Between God and Science

[blazeofglory]

All I am going to discuss here is pretty gibberish and nothing significant as a matter of fact.

For I have no facts to back up my ideas and nothing to document what I arguably present as a matter of fact.

Should I turn to science or to a mythological god when it comes to defining or understanding some of the questions, never ending questions.

God's existence? I do not know.
The end of science? No where
Our scope or domain of knowledge is? Totally insignificant.
This existence we try to assert is? Simply an illusion

The classical war between God and science is totally meaningless and that drives us nowhere else. We become squeezed between endless questions from both ends.

Everything is simply meaningless at the base, yet the mystery of everything is such that we take everything as truth.

Is there truth other than what we see as many religious persons and spiritualists assert?

Maybe all we see is truth and the rest we romanticize are illusions.
Maybe what I write will confuse you.

For all we know and try to assert through our ideas are illusions only.

[Wintermute]

Hi Blaze,

Welcome up on the agnostic fence, hehe. Plenty of room up here!

Doug

[blazeofglory]

Hi Blaze,

Welcome up on the agnostic fence, hehe. Plenty of room up here!

Doug

Dear Wintermute, I am not bent on any philosophies at all. I do not subscribe to any ideas to shape my patterns of thinking or I do not like to pattern my minds at all. I am a free thinker and I have nothing to do with gnosticism or agnosticism.

I believe in free thinking, colored by any model at all.

If you find any matching at all it is a sheer coincidence only.

[Wintermute]

If you find any matching at all it is a sheer coincidence only.

Hiya Blaze,

Perhaps.

Peace,
Doug

[AARONDISNEY]

The classical war between God and science is totally meaningless and that drives us nowhere else. We become squeezed between endless questions from both ends.


I must admit I was totally confused concerning your post. It sounds kind of like you don't think that thinking anything to be true is a good idea and so we should sort of just float by and not worry about it at all.

Well, that's fine if you don't believe there is a Creator who will judge those that refuse His grace.

But this quoted piece of your post is what concerns me. It is commonplace to think that there is a war between God and Science. That is total baloney!

Science is tested proven facts. God's word does not contradict science except when it implies that it does through miracles, and seeing as God is the Creator and sustainer of the universe, he does not have to comply with scientific law.

The Red Sea should not have divided for the Israelites to go through on dry land, but it did. Why? Because the one that created that Sea caused it to happen.

A virgin should not be able to conceive and have a child but she did, because the God that created this universe made it to be so.

There are plenty of scientists who theorize concepts contradictory to the Bible, but there is no science (observable, testable science) that contradicts the Bible. There is no war.....there is perfect harmony if you have the ability to think critically.

[blazeofglory]

All I want to say is that both take opposite directions, science and God in point of fact. Science treads on a path of reason, law, causes and and effects, God on the contrary takes on a totally different course.

Miracles are what God associates itself with. God dwells on a world of belief and science on facts.

The war between the two is a classical one.

Maybe this war is interesting. In a way this clash between these two polar opposites keep us meditative all the while or else the world will be a dull or boring place to live in.

That the world is a place of mysteries is a fact, for what we know through science is a little idea of this universe, and the great mystery, the unknowns validate the fact that we need to explore into domains that science has yet to prove.

[AARONDISNEY]

Miracles are what God associates itself with. God dwells on a world of belief and science on facts.



Right - Science is about facts. The problem is, certain theories that are far from proven are equated with science. Those theories clash with God.

Theories like evolution, old earth, big bang. If any of these are true, the Bible is wrong. Yet they are only theories, but they are taught as fact. That's what makes my blood boil. Why do theories get lumped together with science? That makes people call this a battle between science and God. Which sounds alot like a battle between FACT and BELIEF. That's not what it is....it's a battle between BELIEF AND BELIEF.

[blazeofglory]

Right - Science is about facts. The problem is, certain theories that are far from proven are equated with science. Those theories clash with God.

Theories like evolution, old earth, big bang. If any of these are true, the Bible is wrong. Yet they are only theories, but they are taught as fact. That's what makes my blood boil. Why do theories get lumped together with science? That makes people call this a battle between science and God. Which sounds alot like a battle between FACT and BELIEF. That's not what it is....it's a battle between BELIEF AND BELIEF.

Maybe you are true from one point of view. Yet what we call God is something we think out of our conditioned mind and as we are programmed by our societies and we keep on relaying what we receive from others.

The existence of God is also therefore a theory and no one or no sets of ideas can convince us of this fact.

That we chose to comfort us with the idea led to the idea of God.

[Sam?]

Right - Science is about facts. The problem is, certain theories that are far from proven are equated with science. Those theories clash with God.

Theories like evolution, old earth, big bang. If any of these are true, the Bible is wrong. Yet they are only theories, but they are taught as fact. That's what makes my blood boil. Why do theories get lumped together with science? That makes people call this a battle between science and God. Which sounds alot like a battle between FACT and BELIEF. That's not what it is....it's a battle between BELIEF AND BELIEF.

A very classic misunderstanding on your part. In the realm of science, theory holds a different meaning than it does in colloquial conversation.
The scientific equivelent to the colloquial theory is a hypothosis. The scientist comes up with a possible explanation for something that may or may not be true. Then they do everything in their power to disprove it, as do their peers. If nobody can dispprove it, then it becomes a theory, which is as close as one can get in science to fact. That evolution is still 'just a theory' after over a hundred years is a testament to its accuracy.

As you seem to take a literal interpretation of the bible, I'd ask you some simple questions. After the global flood, how did snails make it all the way from Mount Ararat to Australia? And why did all the koalas go to Australia, all the pandas to China, all the girraffes to Africa etc? Surely they must have passed suitable environments on their way. In real life, they would have spread out more evenly, in most cases they would have stuck to the first suitable environment they came to and of course they wouldn't have been able to cross the oceans. I mean why would a sloth, a creature who spends the majority of its time doing nothing at all, travel all the way from Mount Ararat to Central and Southern America? Let alone all the sloths. How do science and the bible coincide there?

[Wintermute]

A very classic misunderstanding on your part. In the realm of science, theory holds a different meaning than it does in colloquial conversation.
The scientific equivelent to the colloquial theory is a hypothosis. The scientist comes up with a possible explanation for something that may or may not be true. Then they do everything in their power to disprove it, as do their peers. If nobody can dispprove it, then it becomes a theory, which is as close as one can get in science to fact. That evolution is still 'just a theory' after over a hundred years is a testament to its accuracy.

As you seem to take a literal interpretation of the bible, I'd ask you some simple questions. After the global flood, how did snails make it all the way from Mount Ararat to Australia? And why did all the koalas go to Australia, all the pandas to China, all the girraffes to Africa etc? Surely they must have passed suitable environments on their way. In real life, they would have spread out more evenly, in most cases they would have stuck to the first suitable environment they came to and of course they wouldn't have been able to cross the oceans. I mean why would a sloth, a creature who spends the majority of its time doing nothing at all, travel all the way from Mount Ararat to Central and Southern America? Let alone all the sloths. How do science and the bible coincide there?

Hi Sam,

I agree with everything you've said, particularly your explanation of the scientific method--it was clear and accurate.

The fundamentalist, on the other hand would argue that god is omnipotent. And if it was able to flood the entire earth, it could certainly guide particular animals to particular places on the planet. Indeed, it could will the animals to disappear and reappear anywhere, no? You can't argue with logic with folks that believe in the paranormal. My grandma was absolutely convinced that satan had put the dinosaur fossils in the ground to throw us off the path of Jesus, etc.

Human hope and fear of mortality often trumps reason.

Peace,
Doug

[AARONDISNEY]

I responded as best as I could to your question on the other thread, but I want to just say this. My point was that you can't say that my believing in creation is any less scientific than your believing that we evolved from a slimy rock. You didn't see it happen, and I didn't see it happen. So both are theories.

There is no more logic behind your theory than mine. You have to believe what you can't see either way. If I tell you that since the earth is spinning 1/500th of a second slower every day and that 4.5 billion years ago it would have been spinning like a top - you would fault me for concluding that it has been decreasing in speed at the same rate for 4.5 billion years.

Yet when you see small changes WITHIN THE KINDS and conclude that one kind of animal or organism changes into another after so much time, I am supposed to just say "yeah, that makes sense".

Well, I'm sorry. I think the evolutionary theory is ridiculous and even if it weren't, it could still not be proven.

How many millions of generations of fruitflies did they observe? How much torture did they put those little things through, just to see that although they varied drastically, they never became anything but a fruitfly. Sometimes a very weird fruitfly, but still a fruitfly. But that won't convince an evolutionist that changes in a kind are limited, no they still go on believing this ridiculous theory.

[Wintermute]

Well, I'm sorry. I think the evolutionary theory is ridiculous and even if it weren't, it could still not be proven.

Hi Aaron,

Did you actually read what Sam said about the scientific method? There is a scientific principle--the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle. You should read about it if you have an opportunity. By saying, "it could still not be proven" you are supporting Mr. Heisenberg and you are exactly right. However, it is by far the best bet based on contemporary evidence. Am I certain evolutionary theory is accurate? Nope. Are you certain you are right?

Peace,
Doug

[deep32]

Thanks for creating this thread, a valuable information is there for the members here and also for the guests also.

[El Viejo]

Right - Science is about facts. The problem is, certain theories that are far from proven are equated with science. Those theories clash with God.

Theories like evolution, old earth, big bang. If any of these are true, the Bible is wrong. Yet they are only theories, but they are taught as fact. That's what makes my blood boil. Why do theories get lumped together with science? That makes people call this a battle between science and God. Which sounds alot like a battle between FACT and BELIEF. That's not what it is....it's a battle between BELIEF AND BELIEF.

Hypothesis and theory are different animals. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation. A theory is a hypothesis that remains established, so far, in the face of testing.

The universe seems to be orderly, therefore it must have been created by someone we'll call God. This is a hypothesis.

Light objects fall slower than heavy objects of equal size. This is a hypothesis that, upon being tested and retested, has been found to be true under some conditions, but not under others. Through experimentation we've learned a few things about mass, air, and how to design an experiment, just to name a few.

Hypotheses about God can go no further than re-drafting and editing to create a more right-sounding argument. No testing is possible.

Faith is divergent. Each faith inevitably splits into more and more sects over time, each increasingly at odds with the rest.

Science is convergent. From diverse opinions and hypotheses at a given frontier those pursuing knowledge come eventually together.

This is not to disparage religionists, although I am tempted. One can function just fine in our society believing the earth is flat, that the sun is a great lump of coal, that television is magic, despite theories to the contrary.

[dzebra]

Hypotheses about God can go no further than re-drafting and editing to create a more right-sounding argument. No testing is possible.

I propose that testing can be done, if you take as a given that the Bible is from God. God makes promises in the Bible and they can be verified to be true or false.

[El Viejo]

I propose that testing can be done, if you take as a given that the Bible is from God. God makes promises in the Bible and they can be verified to be true or false.

Assuming the existence of God is a pretty significant given. Assuming as well that the Bible is his personal work is exponentially so. But go ahead. Example, please.

[togre]

Science is convergent. From diverse opinions and hypotheses at a given frontier those pursuing knowledge come eventually together.

How convergent is science really? On evolution, what mechanism was used? Gradual accumulation of genetic changes? Punctuated equilibrium? The "hopeful monster"?

There is wide, even violent, disagreements on the actual workings of evolution. But as long as you place yourself under the umbrella of a theory that never made any predictions and thus can not be disproven (a fundamental characteristic of science) you will be accepted in the community.

But step outside of the anti-supernatural, materialistic preconceptions of the group and they will be all over you before you can say "Spanish Inquisition."

Bonus Question: How can you prove that the scientific method works?

[jgweed]

One might avoid the confusion of using the word "predict" in its casual sense by distinguishing the kinds of predictions characteristic of science and religion.
In the case of the Bible it may (or may not) FORETELL individual and unique events, e.g., the end of the world; but on the other hand, science concerns itself with conditional predictions based on generalised laws, e.g., if one releases an object from one's hand, it will fall to the ground.

And prediction, as least for science, may not necessarily involve a future event. Here one may point to the parallels between the discovery of unknown elements "predicted" in the Periodic Table of Elements to the discovery of intermediate species between two known species in evolutionary theory.

Bonus Question reply. Since the scientific method is one that constantly admits that its laws are subject to change and disproof, it must therefore be considered to "work" by definition. The scientific method includes in itself the possibility of error or adjustments.

[togre]

The scientific method includes in itself the possibility of error or adjustments.

The scientific method includes, in fact is based upon, the assumption that the universe is governed by a uniform set of "laws," that the way matter and energy interact today is the same as the way they interacted yesterday and the same as they will interact tomorrow.

It is an assumption with which I am comfortable, but one which cannot, by definition, be proven to be scientific. Therefore the basis of even science is a set of preconceptions that are accepted as accurate or viable without the expectation of there being any proof for this assumption.

[Sam?]

The scientific method includes, in fact is based upon, the assumption that the universe is governed by a uniform set of "laws," that the way matter and energy interact today is the same as the way they interacted yesterday and the same as they will interact tomorrow.

It is an assumption with which I am comfortable, but one which cannot, by definition, be proven to be scientific. Therefore the basis of even science is a set of preconceptions that are accepted as accurate or viable without the expectation of there being any proof for this assumption.

Go look up quantum physics.

[togre]

Go look up peanut butter.

See I can tell you to do things too.









But seriously, while I'm not an expert on quantum physics or quantum mechanics, what does that prove? It, like every other branch of science, is based on the unsupportable assumption that observation of phenomena at a given point in time will be able to tell you something about the nature/behavior of that phenomena at a different point in time. This is even true when observation of the behavior of quarks leads one to posit that the behavior of a single quark is unpredictable.

[jgweed]

"...based on the unsupportable assumption that observation of phenomena at a given point in time will be able to tell you something about the nature/behavior of that phenomena at a different point in time."

