meaningless. If someone has a goal they want to achieve, usually they go through hardships and obstacles (again, not just tornadoes) to attain it. But if there was no obstacles, there would be no reason to work for something, because you would already have it. There would be no problems in life. Ever. I hope you understand my explanation on why God, or anyone for that matter, can't erase every single problem the world has ever known.
@SG854 good question. For starters, I hope you guys know I am not just talking about tornadoes and earthquakes when I speak of problems. Also, as I explained to Lacius, God isn't held to the same standards as us. He decides when EVERYONE dies. So him causing the deaths of people is something he does everyday, whereas if a human being were to, it would make them a murderer. God doing this VS a person killing one of your family members is, in fact, quite different. Like I said before, God has his reasons for the disasters he creates. And just because we don't know why, doesn't mean he's not real @Lacius because trying to understand every reason behind the actions of the one who created the entire universe isn't always something a regular person can wrap their head around. Again, God isn't like science. There's no way to get an explanation or reason behind everything.
@Lacius Well that "giving life meaning" example is also completely different. I agree that, in that hypothetical situation, the government wouldn't give my life meaning. But it's different because I made the conscious decision to be religious. I don't have to. There's nothing stopping me from becoming atheist by tomorrow. Except my own will. I believe that following this religion is a good thing. I feel it has worked well for my life, and done good things for me. It's not my entire reason for living, but it's something to have faith in, and someone to turn to when I have no one else. So to me, it's a pretty good thing.
I also hope you 2 understand why problems need to exist. Life can't be 100% easy and have nothing bad ever happen to anyone. Think of the society we created. Why did people make houses? To shelter them from the elements. And so on and so forth. The world you two are thinking of, is paradise, AKA Heaven. Which comes after we die.
Another reason God can't intervene in every atrocity is because his judgement comes after we die. Everyone dies someday. Your actions and faith determine what happens to you in the afterlife. So it's not like you can just go around murdering people and have nothing happen to you because God doesn't put an immediate stop to it. Your judgement comes when you die. So, you reap what you sow. That person will likely go to Hell.
- Status
Similar threads
-
AncientBoi
-
K3Nv2
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A @ Aglae Pheryl:Is anyone familiar with former forum opg.life ? I missed the transition to the new forum over the week end (was scuba diving in the sticks with no internet connection). If anyone in touch with any members please pm me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(