Why is this assumption "unsupportable"? Or perhaps I do not understand the definition you are giving it.

[Sam?]

Go look up peanut butter.

See I can tell you to do things too.









But seriously, while I'm not an expert on quantum physics or quantum mechanics, what does that prove? It, like every other branch of science, is based on the unsupportable assumption that observation of phenomena at a given point in time will be able to tell you something about the nature/behavior of that phenomena at a different point in time. This is even true when observation of the behavior of quarks leads one to posit that the behavior of a single quark is unpredictable.

If it's unsupportable, then jump off a high cliff. According to your 'logic' there's no proof you won't turn into a magical bird and fly to safety.
So far the 'unsupported assumption' that when you drop something it will fall hasn't failed once. So far fire has continued to be hot. How much evidence do you possibly need?

[togre]

It is supportable...only by observation. A classic example of circular reasoning. To accept the assumption that observation is useful (which I do) you must accept as a precondition that what the senses perceive has some bearing on reality.

This is an a priori assumption (and again, not an unreasonable one). It is the philosophical foundation upon which the scientific method is built, and therefore the scientific method cannot prove or disprove it.

And, this is not "my logic." This conforms with the most fundamental tenants of logic.

I guess my point is that science doesn't have the high ground with regards to logic. The internal logical consistency of individual religions and science are not fundamentally incomparable. They just begin with different a priori assumptions.

[jgweed]

To say that a discipline is not capable of self-grounding might be true enough, but is it important that it do so?

[togre]

In general, it might not be all that important except...

1. when science (or perhaps better, advocates of science) deride religious thought as "un-logical" when the difference isn't that one has unsupportable preconceptions and the other doesn't, but that the preconceptions (beliefs? points of faith?) are merely different.

2. science, by virtue of making assumption/being based on assumptions about the nature of the universe, is incapable of providing objective proof or disproof for certain things. By making a naturalistic assumption about the nature of the universe, science is unable to give meaningful insight (either proof or refutation) of supernatural beliefs or phenomena.

[Pendragon]

True, if you drop an object it will fall consistently. But to prove why it falls may be a bit ambiguous. We can say for certain that it is a force that we call "Gravity", but to explain what gravity is and exactly how it works may be difficult. After all if we knew how to produce gravity, people going into space would not have to have weightless training.

Is gravity a force created by magnetism, by electrical current, solar power, or volcanoes under the earth's mantle? Why does the moon have less gravity? It is smaller, of course, but does size matter in the area of gravity? If the moon controls the tides by gravity, considering the size of the oceans should it not have higher gravity than earth?

You see, explanations are never simple, the smallest question leads to further questions.

God Bless

Pen

[Sam?]

True, if you drop an object it will fall consistently. But to prove why it falls may be a bit ambiguous. We can say for certain that it is a force that we call "Gravity", but to explain what gravity is and exactly how it works may be difficult. After all if we knew how to produce gravity, people going into space would not have to have weightless training.

Is gravity a force created by magnetism, by electrical current, solar power, or volcanoes under the earth's mantle? Why does the moon have less gravity? It is smaller, of course, but does size matter in the area of gravity? If the moon controls the tides by gravity, considering the size of the oceans should it not have higher gravity than earth?

You see, explanations are never simple, the smallest question leads to further questions.

God Bless

Pen

All matter has gravity. The larger and more dense the matter, the stronger the field of gravity. That's where gravity comes from, and that is why the moon has less gravity than the Earth, but the sun has more. There's no mystery.

As to your aguments, Togre, both religion and science depend on the same assumptions. For either our observations can be trusted, or we can't be sure of anything at all, including the existence of the bible. Without the bible there's no reason to even consider the possibility of the Christian god in the first place.
You're right in that we can never be sure of anything but our individual consciousness, but debate becomes pointless when we doubt our own senses.

[dzebra]

...debate becomes pointless when we doubt our own senses.

Debate also becomes pointless when both sides refuse to believe that they can be wrong.

[Pendragon]

All matter has gravity. The larger and more dense the matter, the stronger the field of gravity. That's where gravity comes from, and that is why the moon has less gravity than the Earth, but the sun has more. There's no mystery.

Beg pardon, but this doesn't explain what gravity is or how it works. It just says that all matter has gravity and that the denser the greater. That is like saying all ducks have feathers and the younger the more downy. That doesn't explain why ducks have feathers instead of, say, hair. I am not saying gravity doesn't exist, I am saying that we accept that it does, explaining it is secondary and harder to do.

Many things are accepted yet harder to prove. Try proving mathematically that 2+2=4. You are certain of the fact and proof isn't needed.

[Wintermute]

Debate also becomes pointless when both sides refuse to believe that they can be wrong.

Hi Dzebra and All,

Well said! Absolute certainty is dangerous in my opinion. You've made me smile going into the weekend. Thank you!

Doug


Beg pardon, but this doesn't explain what gravity is or how it works. It just says that all matter has gravity and that the denser the greater. That is like saying all ducks have feathers and the younger the more downy. That doesn't explain why ducks have feathers instead of, say, hair. I am not saying gravity doesn't exist, I am saying that we accept that it does, explaining it is secondary and harder to do.

Many things are accepted yet harder to prove. Try proving mathematically that 2+2=4. You are certain of the fact and proof isn't needed.

Hiya Dale,

Yeah, gravity and magnetism are strange things. They are easily measured, and completely predictable--that's why NASA can guide space ships so precisely. Granted, sometimes mistakes are made, but you get my point.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering (80's). I took lots of physics. And I still don't quite understand what it is that travels between two magnets letting them know about each other. To my knowledge, a monopole magnet or single pole gravity particle have yet to be found. If you cut a magnet in half you get two smaller magnets--both with S and N poles. Weird stuff.

Peace,
Doug

[Sam?]

Debate also becomes pointless when both sides refuse to believe that they can be wrong.

Who says I refuse to believe I can be wrong? Of course I can be wrong. What I believe now is simply the closest I can come to the truth with the knowledge I have at present, and I'm constantly seeking new knowledge so I can alter my understanding and make it more accurate.
I don't rule out the possibilty of some higher power, to do so would be just as illogical as being sure one exists. And obviously I'd far prefer there to be an afterlife of eternal bliss than nothingness with worms eating my flesh. But so far I've seen no evidence whatsoever.

[Pendragon]

Hiya Dale,

Yeah, gravity and magnetism are strange things. They are easily measured, and completely predictable--that's why NASA can guide space ships so precisely. Granted, sometimes mistakes are made, but you get my point.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering (80's). I took lots of physics. And I still don't quite understand what it is that travels between two magnets letting them know about each other. To my knowledge, a monopole magnet or single pole gravity particle have yet to be found. If you cut a magnet in half you get two smaller magnets--both with S and N poles. Weird stuff.

Peace,
DougTrue my friend. You can create a magnet by electricity, but you can't create gravity that way! And given that the human body is a fine conductor of electricity (I know, I once was trapped by 440 volts which shot through me with ease and held me for a time!) and that we have iron in our blood, juice doesn't turn us into magnets! Rum world that we live in, to think that everything is explainable is to understand little.

God Bless

Pen

[Sam?]

Just because there are things we cannot yet explain does not mean there is anything in existence without an explanation waiting to be found.

[Pendragon]

Just because there are things we cannot yet explain does not mean there is anything in existence without an explanation waiting to be found.And man is curious by nature, so there will always be those who will continue to search for explanations. There is no harm done, and perhaps they will further the knowledge that we do have. It is the inability to accept that there are things without any explanation as of now that worries me.

People say things like: "I'm positive that there is a good explanation for this." "There is doubtless a perfectly reasonable explanation for this."

Maybe there is an explanation, but it may not be reasonable or even understandable by what we know at the present. Perhaps it will take a while before conventional thinking will accept that this or that has to be the truth of the matter.

Holmes always said: "Eliminate the impossible and whatever is left, however improbable, has to be the truth." But what happens if you cannot eliminate the things that according to current knowledge are impossible? Then part of that impossible has to be the truth. Science took a long time learning that, but every breakthrough we have had came from allowing oneself to think outside the box of conventional learning, to dare to seek what others claimed to be impossible. I don't like to be tied down to anything that I won't allow myself to envision as possibly just a stepping stone to something higher.

God Bless

Pen

[Equality72521]

Blaze, from your first post you talk about the war between god and science and what not. Maybe something useful for you to look into would be Auguste Comte's Law of the Three Stages.

What he talks about is the evolution of societies where the first stage is wheretheological explanations dominate or the religious explanations. Basically, it's where God is the sole responsability of society and he is the reason for soietal/personal problems.

Unfortunately, Comte is very vague about the Metaphysical stage, the second stage, and no body knows really what it means, some say that it's just the transition from the first to the third because going from one to the other would be to drastic and another explanation of it could be his OCD, as threes were generally incorporated into his works.

Positivism (3), the third stage, is science being incorporated into societies and Comte states that the more advanced societies using scientific explanations.



One of the debated issues on here made me think of this and in explantion for people, who do live in the advanced societies but could be classified as someone under the theological stage, may be suffering from cultural lag, which is basically when society changes so rapidly that some have a hard time keeping up with that change and have problems that are ethical, legal and even moral dilemmas. That's just transferring Comte's three stages in reference to those living in society.


Just thought I'd throw that out there for you to look at.

[Sam?]

And man is curious by nature, so there will always be those who will continue to search for explanations. There is no harm done, and perhaps they will further the knowledge that we do have. It is the inability to accept that there are things without any explanation as of now that worries me.

People say things like: "I'm positive that there is a good explanation for this." "There is doubtless a perfectly reasonable explanation for this."

Maybe there is an explanation, but it may not be reasonable or even understandable by what we know at the present. Perhaps it will take a while before conventional thinking will accept that this or that has to be the truth of the matter.

Holmes always said: "Eliminate the impossible and whatever is left, however improbable, has to be the truth." But what happens if you cannot eliminate the things that according to current knowledge are impossible? Then part of that impossible has to be the truth. Science took a long time learning that, but every breakthrough we have had came from allowing oneself to think outside the box of conventional learning, to dare to seek what others claimed to be impossible. I don't like to be tied down to anything that I won't allow myself to envision as possibly just a stepping stone to something higher.

God Bless

Pen

I don't really see what you're trying to say here. You don't seem to be denying that there is some form of explanation for everything, and I've already said that there are things we cannot yet explain. You only seem to be agreeing with me.

[Pendragon]

I don't really see what you're trying to say here. You don't seem to be denying that there is some form of explanation for everything, and I've already said that there are things we cannot yet explain. You only seem to be agreeing with me.Hi Sam

Yes, there is some form of explanation for everything, I sometimes believe that that explanation is God. God goes beyond conventional thinking. There is our point of disagreement, as you cannot or will not attribute anything to a higher power.

God Bless

Pen

[Wintermute]

. . .One of the debated issues on here made me think of this and in explantion for people, who do live in the advanced societies but could be classified as someone under the theological stage, may be suffering from cultural lag, which is basically when society changes so rapidly that some have a hard time keeping up with that change and have problems that are ethical, legal and even moral dilemmas. That's just transferring Comte's three stages in reference to those living in society. . .

Hi there Equality,

There was a popular book years ago, Future Shock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock), that talked about just this. I know my grandma suffered from this syndrome--I think she found solace in her religious upbringing that helped insulate her from the whirlwind of cultural changes taking place for which she couldn't begin to fathom.

I think you're right about this.

Peace,
Doug

[El Viejo]

Festinger, Reicken, Schachter, and Hoffer have said much of what needs to be said to explain the so-called war between science and religion. We need to feel good about ourselves. We need to belong. We can change what we believe, or adhere to the ridiculous and dangerous, to achieve those ends.

[togre]

Or we can patronize those who believe differently than we do and assume that their beliefs are warm fuzzy security blankets rather than legitimate attempts to identify the objective reality of existence.

"Don't worry, it's okay if you still believe in [insert religion here]. One day you'll grow up and be just as enlightened as I am."

[Wintermute]

Or we can patronize those who believe differently than we do and assume that their beliefs are warm fuzzy security blankets rather than legitimate attempts to identify the objective reality of existence.

As long as we classify them as 'attempts' and not 'certainties', I'm ok with it. It's those that go beyond attempts and into the realm of absolute certainty that are scary and I believe are the ones El Viejo is referring to as 'ridiculous and dangerous'. The ones that fly airplanes into buildings for example.

[togre]

Are you certain that certainty is scary and dangerous?

[Wintermute]

Are you certain that certainty is scary and dangerous?

Perhaps.

[togre]

Perhaps.

You do realize the awkward position that puts you in.

Perhaps means maybe 'yes' or maybe 'no'.

If no, you aren't certain of your own position (or at least aspects of it) why do you express it in a public manner so as to critique, if not criticize, those who hold differently than you and to presumably persuade others to a point of view closer to your own? (I have no personal knowledge of your motives, but I know of know other legitimate reasons for expressing ones views/beliefs.)


If yes, (see where this is going?) you are rebuking yourself for being certain.


You brought up people crashing airplanes into buildings. A very emotional example you claim reflects on all who have absolute certainty in their convictions. Yet, without absolute certainty, you cannot even say that they aren't right, much less condemn their actions. I hold to a world view (Christianity) with absolute certainty. It is only because of my absolute world view that I can say such actions are immoral, reprehensible and wrong. Science or uncertainty cannot speak on these things with any authority.

[Wintermute]

You do realize the awkward position that puts you in.

Perhaps means maybe 'yes' or maybe 'no'.

If no, you aren't certain of your own position (or at least aspects of it) why do you express it in a public manner so as to critique, if not criticize, those who hold differently than you and to presumably persuade others to a point of view closer to your own? (I have no personal knowledge of your motives, but I know of know other legitimate reasons for expressing ones views/beliefs.)


If yes, (see where this is going?) you are rebuking yourself for being certain.


You brought up people crashing airplanes into buildings. A very emotional example you claim reflects on all who have absolute certainty in their convictions. Yet, without absolute certainty, you cannot even say that they aren't right, much less condemn their actions. I hold to a world view (Christianity) with absolute certainty. It is only because of my absolute world view that I can say such actions are immoral, reprehensible and wrong. Science or uncertainty cannot speak on these things with any authority.

Hi Togre,

Yes indeed it is awkward. Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I'm uncertain of what's going on in the universe, and people that are, scare me. Probably because I'm not able to understand why they are so certain. I don't understand why you are 100% certain that you are right.

The few things I'm fairly certain about (but not absolutely) are that happiness can only be found by treating others with respect and compassion. And that the only eternal thing we are likely to come across is death. I think that by following this 'golden rule' one can die happy, essentially finding eternal bliss. Which to me, may be heaven.


you cannot even say that they aren't right, much less condemn their actions.

I didn't say that the folks that blow themselves and others up in the name of their beliefs are wrong. They may be right. That's one of the things that scares me.


If no, you aren't certain of your own position (or at least aspects of it) why do you express it in a public manner so as to critique, if not criticize, those who hold differently than you and to presumably persuade others to a point of view closer to your own? (I have no personal knowledge of your motives, but I know of know other legitimate reasons for expressing ones views/beliefs.)

Because I enjoy it and I learn things. If I have offended anyone I am very sorry. Being agnostic, I feel I have no right to criticize anyone because they may be right. I just said 100% certainty was scary to me.

Peace,
Doug

[El Viejo]

As long as we classify them as 'attempts' and not 'certainties', I'm ok with it. It's those that go beyond attempts and into the realm of absolute certainty that are scary and I believe are the ones El Viejo is referring to as 'ridiculous and dangerous'. The ones that fly airplanes into buildings for example.

Just to be sure I'm not misunderstood:

Religion and science both begin as inquiry. Both tend to end up being about certainty, and in that state can become dangerous. Flying planes into buildings, or declaring with absolute certainty that, for example, thalidomide or DDT are harmless, are zealous pursuits ending in tragedy.

[togre]

I don't understand why you are 100% certain that you are right.

I cannot answer this is anything but a personal way, with regards to my beliefs about reality which are taught in the Bible, so I do not want to give the impression that this applies to more people than it does.

I am not certain because of myself. I am not smarter, quicker, more righteous, more holy or more inclined to truth or God than anyone else on the earth. In fact, knowing myself better than I know anyone else, I am more aware of my personal deficiencies in regards to these. If coming up with anything absolute or certain rest on me, I'd be a bundle of doubts and uncertainty that would frighten you.

But, as the Bible explains it, something happened (was done) to me. The Lord created faith/confidence in my heart. Not by convincing my mind or letting my will make up its mind. Nope he made faith/complete confidence where there was none. It centers around Jesus Christ, what he did and what that means for my life. Because I now trust him, I also trust his Word (the Bible) and draw upon it to inform my world view.

Is it possible that I am wrong? I am willing to grant, in the hypothetical, that I could be. But, my certainty does not rest on myself. And show me where I am wrong--if I become convinced that any specific tenant of my world view does not correspond to reality, then I cease to hold it. But, by the strength of the faith that was given me, I am convinced that the heart and core of my confidence with never be shaken.

Matthew 7:25 "The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall because it had its foundation on the rock."


P.S. Doug, most of my early ire was not aimed at you, but at those who subscribe to the patronizing theory that we finally have progressed beyond the backwardness of religion to the mature enlightened culture of truth. To these people, "If you disagree with me/my world view, do so in a straightforward manner. Don't patronize."

[Wintermute]

Just to be sure I'm not misunderstood:

Religion and science both begin as inquiry. Both tend to end up being about certainty, and in that state can become dangerous. Flying planes into buildings, or declaring with absolute certainty that, for example, thalidomide or DDT are harmless, are zealous pursuits ending in tragedy.

Understood.



Matthew 7:25 "The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall because it had its foundation on the rock."

Hi Togre,

I thought that sounded familiar. Just above it:

"For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Matthew 7:8

Maybe you can help me. I've asked, sincerely I have. I've searched, I promise you. And I have tried to knock. But so far, nothing. What am I doing wrong? I mean, I see some common sense in the teachings of Christ, sure. And as I've said, I believe the golden rule is the key. It's the paranormal stuff I can't seem to accept. What did you do to attain your certainty--to know that the Christian God exists and has existed for infinity and cares about you? I know much of it is written in the bible, but there must be something else--something that permits you to accept this without question. Was there a single event of moment that got you over the doubt? Thanks in advance for any insight.

Cheers,
Doug

[togre]

I didn't do anything. I couldn't.


You say somethings seem to make sense, well some do, even on their own.

First is sin--what it is, that I have it, and that this is the single problem that I need to fix if at all possible.

Second is despair--I can't fix what I've broken, I can't pay what I owe. I am in soooo much trouble, not with Mom & Dad, not with Uncle Sam, but with Something, Someone? , very, very powerful and serious. I could probably arrive here by myself, with a sensitive conscience and soul searching, but there I'd be stuck and miserable and frightened.

Third/Final is the solution. Jesus in my place. Living how I couldn't. Suffering like I should've. Winning...well alot of amazing blessings in this life and the one to come. [Here's where you can't do anything. Here's where it take a literal miracle to trust that this is factual and has an application on you. The Bible even admits that without the miracle this all sounds ridiculous and foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Only one thing can cause certainty, God himself. I will pray that he gives you certainty.

About the paranormal stuff, that follows and I probably wouldn't care about it yea or nay if it wasn't spoken by someone (the Lord) I trusted explicitly because of his past record (Jesus dieing in my place).

I have had faith ever since I was baptized as a child (see, miracle 'cuz how can a child who can barely know still believe), so I don't have a recollection of a moment or a before and after. Baptism has promises attached to it, but that is important to me, because I trust the Lord who made the promises (I know it is a terrible Catch 22).

Have I ever doubted? I'm human and fallible, sure. When younger I used to worried my trust/faith/confidence wasn't strong enough. But I have learned when I need confidence not to look at something feeble and changeable (me), but something steadfast and enduring (the promises of God).


"For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Matthew 7:8

Maybe you can help me. I've asked, sincerely I have. I've searched, I promise you. And I have tried to knock. But so far, nothing. What am I doing wrong?

Regarding those passages, they are not speaking about how to get faith/confidence/certainty. They are addressed to people who already recognize their relationship with God as that of Father and children.

The passages of Scripture that deal with conversion (the coming to faith/the bringing into existence of confidence and certainty) don't involve the believer praying, but rather hearing/reading declarative statements about the nature of the God and his actions for people (Jesus' death).

Okay, you didn't quite ask "What should I do if I wantedto have this confidence/certainty/faith? But I'll answer that question anyway.

--Read the Bible. I know you've done it already, but the Good News Message about What Jesus Did (Gospel) is the only thing that can work the miracle. Try the Gospel of John or the Letter to the Romans. They are logical starting points.

--Talk to a mature believer or a pastor. If this is what you desire, private message me. Christians aren't perfect and many have muddled up important teachings. I'd be happy to try to find a clergyman near you who is knowledgeable and willing to explain things one on one.

This is about all a person can do. If you really desire certainty, stick with it.

Blessings

[Equality72521]

I feel confused, oh so confused. From what I understand, Doug you want to believe in the Christian God, right? But for some reason you don't. If not, do not continue to read but for those actually thinking that, read:

With Togre's answers it's almost like you're a medical patient asking a doctor what you should do with your health problem. Let me tell you something, it's not a problem, it's called Humanity.

If you can't believe then why are you trying? Don't fight what your intuition is telling you. I guarantee that if you were to be Christian or Muslim or Pagan or whatever, you would be. You can't push for it to come, you have to feel the enlightenment yourself. You can't force it, you'll just become the same mechanical robot as everyone else; they want to believe because it's the socital norm and if they don't qualify they're cast out.

You need to follow your instincts, what you feel is right for you. Only you can make your life decision. If and When "god" comes to you, you'll know. Don't try and make yourself believe. Religion isn't something you should force, it's something that you know is right for you.

[Wintermute]

I feel confused, oh so confused. From what I understand, Doug you want to believe in the Christian God, right? But for some reason you don't. If not, do not continue to read but for those actually thinking that, read:

With Togre's answers it's almost like you're a medical patient asking a doctor what you should do with your health problem. Let me tell you something, it's not a problem, it's called Humanity.

If you can't believe then why are you trying? Don't fight what your intuition is telling you. I guarantee that if you were to be Christian or Muslim or Pagan or whatever, you would be. You can't push for it to come, you have to feel the enlightenment yourself. You can't force it, you'll just become the same mechanical robot as everyone else; they want to believe because it's the socital norm and if they don't qualify they're cast out.

You need to follow your instincts, what you feel is right for you. Only you can make your life decision. If and When "god" comes to you, you'll know. Don't try and make yourself believe. Religion isn't something you should force, it's something that you know is right for you.

Hi Equality,

I'm pretty happy being agnostic. I allows for mystery, which is one of the best parts of living, imo. However, folks like Togre are conviced, absoulutely, 100%, that I'm going to hell for eternity if I don't accept that a fellow that my not even have existed died for my sins which his father created in the first place. That scares me badly. He's obviously a bright fellow. Lots of fundamentalists seem to be a lot smarter than I. So, I'm simply trying to figure out what they know that I don't, and why they were chosen and 'blessed' with some sort of divine wisdom that somehow missed me.

Thanks for your advice, I agree and accept it 8-)

Peace,
Doug

[Sam?]

I didn't do anything. I couldn't.


You say somethings seem to make sense, well some do, even on their own.

First is sin--what it is, that I have it, and that this is the single problem that I need to fix if at all possible.

Second is despair--I can't fix what I've broken, I can't pay what I owe. I am in soooo much trouble, not with Mom & Dad, not with Uncle Sam, but with Something, Someone? , very, very powerful and serious. I could probably arrive here by myself, with a sensitive conscience and soul searching, but there I'd be stuck and miserable and frightened.

Third/Final is the solution. Jesus in my place. Living how I couldn't. Suffering like I should've. Winning...well alot of amazing blessings in this life and the one to come. [Here's where you can't do anything. Here's where it take a literal miracle to trust that this is factual and has an application on you. The Bible even admits that without the miracle this all sounds ridiculous and foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Only one thing can cause certainty, God himself. I will pray that he gives you certainty.

About the paranormal stuff, that follows and I probably wouldn't care about it yea or nay if it wasn't spoken by someone (the Lord) I trusted explicitly because of his past record (Jesus dieing in my place).

I have had faith ever since I was baptized as a child (see, miracle 'cuz how can a child who can barely know still believe), so I don't have a recollection of a moment or a before and after. Baptism has promises attached to it, but that is important to me, because I trust the Lord who made the promises (I know it is a terrible Catch 22).

Have I ever doubted? I'm human and fallible, sure. When younger I used to worried my trust/faith/confidence wasn't strong enough. But I have learned when I need confidence not to look at something feeble and changeable (me), but something steadfast and enduring (the promises of God).



Regarding those passages, they are not speaking about how to get faith/confidence/certainty. They are addressed to people who already recognize their relationship with God as that of Father and children.

The passages of Scripture that deal with conversion (the coming to faith/the bringing into existence of confidence and certainty) don't involve the believer praying, but rather hearing/reading declarative statements about the nature of the God and his actions for people (Jesus' death).

Okay, you didn't quite ask "What should I do if I wantedto have this confidence/certainty/faith? But I'll answer that question anyway.

--Read the Bible. I know you've done it already, but the Good News Message about What Jesus Did (Gospel) is the only thing that can work the miracle. Try the Gospel of John or the Letter to the Romans. They are logical starting points.

--Talk to a mature believer or a pastor. If this is what you desire, private message me. Christians aren't perfect and many have muddled up important teachings. I'd be happy to try to find a clergyman near you who is knowledgeable and willing to explain things one on one.

This is about all a person can do. If you really desire certainty, stick with it.

Blessings

If belief is a 'miracle' granted by God, then there's no choice, no free will. He's decided you get to go to heaven, and I get to go to Hell. He has arbitrarily condemned me to eternal suffering without even giving me the chance to save myself.
Your logic turns God into a horrible power freak directly responsible for all suffering in the world and out of it. Because the only reply to 'why does God let bad things happen?' is 'he doesn't, he just gave us free will, and we made those things happen'.
Plus, in answer to your question about believing as a child, the answer's simple. You were brain washed. We're genetically programmed to believe everything adults tell us when we're children. Kids need to believe their parents when told they'll die if they set themselves on fire or jump of a cliff, so they believe them when they're told the bible is true.

[Wintermute]

If belief is a 'miracle' granted by God, then there's no choice, no free will. He's decided you get to go to heaven, and I get to go to Hell. He has arbitrarily condemned me to eternal suffering without even giving me the chance to save myself.
Your logic turns God into a horrible power freak directly responsible for all suffering in the world and out of it. Because the only reply to 'why does God let bad things happen?' is 'he doesn't, he just gave us free will, and we made those things happen'.
Plus, in answer to your question about believing as a child, the answer's simple. You were brain washed. We're genetically programmed to believe everything adults tell us when we're children. Kids need to believe their parents when told they'll die if they set themselves on fire or jump of a cliff, so they believe them when they're told the bible is true.

Hiya Sam,

I tend to agree with you. I certainly believed in Santa and the tooth fairy because my parents told me it was true. I wonder if these well meaning, but misplaced lies are what cause some folks to go haywire when they grow and acquire knowledge and experience. I can imagine a child being told that their lives make perfect sense--that some omnipotent being has created you and is watching over you and loves you, etc. Then the child matures and realizes that these things that he was told are far from certain and that in essence she was deceived by her parents. Seemingly this could end up manifesting its self differently in different people depending on their particular attributes. A constitutionally weak mind might decide the heck with it and go on a killing spree--"what does it matter?" A stubborn individual might choose to close their eyes to fact and argue rabidly even in the face of real evidence. Still others, perhaps a bit wiser, might decide to accept what they've been taught realizing that even if the particulars were a little sketchy, the core was a sound guide for living one's life. I dunno, just some thoughts...being agnostic, I could be really wrong.

Cheers,
Doug

[togre]

We're genetically programmed to believe everything adults tell us when we're children.

Is that what your parents taught you?

[togre]

Religion isn't something you should force, it's something that you know is right for you.


Shouldn't religion attempt to correspond to reality? Shouldn't the same be true of science (yeah, back to the topic ;) )?

What I mean, isn't whether something is true more important than what I feel about it?



This is more to the tenor of the conversation in general than to you Equality, but wouldn't it be more useful to engage in specific points of discussion than to hurl specious accusations of brainwashing and a tendency to crash airplanes to all claims of certainty? Granted these may convince people, but logically, even if you prove that I was brainwashed and that I have/will do something violent/tragic, you still have not disproved a single point I have made (it's called the ad hominem logical fallacy--Basically just because Hitler says it's July 30 doesn't make it April 3).

[togre]

a fellow that my not even have existed died for my sins

This would require a new thread, but there exists adequate historical evidence to declare the Jesus Christ lived, even if one does not think he is anything more then a teacher or mere human.

I have confidence for other reasons (see above) but find nothing in the historical record that justifies questioning his actual existence.

Just saying.

[togre]

they want to believe because it's the socital norm and if they don't qualify they're cast out.

Equality, I'm not denying that some people would fall under this heading (the churchy term is hypocrites), but...

1. This still doesn't deal with whether or not their claims correspond to reality.

2. This has not been my experience. I'm not about to indulge in a biography (that would bore) or a pity party ('cuz in a great many ways that Lord has blessed me) but my life has not made simple because I am a Christian. I am an outcast with regards to much of culture, in large part to factors stemming from my beliefs. I am not a exceptionally 'good' person, but I have received more venom for my belief than I have dealt to others (I don't include polite disagreement as venom, but as a necessary response to those you care about--you wouldn't let your two year old climb up to the roof with a cape declaring he can fly without contradicting him). This also does not include the Christians in many places in the world that face actual danger and sometimes death because of their beliefs.

So...disagree if you'd like, but don't try to explain away my/our confidence. It doesn't work and it is not a valid logical argument.

[Wintermute]

This would require a new thread, but there exists adequate historical evidence to declare the Jesus Christ lived, even if one does not think he is anything more then a teacher or mere human.

I have confidence for other reasons (see above) but find nothing in the historical record that justifies questioning his actual existence.

Just saying.

Hi Togre,

Oh yeah, I was speaking for my self. I've seen no real evidence that the Christ in the bible ever existed. I wasn't questioning if you did or not; I'm fairly sure you do. I have seen convincing evidence of Pharoahs and even the lower classes such as stone workers and carpenters that existed 3000 years prior. But like you say, this is another thread--well except for the concept of scientific evidence.

Blessings,
Doug

[togre]

Hi Togre,

Oh yeah, I was speaking for my self. I've seen no real evidence that the Christ in the bible ever existed. I wasn't questioning if you did or not; I'm fairly sure you do. I have seen convincing evidence of Pharoahs and even the lower classes such as stone workers and carpenters that existed 3000 years prior. But like you say, this is another thread--well except for the concept of scientific evidence.

Blessings,
Doug

wikipedia, with which I often have issues because of its anti-supernatural/materialistic worldview, acknowledges (in an article of the historicity of Jesus, I think) that the consensus among scholars and historians is that Jesus existed. If you wanted to bring up the scientific validity of history (which could be quite interesting) you'd have trouble acknowledging the existence of many pharaohs and casaers and other widely acknowledged historical figures if the evidence for Jesus is inadequate. I'm kinda seeing a double standard (by no means limited to you).

[Wintermute]

wikipedia, with which I often have issues because of its anti-supernatural/materialistic worldview, acknowledges (in an article of the historicity of Jesus, I think) that the consensus among scholars and historians is that Jesus existed. If you wanted to bring up the scientific validity of history (which could be quite interesting) you'd have trouble acknowledging the existence of many pharaohs and casaers and other widely acknowledged historical figures if the evidence for Jesus is inadequate. I'm kinda seeing a double standard (by no means limited to you).

Hi again Togre,

That's cool. Perhaps he did exist. I just haven't seen the evidence. I was in Cairo this past January, and did see quite a bit of evidence of the Pharaohs.

Have a gentle evening,
Doug

[Sam?]

Is that what your parents taught you?

Way to maturely address my points there Togre. You sure showed me.
The fact remains, believing in God as a child is not a miracle. Most kids believe in Santa Claus too.
But that's not my main point. You declare that belief in God is a miracle. If that were true it would mean we have no free will, and God decides who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven. It would mean that I don't believe in God because he chose not to grant me that belief, and because of his decision, I'm condemmed to eternal suffering.
Please address this.

[togre]

Sam?

I was addressing a logical fallacy in your argument. You said I was "brainwashed," and that "We're genetically programmed to believe everything adults tell us."

Either that is true and you, also, must be "brainwashed" and therefore your assertions are invalid and unreliable.

Or you aren't brainwashed, and while you may make valid assertions, your ability to do so disproves the statements you made.

[Sam?]

Sam?

I was addressing a logical fallacy in your argument. You said I was "brainwashed," and that "We're genetically programmed to believe everything adults tell us."

Either that is true and you, also, must be "brainwashed" and therefore your assertions are invalid and unreliable.

Or you aren't brainwashed, and while you may make valid assertions, your ability to do so disproves the statements you made.

You're avoiding my central point yet again (and I can't imagine why), but I won't avoid yours. As we grow, we can form our own ideas, and outgrow old ones. We don't believe all of what our parents tell us for life. I was simply explaining how you, as a child, could believe in God, since you thought that was in some way special.
In any case, it wasn't my parents who told me about our genetic programming, I read that in a book, as an adult.

Now I'll repeat myself yet again. You declare that belief in God is a miracle. If that were true it would mean we have no free will, and God decides who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven. It would mean that I don't believe in God because he chose not to grant me that belief, and because of his decision, I'm condemmed to eternal suffering.
Please address this.

[dzebra]

You declare that belief in God is a miracle. If that were true it would mean we have no free will, and God decides who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven. It would mean that I don't believe in God because he chose not to grant me that belief, and because of his decision, I'm condemmed to eternal suffering.
Please address this.

Here's the way I see it. God does have complete control over what happens in the universe. Also, I have control over what I do. The only difference between the term "free will" and "divine predestination" is perspective.

God knows the past, present, and future. He knows what I will do before I do it. He weaves the story of my existence. Everything that happens is under God's control.

I know some of the past and some of the present. Before I make a decision, I don't know if it will be good or bad. To my knowledge, I could go either way.

My idea may be more clear when compared to a novel. The author wrote the book, and he wrote down what the characters do, and the characters had no control over any of that. When you read the book, you are reading the experiences of the characters. Before doing things, they think about their options, and do whatever they want to do, so they have control over their actions.

[Guinivere]

My idea may be more clear when compared to a novel. The author wrote the book, and he wrote down what the characters do, and the characters had no control over any of that. When you read the book, you are reading the experiences of the characters. Before doing things, they think about their options, and do whatever they want to do, so they have control over their actions.

Good comparison. I agree.

For me the belief that behind my actions there is a divine plan is a great comfort. I know (by knowing I mean I believe in it) that every choice I make is not random but one step in my path on this earth. Which gives me personally the strength to go on. No matter what happens, however dreadful, I know there is a reason for this happening. Even if I could never imagine what it might be.

So every choice I make is known to God, but the way I walk through this valley of death - I take every step on my own, but not alone.

[Sam?]

Here's the way I see it. God does have complete control over what happens in the universe. Also, I have control over what I do. The only difference between the term "free will" and "divine predestination" is perspective.

God knows the past, present, and future. He knows what I will do before I do it. He weaves the story of my existence. Everything that happens is under God's control.

I know some of the past and some of the present. Before I make a decision, I don't know if it will be good or bad. To my knowledge, I could go either way.

My idea may be more clear when compared to a novel. The author wrote the book, and he wrote down what the characters do, and the characters had no control over any of that. When you read the book, you are reading the experiences of the characters. Before doing things, they think about their options, and do whatever they want to do, so they have control over their actions.

That's all well and good, and I understand perfectly, but it doesn't apply to Togre's stated view of the way things work, which is what I'm specifically asking about.
I quote: 'But, as the Bible explains it, something happened (was done) to me. The Lord created faith/confidence in my heart. Not by convincing my mind or letting my will make up its mind. Nope he made faith/complete confidence where there was none.' Direct intervention from God. The choice was not his. Which means according to Togre's specific views, God has consciously condemmed the majority of the population of the Earth throughout history to eternal suffering in Hell.

As to you Guinevere, I find your view a bit sad (not in the lame sense). It means you can never feel completely proud of your own accomplishments. I was at a friend's 21st not long ago, and during his speach, her father gave credit for every one of her accomplishments to God. I found that awful.
I also can't believe there could be any reason good enough to justify the level of suffering and inequality in the world. It doesn't seem quite so comforting to me knowing that the being who influenced my path also decided all those begger children in India should be crippled by their parents to help their careers along until they die of starvation or some disease. Or that little children should be raped by his own priests.

[togre]

Now I'll repeat myself yet again. You declare that belief in God is a miracle. If that were true it would mean we have no free will, and God decides who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven. It would mean that I don't believe in God because he chose not to grant me that belief, and because of his decision, I'm condemmed to eternal suffering.
Please address this.

"Though justice be thy plea, consider this, when in the course of justice would you and I see heaven?" (Shakespear, Merchant of Venice)

When the great humanist of the 16th century, Erasmus, wrote a treatise of the Freedom of the Human Will, Martin Luther responded, "you have hit the jugular." You got it wrong, but you have finally come to the key point on which the entire discussion hinges.

"You declare that belief in God is a miracle. If that were true it would mean we have no free will"

That's what the Bible teaches, that ever since the Fall [and don't sidetrack the discussion on this point, to keep it focused read this as "always" or "in all of recorded history"] humans lack the free will to chose to follow God and be pleasing to him. Oh we are not automatons. I chose to get up 15 minutes late this morning and I chose to skip having an apple. We can even choose which sins we commit. Do I rob the store? Or do I just think greedy thoughts. But the Bible clearly states that the default mode of humans is hostile to God, from birth and in their totality.


" because of his decision, I'm condemned to eternal suffering."

Nope, if everyone went to eternal suffering, it would be totally justifiable. I only know me, and I am by outward measure sufficiently upstanding and respectable, you might even venture to say "good." Yet I concede that I am not worthy of any God who is completely good or holy or righteous or just. I recognize that my actions and attitudes should receive the sentence of "hell." It's not God's fault. I've earned it in full. The Bible teaches this is true for each individual.



"and God decides who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven. It would mean that I don't believe in God because he chose not to grant me that belief"

Okay, here it's going to get hard to follow. You've asked that great theological question: cur alii alii non? Why some and not others? Why do some believe and are saved, and others not believe?

This has divided even Christians as they try to reconcile some passages of what Scripture teaches with reason.

Calvinist, Dutch Reformed and some old school Presbyterians answer it the way you did: The Bible says I can't choose on my own, that I am spiritually
dead and can't believe on my own anymore than a corpse can stand on its own [the Bible does in fact teach this]. So, they say, Why some and not others? The difference must be in God. All are dead chooses some to be saved others to be damned. They even refer to this as a "horrible decree," a frightening attestation to the divine prerogatives of the Lord.

But Catholics and most Protestants read the Bible and see passages that say that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that he desires that they turn and be saved and that God wants all men [humans] to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved [the Bible does in fact teach this]. So, they say, Why some and not others? The difference must be in people. God wants all, but some resist more and others less, or some aren't good enough, or some chose God after an initial nudge.


But really it isn't one question but two. Why are some saved? The Bible says they are that inert spiritual corpse, but God chose and called them apart from their merits or what they deserved and formed faith in them.

Why do some go to hell? The Bible says that God loves them and desires their salvation in no less a degree than those who are saved. But they go to hell for their sins in spite of this.

This is the Biblical teaching and the one confessed historically by Christians and by Lutherans (well, confessional Lutherans) in the current day. It is also what I believe (surprised? :) )

I will grant you it is a paradox, a seeming irreconcilable juxtaposition of two truths. I am comfortable with it. This (leading back to earlier points I made) is because I recognize that my beliefs and worldview rest (like every other worldview) to certain unsupportable presuppositions. This is possible because I accept that there exists a God who surpasses (not destroys or defies but legitimately supersedes and goes beyond) human logic. Man is not the measure of all things.


Additional Notes and Comments
"The fact remains, believing in God as a child is not a miracle."

Regarding this, we would have to define what we mean by "faith." I assume (forgive me if I'm wrong) that your definition would place faith primarily in the intellect and volition. I disagree with that. The soul and the spiritual aspect of faith (when referring to "saving faith" which I grant is a technical term) is the primary concern. It should be obvious that until we at least define, preferably agree on, the what "faith" is, we will be unable to intelligibly discuss how it is formed.



"He has arbitrarily condemned me to eternal suffering without even giving me the chance to save myself.
Your logic turns God into a horrible power freak "

You seem terribly angry at a being whose existence you deny. You can't have it both ways. Either he doesn't exist and condemnations of his actions are meaningless. Or he does exist, at which time I question your authority to stand in judgment on the actions of a divine being.



"In any case, it wasn't my parents who told me about our genetic programming, I read that in a book, as an adult. "

In which case, you prove that it is not absolute and that you can't explain away the existence of people who believe in religious ideas. And again, even if you could explain why I hold the beliefs I hold, it does not necessarily undermine their validity. You may have noticed that I haven't tried to explain why you hold the views you hold. My worldview accounts for them (and in a way that doesn't make you seem any slower or more unenlightened or more wicked than I am) but to introduce that into the discussion would sidetrack it and be a useless personal attack that could accomplish nothing more than to make me look petty and perhaps goad you into responding in kind.


I hope this post satisfies you desire for me to respond.

[Wintermute]

I'm with you completely on the free will thing Sam. Even if I do make choices, if an omnipotent being exists then I don't need to worry about my choices because I'm gonna make them anyhow. It seems silly to me.

Note: By saying "It seems silly to me." I don't mean that it is silly to those of faith and I'm not trying to disrespect them or their God. But it is honest--It does seem silly to me. And I can not understand why a God would screw up and need to flood the entire planet and kill babies and innocent animals because he screwed up, and he knew he was gonna screw up when he created the whole mess in the first place!. It makes zero sense to me and I've had dozens of faithful try to explain why it should make sense to me to no avail. If he/she/it already knows what it wants the outcome of the universe to be, and indeed already knows what it will be, why not just fast forward to the end?

I'm pretty sure there is something amazing going on in this awesome, wonderful universe--what it is I haven't a clue. I just can't go on the ego trip that humans, on this little planet in the corner of a huge galaxy amidst billions of galaxies are somehow special and the center of some omnipotent beings plans. It does seem perfectly natural for an intelligent species to want such a thing to be true. When you see a loved one die you desperatly hope that they are still happy and alive in a gentle paradise and that you will be with them again.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong and heading straight into the bowels of a Christian hell.

Sincerely,
Doug

[DooRag]

I believe I have made this comment before, but has history not clearly shown that organized religion was invented on the steps on babylon by some really smart guys as a political tool to control large groups of unorganized people?

And yes, Jesus Christ did exist, he was a carpenter, but he never claimed to be the son of god, he just thought it was wrong that all the rich guys got to keep getting richer while the poor got poorer - this is nothing new, its just that in the USA, you can say those things without getting killed. Back then, you couldn't. In other words, Jesus was a good guy in a period of time when bad guys had all the say. He never claimed to be any savior, he never performed any miracles, and he really didn't have a large group of followers.

Back then, they killed people for saying the same things he said on a daily basis, but when it came time to write the bible, the politicians of the time decided on him to be their guy.

[Sam?]

"Though justice be thy plea, consider this, when in the course of justice would you and I see heaven?" (Shakespear, Merchant of Venice)

When the great humanist of the 16th century, Erasmus, wrote a treatise of the Freedom of the Human Will, Martin Luther responded, "you have hit the jugular." You got it wrong, but you have finally come to the key point on which the entire discussion hinges.

"You declare that belief in God is a miracle. If that were true it would mean we have no free will"

That's what the Bible teaches, that ever since the Fall [and don't sidetrack the discussion on this point, to keep it focused read this as "always" or "in all of recorded history"] humans lack the free will to chose to follow God and be pleasing to him. Oh we are not automatons. I chose to get up 15 minutes late this morning and I chose to skip having an apple. We can even choose which sins we commit. Do I rob the store? Or do I just think greedy thoughts. But the Bible clearly states that the default mode of humans is hostile to God, from birth and in their totality.


" because of his decision, I'm condemned to eternal suffering."

Nope, if everyone went to eternal suffering, it would be totally justifiable. I only know me, and I am by outward measure sufficiently upstanding and respectable, you might even venture to say "good." Yet I concede that I am not worthy of any God who is completely good or holy or righteous or just. I recognize that my actions and attitudes should receive the sentence of "hell." It's not God's fault. I've earned it in full. The Bible teaches this is true for each individual.

But no matter how good you are, you don't get into Heaven unless you worship God. There are atheists who dedicate their lives to charity work and will still go to Hell because God chose not to grant them the miracle of belief. There are forty to sixty thousand years of Australian Aborigines in Hell because God had never even gone near Australia.


"and God decides who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven. It would mean that I don't believe in God because he chose not to grant me that belief"

Okay, here it's going to get hard to follow. You've asked that great theological question: cur alii alii non? Why some and not others? Why do some believe and are saved, and others not believe?

This has divided even Christians as they try to reconcile some passages of what Scripture teaches with reason.

Calvinist, Dutch Reformed and some old school Presbyterians answer it the way you did: The Bible says I can't choose on my own, that I am spiritually
dead and can't believe on my own anymore than a corpse can stand on its own [the Bible does in fact teach this]. So, they say, Why some and not others? The difference must be in God. All are dead chooses some to be saved others to be damned. They even refer to this as a "horrible decree," a frightening attestation to the divine prerogatives of the Lord.

But Catholics and most Protestants read the Bible and see passages that say that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that he desires that they turn and be saved and that God wants all men [humans] to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved [the Bible does in fact teach this]. So, they say, Why some and not others? The difference must be in people. God wants all, but some resist more and others less, or some aren't good enough, or some chose God after an initial nudge.

But really it isn't one question but two. Why are some saved? The Bible says they are that inert spiritual corpse, but God chose and called them apart from their merits or what they deserved and formed faith in them.

Why do some go to hell? The Bible says that God loves them and desires their salvation in no less a degree than those who are saved. But they go to hell for their sins in spite of this.

This is the Biblical teaching and the one confessed historically by Christians and by Lutherans (well, confessional Lutherans) in the current day. It is also what I believe (surprised? :) )

I will grant you it is a paradox, a seeming irreconcilable juxtaposition of two truths. I am comfortable with it. This (leading back to earlier points I made) is because I recognize that my beliefs and worldview rest (like every other worldview) to certain unsupportable presuppositions. This is possible because I accept that there exists a God who surpasses (not destroys or defies but legitimately supersedes and goes beyond) human logic. Man is not the measure of all things.

What reason to you have to believe God is like this?
My point is not just about belief. If we do not have free will to choose to save ourselves, then there is no reason for God to watch all the atrocious things that happen in the world and not stop them. All those kids born with terminal disease? He could fix them. The 2005 tsunami? He could have stopped that. All the pain and suffering in the world? He could stop it. But he doesn't. And if we don't have free will, then he doesn't have the excuse of not wanting to interfere in our free will.
So given all the pain, suffering and injustice in the world, and that according to your beliefs, God has no reason not to interfere, why doesn't he do something? Your God, more than the God of any other Christian I've debated, has displayed his true lack of omni benevolence.
So why do you believe he's infinitely right and just when he stands by and lets his own priests rape children and destroy their lives? What chance does a kid have to grow up mentally healthy and display their merits, earning their miraculous way into heaven, after that?



Additional Notes and Comments
"The fact remains, believing in God as a child is not a miracle."

Regarding this, we would have to define what we mean by "faith." I assume (forgive me if I'm wrong) that your definition would place faith primarily in the intellect and volition. I disagree with that. The soul and the spiritual aspect of faith (when referring to "saving faith" which I grant is a technical term) is the primary concern. It should be obvious that until we at least define, preferably agree on, the what "faith" is, we will be unable to intelligibly discuss how it is formed.

Actually no. We can tell ourselves our girlfriend isn't cheating us as much as we want, give ourselves as much evidence as we can, but still think she is. Faith is the same. I don't think there's anything spiritual about it, I just think we have the capacity to believe beyond reason. Believe with our gut instead of our head.


"He has arbitrarily condemned me to eternal suffering without even giving me the chance to save myself.
Your logic turns God into a horrible power freak "

You seem terribly angry at a being whose existence you deny. You can't have it both ways. Either he doesn't exist and condemnations of his actions are meaningless. Or he does exist, at which time I question your authority to stand in judgment on the actions of a divine being.

I don't believe in Darth Vader, I can still condemn his actions. I just cannot understand why so many Christians believe God is nice. I mean I honestly do not understand where that belief originated. You assume he's great, and then ignore any actions he commits that would suggest otherwise (or say it's not your place to judge him), but why do you think he's so great in the first place? Honest question.


"In any case, it wasn't my parents who told me about our genetic programming, I read that in a book, as an adult. "

In which case, you prove that it is not absolute and that you can't explain away the existence of people who believe in religious ideas. And again, even if you could explain why I hold the beliefs I hold, it does not necessarily undermine their validity. You may have noticed that I haven't tried to explain why you hold the views you hold. My worldview accounts for them (and in a way that doesn't make you seem any slower or more unenlightened or more wicked than I am) but to introduce that into the discussion would sidetrack it and be a useless personal attack that could accomplish nothing more than to make me look petty and perhaps goad you into responding in kind.

Again, I was only trying to explain how you as a child could believe in God, as you presented it as some sort of miracle in and of itself.[/QUOTE]


I hope this post satisfies you desire for me to respond.

Thanks very much for your answers. If you reply, the main two points I hope you can address are: Why God does nothing when stripped of his reason not to act (that reason being he can't interfere in our free will), and why you believe God is such a great guy when you have nothing but his word on it, and most of his actions in the bible (and his inaction in the real world) suggest otherwise?

[togre]

But no matter how good you are, you don't get into Heaven unless you worship God.

But no one is good. What does it take for an action to be truly good? Is it just the outward action? It is just right motives? Must it be both? And what are the proper actions and the proper motives? You totally ignored the starting point where everyone has earned eternal suffering. This is not excluding those who eventually end up in heaven.


So given all the pain, suffering and injustice in the world, and that according to your beliefs, God has no reason not to interfere, why doesn't he do something?

How do you know he hasn't done something/isn't doing something right now? Once again, when compared with the tragedy of a soul suffering in hell even the very real and very emotional suffering that you sited pale. Would you grant that if there exists an eternal heaven and an eternal hell, that being rescued from the latter and destined for the former is a greater good than being spared "the slings and arrows of life's outrageous fortune?"

God was so dedicated, took such decisive action on this essential point that he was willing to disown his perfect, holy Son that wretched sinners would not need to suffer.

It is with the view of rescuing souls that God governs the universe (we call this God's providence). And we are told that God is active in this world, preventing disaster, lessening the impact of those that occur and working through the consequences of even terrible things to accomplish temporal and eternal blessing for people.

"But", one might ask, "he's all-powerful. Why not stop all bad things?" Well, the Bible doesn't explicitly say, so what follows is just my thoughts and as such could be wrong. Have you ever tried to convince a person that is feeling fine, athletic, no pain, no weakness that they need a doctor? Not gonna happen. We need help on a spiritual level. But if things were all daisies and lollypops in this life, who would a) want to be anywhere else and b) see any urgency in changing/examining their relationship with God?

Also, there is the whole question of what would happen if God nerfed the world so our sinful actions did have any consequences. Do you think we'd do more or less sinful things in that case?



So why do you believe he's infinitely right and just when he stands by and lets his own priests rape children and destroy their lives? What chance does a kid have to grow up mentally healthy and display their merits, earning their miraculous way into heaven, after that?

Who says he stands by them? Such acts are atrocious and heartbreaking, the more so because of the people who did them. The Lord warns against anyone, especially his workers, doing anything that would damage the faith or body of children. I trust that the Lord is sufficiently capable of dealing with these actions.

Secondly, "earning their [] way into heaven"? How could I have failed so completely to communicate? Not earned!!! Not earned!!!! Gift! Earned = gonna go to hell. "It is by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves, but a gift of God, that no one may boast."



Actually no. We can tell ourselves our girlfriend isn't cheating us as much as we want, give ourselves as much evidence as we can, but still think she is. Faith is the same. I don't think there's anything spiritual about it, I just think we have the capacity to believe beyond reason. Believe with our gut instead of our head.

Again, I was only trying to explain how you as a child could believe in God, as you presented it as some sort of miracle in and of itself.

Like I said, we are gonna talk past each other on this one. Okay, I was wrong about what you thought faith was, but I was right that you didn't think it was what I think it is. Someone [WC Fields?] once defined as faith as "Believing what you know ain't so." That is not what I'm talking about.

Again, I would point out that saving faith is different than trust or confidence in other matters. This is routed in my understanding of the human as body and soul, mind and spirit. I recognize that we may be unable to find common ground on this.

With regards to references to my faith as a child, I would grant, that if faith is what you define it as, it could be explained as you did. However I disagree about the causes of my faith. However, since my original comments where in response to a specific request by Wintermute and not essential to the core of the discussion, I would be content if we decided to exclude them from our discussion. However, if you like my three page posts, we can keep it on the table. ;)


the main two points I hope you can address are: Why God does nothing when stripped of his reason not to act (that reason being he can't interfere in our free will), and why you believe God is such a great guy when you have nothing but his word on it, and most of his actions in the bible (and his inaction in the real world) suggest otherwise?

I think I touched on this above, but I'll try to summarize. God does act in this world. His actions make sense only when you realize that his big picture involves eternal salvation, not just temporal suffering (although he is concerned about these too, and charges his followers to be active to help people both eternally and in this world). I guess I'd compare your complaint to the a farmer who lost his crops being angry at the government for not subsidizing him. But the government realizes this subsidy would spark a trade war that would leave the entire economy in shambles and probably make things worse for the farmer than they were before. Yeah, it would be nice if God did this or stopped that. But do you know the effects that these would have on the entire world, on the hearts and minds of people, on the course of history? Are you unable to accept that God might have a better grasp on what is beneficial than you?


I believe I have made this comment before, but has history not clearly shown that organized religion was invented on the steps on babylon by some really smart guys as a political tool to control large groups of unorganized people?

And yes, Jesus Christ did exist, he was a carpenter, but he never claimed to be the son of god, he just thought it was wrong that all the rich guys got to keep getting richer while the poor got poorer - this is nothing new, its just that in the USA, you can say those things without getting killed. Back then, you couldn't. In other words, Jesus was a good guy in a period of time when bad guys had all the say. He never claimed to be any savior, he never performed any miracles, and he really didn't have a large group of followers.

Back then, they killed people for saying the same things he said on a daily basis, but when it came time to write the bible, the politicians of the time decided on him to be their guy.

Please site your sources. Manuscript evidence in quantities and of a quality unprecedented in any other work of antiquity exists for the Old and New Testament. Multiple witnesses from different regions, dating back to within a hundred years of the original autographs and of Christ himself not only exist, but are nearly unanimous with regards to spelling and grammar much less the actual teachings and statements and actions of Jesus. What reliable evidence do you have to support your vast claims? If you reject this preponderence of evidence, you are denying something with greater support than Cesar's Galic Wars, Homer's Odyssey and Plato's Republic. Do you reject those too? Disagree with the content, but the Jesus you paint lacks even the historical support that the Biblical (and I say, actual) Jesus has.


I'm pretty sure there is something amazing going on in this awesome, wonderful universe--what it is I haven't a clue. I just can't go on the ego trip that humans, on this little planet in the corner of a huge galaxy amidst billions of galaxies are somehow special and the center of some omnipotent beings plans.


I hope this don't come off too much like a personal attack, but you are doing just what you find to be an ego trip. What are you making the prime arbiter of truth and value and meaning? Yourself. The Golden Rule makes sense to you. The idea seems silly to you. Your arguments and reasons stem from a personal certainty or lack of it. This seems at odds with the sentiments stated above.

Also, I agree that humans aren't the be all and end all, and that there is no reason that we should be a treasured possession for an omnipotent being. [B]But God has told us that we are. Those goes back to the concept of grace, undeserved favor and love which God demonstrates.

Finally, what evidence do you have that we aren't special? What other life has been found on the earth that has the mind and emotions of humans? What other creature in the vastness of space has any of these qualities? [And you might disagree, but what else has a soul? What else recognizes that right and wrong exists? What else can seek after truth or God, even if we fail on our own to find either?] But I have seen no scientific evidence to suggest that the earth isn't the center of God's unvierse or that humans aren't the capstone of his creation.

[Wintermute]

I hope this don't come off too much like a personal attack, but you are doing just what you find to be an ego trip. What are you making the prime arbiter of truth and value and meaning? Yourself. The Golden Rule makes sense to you. The idea seems silly to you. Your arguments and reasons stem from a personal certainty or lack of it. This seems at odds with the sentiments stated above.

Nope, no personal attack at all, hehe. I don't even understand what you're talking about. But I'm old, and stoopid, hehe. The golden rule makes perfect sense to me; a Christian God seems silly to me. I do not attribute the golden rule to a Christian God. I attribute it to common sense. And if I am making myself the prime arbiter of truth and value and meaning, I apologize. I don't feel I have a right to do so.


Also, I agree that humans aren't the be all and end all, and that there is no reason that we should be a treasured possession for an omnipotent being. But God has told us that we are. Those goes back to the concept of grace, undeserved favor and love which God demonstrates.

It/she/he may have told you Togre, but it has not told me anything. Yeah, I know, somehow you are able to 'hear' it and I'm not because I'm not sincerely trying, or I've been possessed by the devil, or whatever. But, can only say I've tried, and have 'heard' nothing.



Finally, what evidence do you have that we aren't special? What other life has been found on the earth that has the mind and emotions of humans? What other creature in the vastness of space has any of these qualities? [And you might disagree, but what else has a soul? What else recognizes that right and wrong exists? What else can seek after truth or God, even if we fail on our own to find either?] But I have seen no scientific evidence to suggest that the earth isn't the center of God's unvierse or that humans aren't the capstone of his creation.

None. I'm agnostic, remember 8-). I believe the bible is of purely human origin and have seen no evidence that it is not so. I also believe that the words and ideas have changed and evolved over the centuries an probably have very little in common with the original documents from which it was assembled. Now, I know you feel differently, and I respect that. I honestly wish I could believe as you do. It would make life much easier and my fear of death would diminish. But regrettably I can't. So I'll need to find my own path. That's the main reason I like hanging out in these kinds of forums and learning from others like you and Sam and Pen and everyone else.

Blessings,
Doug

[Pendragon]

Somebody explain to me why the foreknowledge of God excludes free will. I know that people are going to post about this statement. Does that mean that I control what they are going to post? Do they not choose what to write?

God may know everything before it happens, that doesn't mean that God has already put bonds on any of us. It just means He knows what will happen.

God forces no man to follow Him. Man makes his choice. Without free will there is no humanity. We would simply be pre-programed carbon-based robots. That isn't the truth of the matter.

God Bless

Pen

I just thought of a point. Even if God chooses us, we could say no. Take someone who is drafted into the army. They can choose to flee the country, go AWOL, or find an excuse that will work to get them out of it. God sent Jonah to Nenivah, but his finally getting there was by his own choice. He could have chosen to simply die in the fish's belly. Nothing said he had to repent. He could have chosen to say, "Hey! Throw me in a stinking fish's stomach will you? [insert swear word]. I quit!"

[Wintermute]

God may know everything before it happens, that doesn't mean that God has already put bonds on any of us. It just means He knows what will happen.

Hi Dale,

I guess what bothers me most about this whole question, as I've said before, is why? Why, if omni-everything, not just create what you already know will be the outcome? Why not fast-forward to the end. Why the need to flood the planet and kill all those innocent babies? Why send your 'son' to get nailed to a cross if you already knew you were gonna need to do it? Why not just do it right in the first place? I think Christians believe in the rapture, no? And God presumably knows which one of y'all will be...raptured. Why not just start there? Why the 12.3 billion years (or whatever you believe) building up to it?

Peace,
Doug

[Jozanny]

Hi Dale,

I guess what bothers me most about this whole question, as I've said before, is why? Why, if omni-everything, not just create what you already know will be the outcome? Why not fast-forward to the end. Why the need to flood the planet and kill all those innocent babies? Why send your 'son' to get nailed to a cross if you already knew you were gonna need to do it? Why not just do it right in the first place? I think Christians believe in the rapture, no? And God presumably knows which one of y'all will be...raptured. Why not just start there? Why the 12.3 billion years (or whatever you believe) building up to it?

Peace,
Doug

I think the larger question is even, if I know all possible outcomes, why act?

My mother and father had 5 children, 1 died, two were disabled, and 2 more died after that. If they knew the suffering these pregnancies would have caused for themselves and their children I doubt they would have married.

If the Jewish, Islamic, Christian deity has any kind of similarity to a person, then I cannot possibly see how it could act simply out of the sheer amplitude of human suffering. How would it not be paralyzed? And if it is all powerful, does it kill angels, destroy souls, start the playbook over again?

Theists just do not have the constructs for divinity. I doubt they ever will.

[togre]

Jozanny,

As the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us, God is willing to suffer and feel pain (emotional and physical) in order that he might give true happiness and heal wounds.

[Jozanny]

Jozanny,

As the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us, God is willing to suffer and feel pain (emotional and physical) in order that he might give true happiness and heal wounds.

That isn't really an answer to how God is defined or the problems with it, sorry. If I know that I will die tomorrow at exactly 3:02pm and have no choice but to act in the same way even if I didn't know it, then I am limited because I have to act and be party to my own destruction.

So if God was forced to act to create the universe despite his knowledge of exactly how many souls will face eternal damnation, this means God is a limited agent. He is forced to follow rules.

If I know, however, that I will die at 3:02pm only if I go to Market Street, and deliberately avoid doing that so that I do not die, then I have altered the course of events. So why wouldn't a compassionate God simply act in a way so as to avoid suffering? It is this I don't understand. If God has no choice in the matter of human suffering, then we are still talking about a limited agent.

Under the terms of your belief and faith, God knows exactly how many people will suffer in hell. Put yourself in your kids's shoes. If you knew exactly how your child would suffer by X events, and you had the power to alter that so that they in fact didn't suffer, why wouldn't you act? I think you would, even if it meant not having your kid beforehand.

God essentially causes suffering in the creation of the universe, and I reject that fine fellow for doing so. I do not believe in him either, for doing so, and if he knew he had to cause suffering, then again, he is limited by rules and not what you think he is.

Rocks don't suffer. Organisms simply by default seem to have to, and if I had a choice not to bring pain into being, I wouldn't have done it.

But we're lucky. I am logging off to go lie down and ponder my next major battle to get my chair fixed, so I'm gone. Yahoo!

[Pendragon]

Hi Dale,

I guess what bothers me most about this whole question, as I've said before, is why? Why, if omni-everything, not just create what you already know will be the outcome? Why not fast-forward to the end. Why the need to flood the planet and kill all those innocent babies? Why send your 'son' to get nailed to a cross if you already knew you were gonna need to do it? Why not just do it right in the first place? I think Christians believe in the rapture, no? And God presumably knows which one of y'all will be...raptured. Why not just start there? Why the 12.3 billion years (or whatever you believe) building up to it?

Peace,
DougI thought of a couple replies, Doug, mon ami, but nothing that doesn't make me sound like I'm smarting off, and you know that isn't me. I know I wouldn't like to know everything before it happened, or anything before it happened for that matter. I imagine it would drive me nuttier than I already am!

God Bless

Dale

:alien:

[Wintermute]

Jozanny,

As the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us, God is willing to suffer and feel pain (emotional and physical) in order that he might give true happiness and heal wounds.

Hiya Togre,

Why does he/she/it need to? Is God incapable of providing true happiness without suffering? Without wounds?

I just don't get it. Perhaps we need to suffer in order to know true happiness? Is the same true for God maybe? I dunno.....

[Wintermute]

I thought of a couple replies, Doug, mon ami, but nothing that doesn't make me sound like I'm smarting off, and you know that isn't me. I know I wouldn't like to know everything before it happened, or anything before it happened for that matter. I imagine it would drive me nuttier than I already am!

God Bless

Dale

:alien:

Hi Dale,

I know. There seems to be a very fine line between open discussion and disrespect in these sorts of discussions. Maybe you're right, maybe God chose not to know--which i suppose would still leave open the possibility of omieverything.

Have a great weekend,
Doug

[RichardHresko]

That isn't really an answer to how God is defined or the problems with it, sorry. If I know that I will die tomorrow at exactly 3:02pm and have no choice but to act in the same way even if I didn't know it, then I am limited because I have to act and be party to my own destruction.

So if God was forced to act to create the universe despite his knowledge of exactly how many souls will face eternal damnation, this means God is a limited agent. He is forced to follow rules.

If I know, however, that I will die at 3:02pm only if I go to Market Street, and deliberately avoid doing that so that I do not die, then I have altered the course of events. So why wouldn't a compassionate God simply act in a way so as to avoid suffering? It is this I don't understand. If God has no choice in the matter of human suffering, then we are still talking about a limited agent.

Under the terms of your belief and faith, God knows exactly how many people will suffer in hell. Put yourself in your kids's shoes. If you knew exactly how your child would suffer by X events, and you had the power to alter that so that they in fact didn't suffer, why wouldn't you act? I think you would, even if it meant not having your kid beforehand.

God essentially causes suffering in the creation of the universe, and I reject that fine fellow for doing so. I do not believe in him either, for doing so, and if he knew he had to cause suffering, then again, he is limited by rules and not what you think he is.

Rocks don't suffer. Organisms simply by default seem to have to, and if I had a choice not to bring pain into being, I wouldn't have done it.

But we're lucky. I am logging off to go lie down and ponder my next major battle to get my chair fixed, so I'm gone. Yahoo!

Leaving aside (for the moment, at any rate) the question of of what omnipotence actually means (which is the ability to do anything that can be done) one possibility to consider is whether a compassionate God allows suffering because it would not be compassionate to do otherwise.

For this to be possible we must accept that there are worse things than suffering, and that the capacity to suffer (if not suffering itself) is a necessary condition for a greater good.

One way this could be true is that without the possibility to suffer life becomes a series of inconsequential acts. Without death this series of inconsequential acts becomes an infinite series.

What I am suggesting is that perhaps the wrong question is being asked. The better question is what are the benefits from possessing the capacity to suffer and die.

[curlyqlink]

As the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us, God is willing to suffer and feel pain (emotional and physical) in order that he might give true happiness and heal wounds.

I have never understood the point of this New Testament story. How, exactly, does the death of God's son redeem people's sins? What is the mechanism exactly? Why is it necessary?

It does make sense in one way. It hearkens back to sacrifice. Sacrifice to appease the gods. This was a commonplace in Roman times (which is when the story originated). The New Testament example is more than a bit convoluted, since it is God doing the sacrificing, and therefore it is unclear just who he is supposed to be appeasing. Still, I can understand how it would've made sense in the Roman provinces in the first century AD. Not too clear on why it's supposed to make sense here and now.

There is of course an older, primal tradition of human sacrifice. The Romans were at least refined enough to have limited themselves to animal sacrifice; the Passion always struck me as a kind of psychic backsliding, which is why I find precious little beauty in it.

[RichardHresko]

I have never understood the point of this New Testament story. How, exactly, does the death of God's son redeem people's sins? What is the mechanism exactly? Why is it necessary?

It does make sense in one way. It hearkens back to sacrifice. Sacrifice to appease the gods. This was a commonplace in Roman times (which is when the story originated). The New Testament example is more than a bit convoluted, since it is God doing the sacrificing, and therefore it is unclear just who he is supposed to be appeasing. Still, I can understand how it would've made sense in the Roman provinces in the first century AD. Not too clear on why it's supposed to make sense here and now.

There is of course an older, primal tradition of human sacrifice. The Romans were at least refined enough to have limited themselves to animal sacrifice; the Passion always struck me as a kind of psychic backsliding, which is why I find precious little beauty in it.

One way to look at this is the path taken by Greek Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox view God's emptying himself (kenosis) is necessary for humans to be able to become divine (theosis). A starting point for this is to look at the work of Maximus the Confessor.

Later on this was developed in the 14th Century by Gregory Palamas, who wrote about humankind's participation in the divine action ('energeia' in Greek).

These things are only possible if there is a Christ, since the essence of God and humans (called the 'ousia') is different and the ability to share requires a bridge containing both.

This will at least give you a start.

[Sam?]

One way to look at this is the path taken by Greek Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox view God's emptying himself (kenosis) is necessary for humans to be able to become divine (theosis). A starting point for this is to look at the work of Maximus the Confessor.

Later on this was developed in the 14th Century by Gregory Palamas, who wrote about humankind's participation in the divine action ('energeia' in Greek).

These things are only possible if there is a Christ, since the essence of God and humans (called the 'ousia') is different and the ability to share requires a bridge containing both.

This will at least give you a start.

But why did God even need to suffer? He made the rules. He could have just let us off without anyone having to suffer. Or he could have not condemmed everyone ever born for the sins of two people commited thousands of years ago in the first place.

[Sam?]

But no one is good. What does it take for an action to be truly good? Is it just the outward action? It is just right motives? Must it be both? And what are the proper actions and the proper motives? You totally ignored the starting point where everyone has earned eternal suffering. This is not excluding those who eventually end up in heaven.

What has everyone done to earn eternal suffering? What has a baby done? If you're talking about original sin, then I haven't done anything to earn that suffering, two people who scientifically can't have existed did. And God could just as easily make acts of redemtion hereditary, so we're back to God arbitrarily condemming people to Hell.
I would call a good act anything that relieves suffering, and a bad act anything that causes suffering. Obviously there are grey areas, but this is what I base my morals on.


How do you know he hasn't done something/isn't doing something right now? Once again, when compared with the tragedy of a soul suffering in hell even the very real and very emotional suffering that you sited pale. Would you grant that if there exists an eternal heaven and an eternal hell, that being rescued from the latter and destined for the former is a greater good than being spared "the slings and arrows of life's outrageous fortune?"

A lot of kids have been molested, and he did nothing at all. Then they went on to go to Hell, because he didn't grant them the gift of faith. What's he done for them?
When we remove free will from the equation, God could have simply created everyone happy in heaven. Why did he create suffering at all?


God was so dedicated, took such decisive action on this essential point that he was willing to disown his perfect, holy Son that wretched sinners would not need to suffer.

He could have just forgiven us, or not blamed us for something we're not responsible in the first place. If he put a nail through his hand repairing the damage he did in the first place, I have no sympathy.


It is with the view of rescuing souls that God governs the universe (we call this God's providence). And we are told that God is active in this world, preventing disaster, lessening the impact of those that occur and working through the consequences of even terrible things to accomplish temporal and eternal blessing for people.

Why, if there's no free will, did he put those souls in peril in the first place? A guy who dumps a bunch of kids who can't swim in the deep end of a pool and then rescues them isn't a hero.
You've already said that the only way to get into heaven is for God to pick you, and there's no way to earn it, so why do any kids have to be raped? Either he picks them or he doesn't, in your view, their suffering is meaningless.


"But", one might ask, "he's all-powerful. Why not stop all bad things?" Well, the Bible doesn't explicitly say, so what follows is just my thoughts and as such could be wrong. Have you ever tried to convince a person that is feeling fine, athletic, no pain, no weakness that they need a doctor? Not gonna happen. We need help on a spiritual level. But if things were all daisies and lollypops in this life, who would a) want to be anywhere else and b) see any urgency in changing/examining their relationship with God?

Why do we need help on a spiritual level? Only because he made us that way in the first place. So once again he's only cleaning up after himself.


Also, there is the whole question of what would happen if God nerfed the world so our sinful actions did have any consequences. Do you think we'd do more or less sinful things in that case?

At the moment, the only consequences are what we humans have created. You've already stated that everyone goes to Hell unless God decides to save us, and that there's no way to earn that saviour, making his decisions arbitrary. So what specific consequences does God inflict to priests who rape kids? Nothing at all, according to your view. They'd have gone to Hell anyway, until he granted them the gift of faith, knowing full well they were going to rape kids, presmably now they're just going to end up where they would have anyway. Where I'll end up, no matter how many good deeds I perform. And while they're alive, most of them never even go to jail. Most of them aren't even kicked out of the church.


Who says he stands by them? Such acts are atrocious and heartbreaking, the more so because of the people who did them. The Lord warns against anyone, especially his workers, doing anything that would damage the faith or body of children. I trust that the Lord is sufficiently capable of dealing with these actions. [By the way we both agree these actions are wrong. I do so because the (to me) authoritative Word of God condemns them. How do you know they are wrong with any authority?]

As already covered, I've based my morals on logical thought, not on what an old book told me. If it causes suffering, it's wrong.


Secondly, "earning their [] way into heaven"? How could I have failed so completely to communicate? Not earned!!! Not earned!!!! Gift! Earned = gonna go to hell. "It is by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves, but a gift of God, that no one may boast."

So our actions are meaningless. God's decisions are arbitrary. Real sinners and people who spend their lives doing good often share the same fate.


Like I said, we are gonna talk past each other on this one. Okay, I was wrong about what you thought faith was, but I was right that you didn't think it was what I think it is. Someone [WC Fields?] once defined as faith as "Believing what you know ain't so." That is not what I'm talking about.

Again, I would point out that saving faith is different than trust or confidence in other matters. This is routed in my understanding of the human as body and soul, mind and spirit. I recognize that we may be unable to find common ground on this.

With regards to references to my faith as a child, I would grant, that if faith is what you define it as, it could be explained as you did. However I disagree about the causes of my faith. However, since my original comments where in response to a specific request by Wintermute and not essential to the core of the discussion, I would be content if we decided to exclude them from our discussion. However, if you like my three page posts, we can keep it on the table. ;)

I think I touched on this above, but I'll try to summarize. God does act in this world. His actions make sense only when you realize that his big picture involves eternal salvation, not just temporal suffering (although he is concerned about these too, and charges his followers to be active to help people both eternally and in this world). I guess I'd compare your complaint to the a farmer who lost his crops being angry at the government for not subsidizing him. But the government realizes this subsidy would spark a trade war that would leave the entire economy in shambles and probably make things worse for the farmer than they were before. Yeah, it would be nice if God did this or stopped that. But do you know the effects that these would have on the entire world, on the hearts and minds of people, on the course of history? Are you unable to accept that God might have a better grasp on what is beneficial than you?

This is my big question, the one I'd have you answer if you reply to nothing else. Why did God create this universe? Why did he create suffering? Why not just make everyone perfect in heaven?
And don't bring up original sin. God knew what would happen when he created Adam and Eve. He could have created them so that they'd never choose the fruit. In fact, where does the Adam and Eve story even fit in to your view without free will? Why give them that choice at all? Especially knowing already what they'd choose, and that because of it he'd damn the majority of mankind to Hell, where he supposedly doesn't want us to go.

[RichardHresko]

But why did God even need to suffer? He made the rules. He could have just let us off without anyone having to suffer. Or he could have not condemmed everyone ever born for the sins of two people commited thousands of years ago in the first place.

Refer back to my post that God in his wisdom and compassion decided that a life without suffering, or at least the possibility of suffering, was worse than a life with suffering.

There is an assumption in your question that suffering is the worst thing that can happen. This is not necessarily so.

[Jozanny]

I have never understood the point of this New Testament story. How, exactly, does the death of God's son redeem people's sins? What is the mechanism exactly? Why is it necessary?

It does make sense in one way. It hearkens back to sacrifice. Sacrifice to appease the gods. This was a commonplace in Roman times (which is when the story originated). The New Testament example is more than a bit convoluted, since it is God doing the sacrificing, and therefore it is unclear just who he is supposed to be appeasing. Still, I can understand how it would've made sense in the Roman provinces in the first century AD. Not too clear on why it's supposed to make sense here and now.

There is of course an older, primal tradition of human sacrifice. The Romans were at least refined enough to have limited themselves to animal sacrifice; the Passion always struck me as a kind of psychic backsliding, which is why I find precious little beauty in it.

I am not all that mystified by the cannibalism and human sacrifice in the arc of the Christ as salvation theme curly. There is evidence that human sacrifice was common to some pre-history religious practices, and not just the Aztecs. There are the bog men of Ireland, for instance. Late Gnostic Judaism and early Christianity simply made the ritual a metaphysical symbol, which at least was an improvement in civility.

[RichardHresko]

This is my big question, the one I'd have you answer if you reply to nothing else. Why did God create this universe? Why did he create suffering? Why not just make everyone perfect in heaven?
And don't bring up original sin. God knew what would happen when he created Adam and Eve. He could have created them so that they'd never choose the fruit. In fact, where does the Adam and Eve story even fit in to your view without free will? Why give them that choice at all? Especially knowing already what they'd choose, and that because of it he'd damn the majority of mankind to Hell, where he supposedly doesn't want us to go.

Neo-Platonists argue that God had no choice in creation, that it was a natural consequence of his existence. Aristotelians argue that God did not create the universe, that it was always there. Christian doctrine is that God created the universe as a free act of love.

We must distinguish between two types of suffering: natural and moral. Natural suffering is that which occurs through the operation of sensible objects (here sensible means material objects and their effects). Moral suffering, or sin, is the consequence of choosing the lesser good over the greater. Suffering of the first type entails no "penalty" and is the result of how God chose to create the world. Whether a world without natural suffering could be created is not known. If it is possible why God chose not to do so is unknown.

Moral suffering is due to the incorrect exercise of free will. The penalty is the sin itself, including its consequences.

Omniscience is not necessarily incompatible with free will. In fact quite the contrary. That God knows what you are going to do and does NOT interfere actually shows that you truly have free will in the sense that God does not prevent you from acting on your choice.

[rich14285]

What if God isn't the rat after all? Turning to the Bible, if you will, what happened in the garden? Adam and Eve became seperated from God. True they did not die physically the same day that they disobeyed the word of God. The thing is, they died spiritually that day. And you can say well I just do not believe that. Fair enough. But the point is that the Bible says that they lost their union with deity on that day of transgression. And guess who took over as the god of this world? When people miss that point then they tend to blame God, as if God is the God of this world. If that were true then Jesus did not have to go to the cross in order to purchase reconcilliation between fallen Mankind and God. Jesus had to go to the cross because of the Fall, and because of the spiritual death that occurred that day. This the kind of thing that Paul is talking about, over and over in his letters.
For example: Romans 5:
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

[Sam?]

What if God isn't the rat after all? Turning to the Bible, if you will, what happened in the garden? Adam and Eve became seperated from God. True they did not die physically the same day that they disobeyed the word of God. The thing is, they died spiritually that day. And you can say well I just do not believe that. Fair enough. But the point is that the Bible says that they lost their union with deity on that day of transgression. And guess who took over as the god of this world? When people miss that point then they tend to blame God, as if God is the God of this world. If that were true then Jesus did not have to go to the cross in order to purchase reconcilliation between fallen Mankind and God. Jesus had to go to the cross because of the Fall, and because of the spiritual death that occurred that day. This the kind of thing that Paul is talking about, over and over in his letters.
For example: Romans 5:
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

First, the Adam and Eve story is impossible. I never happened.
Second, even if it did, God created us knowing the choice we'd make, created us as beings who'd make that choice. He is also the one who decided on the consequences of that choice. And then he decided to undo the choice (why would a perfect being ever make a choice he'd have to undo later?) and the method by which it was undone. An omnipotent being could simply have bridged the gap and forgiven us without anyone having to be nailed to anything. He also could have decided only Adam and Eve were responsible for their choices, and not all mankind.
So either God isn't omnipotent after all, or he's responsible for everything and through incompetence or choice he had things happen the way they did.


Refer back to my post that God in his wisdom and compassion decided that a life without suffering, or at least the possibility of suffering, was worse than a life with suffering.

There is an assumption in your question that suffering is the worst thing that can happen. This is not necessarily so.

What bad thing can happen without causing suffering? Suffering isn't the worst thing that can happen, suffering is the result of all bad things. If something doesn't cause suffering, it's not bad.
And I think most people would prefer a life without suffering than being raped repeatedly by their priest as a child. There's no wisdom or compassion in letting that happen. And since my post was addressed specifically to Togre and his world view that we have no free will, there's no reason for God to let that happen.


Neo-Platonists argue that God had no choice in creation, that it was a natural consequence of his existence. Aristotelians argue that God did not create the universe, that it was always there. Christian doctrine is that God created the universe as a free act of love.

We must distinguish between two types of suffering: natural and moral. Natural suffering is that which occurs through the operation of sensible objects (here sensible means material objects and their effects). Moral suffering, or sin, is the consequence of choosing the lesser good over the greater. Suffering of the first type entails no "penalty" and is the result of how God chose to create the world. Whether a world without natural suffering could be created is not known. If it is possible why God chose not to do so is unknown.

Moral suffering is due to the incorrect exercise of free will. The penalty is the sin itself, including its consequences.

Omniscience is not necessarily incompatible with free will. In fact quite the contrary. That God knows what you are going to do and does NOT interfere actually shows that you truly have free will in the sense that God does not prevent you from acting on your choice.

I was specifically addressing Togre and his view that we have no free will, that faith is a gift granted by God, unatainable by any other means, and impossible to earn.
Nevertheless, if God was incapable of creating a world without suffering, then his powers are limited. Thus there's no reason to assume that his 'wisdom' and 'compassion' aren't themselves limited as well. So why worship him, or even believe he's so wise and compassionate?

[RichardHresko]

What bad thing can happen without causing suffering? Suffering isn't the worst thing that can happen, suffering is the result of all bad things. If something doesn't cause suffering, it's not bad.
And I think most people would prefer a life without suffering than being raped repeatedly by their priest as a child. There's no wisdom or compassion in letting that happen. And since my post was addressed specifically to Togre and his world view that we have no free will, there's no reason for God to let that happen.



I was specifically addressing Togre and his view that we have no free will, that faith is a gift granted by God, unatainable by any other means, and impossible to earn.
Nevertheless, if God was incapable of creating a world without suffering, then his powers are limited. Thus there's no reason to assume that his 'wisdom' and 'compassion' aren't themselves limited as well. So why worship him, or even believe he's so wise and compassionate?

Once again, there can be both wisdom and compassion in allowing suffering to occur if the alternative is worse.

God, by definition, is omnipotent. But omnipotent does NOT mean, as you imply, that he can do anything. Omnipotent means that God can do anything that can be done. Theologians such as Aquinas have pointed out that God can not violate the law of non-contradition, which states that nothing can be both itself and its opposite at the same instant in time.

Basically, there are two paths one can take here in this particular argument.

Path A is to assume that one can judge what wisdom and compassion truly is, and then proceed to judge a mental construct that one labels 'God'. Inevitably one will decide that one knows better and either conclude God does not exist or that he is incompetent or evil. Such a path has its appeal, but it does not leave open the question of God's existence in any meaningful way.

Path B is to assume that the world exists as it is, and that if there is a God then there is a purpose to the world's structure. The question then is what that purpose might be. The question of God's existence is once again not left open.

In other words this particular framing of the question of God's existence can not shed light on the matter.

[Sam?]

Once again, there can be both wisdom and compassion in allowing suffering to occur if the alternative is worse.

God, by definition, is omnipotent. But omnipotent does NOT mean, as you imply, that he can do anything. Omnipotent means that God can do anything that can be done. Theologians such as Aquinas have pointed out that God can not violate the law of non-contradition, which states that nothing can be both itself and its opposite at the same instant in time.

Basically, there are two paths one can take here in this particular argument.

Path A is to assume that one can judge what wisdom and compassion truly is, and then proceed to judge a mental construct that one labels 'God'. Inevitably one will decide that one knows better and either conclude God does not exist or that he is incompetent or evil. Such a path has its appeal, but it does not leave open the question of God's existence in any meaningful way.

Path B is to assume that the world exists as it is, and that if there is a God then there is a purpose to the world's structure. The question then is what that purpose might be. The question of God's existence is once again not left open.

In other words this particular framing of the question of God's existence can not shed light on the matter.

You seem to have missed my point. Suffering is the result of bad things. It is an intrinsic symptom that defines an occurance as bad, not the occurance itself. Would worse thing could exist that caused no suffering?
And if God created the universe, he created its laws and is not bound by them. If there were laws already in place to govern God, then what need do we have of him? He fails even as an explanation for the origin of existence.

[RichardHresko]

You seem to have missed my point. Suffering is the result of bad things. It is an intrinsic symptom that defines an occurance as bad, not the occurance itself. Would worse thing could exist that caused no suffering?
And if God created the universe, he created its laws and is not bound by them. If there were laws already in place to govern God, then what need do we have of him? He fails even as an explanation for the origin of existence.

I don't believe I missed your point at all. I just denied your premises.

As I pointed out before, there are two types of cause for suffering: natural and moral. Natural causes are not "bad," since they are not the result of moral action. They may have unfortunate consequences that we do not like and may cause us harm, but that does not make them bad in themselves.

Moral causes, or sin, cause suffering because we chose a lesser good over a greater one. The suffering from sin can truly be said to be bad, but it is the result of our free choice and not God. His foreknowledge does not invalidate our free will since he does not use his foreknowledge to subvert our choices.

To answer your question, yes, it is possible that a condition that allows for no suffering could be worse than one that allows suffering to exist in the world. To say otherwise is to make the assumption (unwarranted, I believe) that there is nothing worse than suffering. I would argue that the inability to fully realize one's potential is worse. And humankind's potential includes the rational exercise of free will.

One problem with the analysis about the limitations of God is the misunderstanding of omnipotence, which, correctly defined, is the ability to do anything that can be done. A similar problem I fear creeps into definitions of free will which tend to make free will mean the ability to do anything one wants. More properly, free will refers to the ability to act on what one desires. The difference is subtle, but important. A person lighting a cigarette is not exercising free will if what he/she desires is to quit smoking.

Since God willed the laws of the universe why would he break them?

Once again, your argument amounts to an assumption that suffering is the ultimate evil, and that therefore since God has complete license, that either God is evil or does not exist. This is Path A mentioned in my previous post. It fails in its purpose since the assumption is not necessarily true, and the statement about the nature of God is at the very least debatable.

In order to move on in this discussion some evidence that suffering is the ultimate evil is in order. Otherwise the discussion is at a standstill.

[Sam?]

I don't believe I missed your point at all. I just denied your premises.

As I pointed out before, there are two types of cause for suffering: natural and moral. Natural causes are not "bad," since they are not the result of moral action. They may have unfortunate consequences that we do not like and may cause us harm, but that does not make them bad in themselves.

Moral causes, or sin, cause suffering because we chose a lesser good over a greater one. The suffering from sin can truly be said to be bad, but it is the result of our free choice and not God. His foreknowledge does not invalidate our free will since he does not use his foreknowledge to subvert our choices.

To answer your question, yes, it is possible that a condition that allows for no suffering could be worse than one that allows suffering to exist in the world. To say otherwise is to make the assumption (unwarranted, I believe) that there is nothing worse than suffering. I would argue that the inability to fully realize one's potential is worse. And humankind's potential includes the rational exercise of free will.

One problem with the analysis about the limitations of God is the misunderstanding of omnipotence, which, correctly defined, is the ability to do anything that can be done. A similar problem I fear creeps into definitions of free will which tend to make free will mean the ability to do anything one wants. More properly, free will refers to the ability to act on what one desires. The difference is subtle, but important. A person lighting a cigarette is not exercising free will if what he/she desires is to quit smoking.

Since God willed the laws of the universe why would he break them?

Once again, your argument amounts to an assumption that suffering is the ultimate evil, and that therefore since God has complete license, that either God is evil or does not exist. This is Path A mentioned in my previous post. It fails in its purpose since the assumption is not necessarily true, and the statement about the nature of God is at the very least debatable.

In order to move on in this discussion some evidence that suffering is the ultimate evil is in order. Otherwise the discussion is at a standstill.

You've missed my point again. I'm not saying suffering is the ultimate evil. I am saying it is a symptom that defines an experience as a bad one. If something doesn't cause any kind of suffering, how could it be worse than something that does? Suffering is essentially just disliking what is happening to you, if you're not suffering, then you're either enjoying yourself, or not swayed either way.
Being happy but not reaching one's potential is not worse than being raped. If not reaching one's potential makes one unhappy, then that is suffering.

If God willed the laws of the universe, then it was he who decided suffering is somehow necessary. He could have made a universe where it is not. Unless he's bound by some external rules, which would mean he's not omnipotent, he isn't necessary to explain the creation of the universe, and by proving him a liar it would call into doubt all his other claims about himself. And since we only have his word for it that he has our best interests at heart, and his documented actions suggest otherwise, there would be no reason to trust him.

[RichardHresko]

You've missed my point again. I'm not saying suffering is the ultimate evil. I am saying it is a symptom that defines an experience as a bad one. If something doesn't cause any kind of suffering, how could it be worse than something that does? Suffering is essentially just disliking what is happening to you, if you're not suffering, then you're either enjoying yourself, or not swayed either way.
Being happy but not reaching one's potential is not worse than being raped. If not reaching one's potential makes one unhappy, then that is suffering.

If God willed the laws of the universe, then it was he who decided suffering is somehow necessary. He could have made a universe where it is not. Unless he's bound by some external rules, which would mean he's not omnipotent, he isn't necessary to explain the creation of the universe, and by proving him a liar it would call into doubt all his other claims about himself. And since we only have his word for it that he has our best interests at heart, and his documented actions suggest otherwise, there would be no reason to trust him.

You are absolutely correct that God could have created a universe without suffering, but chose not to do so. This does not mean he decided that suffering was necessary, but that the possibility of suffering is necessary. The correct interpretation of that realization is not that God is flawed but rather that suffering or at least the possibility of suffering is a necessary part of a higher good. The error in your argument is to assume that the best world is one in which there is no suffering. Given that flaw all the rest of your argument falls apart.

[Sam?]

You are absolutely correct that God could have created a universe without suffering, but chose not to do so. This does not mean he decided that suffering was necessary, but that the possibility of suffering is necessary. The correct interpretation of that realization is not that God is flawed but rather that suffering or at least the possibility of suffering is a necessary part of a higher good. The error in your argument is to assume that the best world is one in which there is no suffering. Given that flaw all the rest of your argument falls apart.

You're right. The best world is truly one where countless children are repeatedly raped by God's own priests. Since I missed my chance this time around, I just hope I'll get my chance to be raped as a child in heaven (I assume since suffering is so necessary for a higher good there'll be plenty of it in heaven. Hell is probably just one big hugging love fest).

[RichardHresko]

You're right. The best world is truly one where countless children are repeatedly raped by God's own priests. Since I missed my chance this time around, I just hope I'll get my chance to be raped as a child in heaven (I assume since suffering is so necessary for a higher good there'll be plenty of it in heaven. Hell is probably just one big hugging love fest).

Needless to say our discussion is now ended.

Good luck to you!

[Pendragon]

You know, the subject of this thread is "between God and science." A descent into sarcasm doesn't really further the thread, now does it? May I remind everyone of Blaze's point from the first page?



All I want to say is that both take opposite directions, science and God in point of fact. Science treads on a path of reason, law, causes and and effects, God on the contrary takes on a totally different course.

Miracles are what God associates itself with. God dwells on a world of belief and science on facts.

The war between the two is a classical one.

Maybe this war is interesting. In a way this clash between these two polar opposites keep us meditative all the while or else the world will be a dull or boring place to live in.

Can we address this without use of disparaging comments?

God Bless

Pen

[Taliesin]

I don't need that God-hypothesis.

Goddess-hypothesis, on the other hand...

[dzebra]

I think that the original post is not fully correct. I don't see science and God as opposing. The way I see it, people have different views about God, and they use science (among other things) to provide evidence supporting what they already think.

The opposites are not God and science, the opposites are believers in God and non-believers in God. The believers use science, experience, the Bible, history, etc. to support their views. The non-believers don't have experiences with God and they don't believe in the Bible, and since history cannot be repeated (and therefore cannot be proven), the main tool of the non-believers to argue against God is science.

Therefore, science, by nature, does not oppose God, since even believers of God use science as evidence of their beliefs. The debate should be, rather, which group of people is using science more accurately.

[Sam?]

I think that the original post is not fully correct. I don't see science and God as opposing. The way I see it, people have different views about God, and they use science (among other things) to provide evidence supporting what they already think.

The opposites are not God and science, the opposites are believers in God and non-believers in God. The believers use science, experience, the Bible, history, etc. to support their views. The non-believers don't have experiences with God and they don't believe in the Bible, and since history cannot be repeated (and therefore cannot be proven), the main tool of the non-believers to argue against God is science.

Therefore, science, by nature, does not oppose God, since even believers of God use science as evidence of their beliefs. The debate should be, rather, which group of people is using science more accurately.

Believers rarely use real science. They use psuedo science to make it sound like science supports them. Or they alter their interpretation of the bible to fit new scientific discoveries (by saying the days God took creating the universe could actually have been thousands or millions of years a piece, and evolution was his method of creating life, for instance).
And to say that non believers don't use history is just plain wrong. Let's look at ancient Egypt. The people were ludicrously bureaucrati, they wrote everything down, and yet there's not a single mention of God's plagues or the pharoah and his army being drowned by the Red Sea. That sounds like the sort of thing they would have jotted down. In stone. A lot.
Apart from the possibility there was once a hippy named Jesus with some great new ideas about how to treat one another, history doesn't support the bible at all.

[Wintermute]

What if God isn't the rat after all? Turning to the Bible, if you will, what happened in the garden? Adam and Eve became seperated from God. True they did not die physically the same day that they disobeyed the word of God. The thing is, they died spiritually that day. And you can say well I just do not believe that. Fair enough. But the point is that the Bible says that they lost their union with deity on that day of transgression.

Hi Rich,

Just speaking personally, I'm not saying God is a rat! I'm saying that in my opinion, the God of the Bible-of Christianity (or any other man-made religion) probably doesn't exist. Something that does not exist can not be a rat.


And guess who took over as the god of this world? When people miss that point then they tend to blame God, as if God is the God of this world.

Again, by 'blaming God', I would need to assume its existance, which I don't. And (for the sake of argument, assuming it does exist) the point you and others seem to be missing (or avoiding) is that being omni-everything, God already knew Eve was gonna eat the dang apple before it even snapped its fingers to create the universe; already knew 'guess who' was gonna take over this world. So why not blame it?

Have a gentle day,
Doug

[Wintermute]

Needless to say our discussion is now ended.


Hehe, Hi Richard. Your quote above reminds me of the old Carly Simon song:

You're so vain,
You probably think this song is about you.

If it's needless to say, why say it?

Just an obtuse observation on a sleepy Sunday morn.

Peace,
Doug

[RichardHresko]

Hehe, Hi Richard. Your quote above reminds me of the old Carly Simon song:

You're so vain,
You probably think this song is about you.

If it's needless to say, why say it?

Just an obtuse observation on a sleepy Sunday morn.

Peace,
Doug

Alas, sometimes what is needless to say may still be necessary to hear.

[Sam?]

Needless to say our discussion is now ended.

Good luck to you!

Perhaps I shouldn't have resorted to sarcasm, but I ask a very real question that I'd have you answer before you retreat from the conversation.
Is there suffering in Heaven?

[Wintermute]

Perhaps I shouldn't have resorted to sarcasm, but I ask a very real question that I'd have you answer before you retreat from the conversation.
Is there suffering in Heaven?

Hi Sam,

Just an aside-I've found that prefacing these kinds of questions with "Do you think...there is suffering in Heaven?" can be more productive. Or, what specifically do you think Heaven is like. You can better get to the meat of what someone is thinking. If you just ask, for example, "Is there suffering in Heaven?" You will typically get some regurgitated Bible speak that may or may not have some relation to the question you are interested in. By asking "Do you think...." you are asking the other to actually do some thinking on their own and not just spew forth something someone has told them. Just an observation.

Happy Monday,
Doug

[wilbur lim]

There shall be no means of suffering in Heaven.
The Bible cites that,and I have faith in it.

[Sam?]

There shall be no means of suffering in Heaven.
The Bible cites that,and I have faith in it.

If that is the case, which I would assume, then Richard's argument falls apart.