POE never struck me as an especially devastating argument, given that the Bible’s claims of omnipotence, omniscience et al have a decidedly metaphorical feel. If Something is 10x the power of any imaginable ancient Jewish king, then calling Him all-powerful doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch in casual or poetic speech. As for omni-benevolence, read Job.
The typical US Army platoon has 10X the power of any imaginable ancient Jewish King. We need to do a bit better than that for God.
I’m certainly not denying that many Christians act in ecumenical ways. After the Holocaust forced conversion - as practiced even in the 19th century - became much less popular. I’m just saying that it makes no theological sense, not if you truly believe salvation is only available through Jesus. And if you don’t, all those missionaries are wasting their time. Of course many if not most Christians are in denial about this.
Fundamentalists are not a big problem. Since Revelations requires the rebuilding of the Temple, they are very supportive. Of course the result of this, as they see it, is that all Jews not willing to convert will be killed horribly in the last days, but for now they are quite friendly.
If God is actually so mysterious you shouldn’t be telling us why he is doing things.
Whenever we ask hard questions we are told God is mysterious, but if we wander into any church on Sunday we’ll be told in great detail exactly what God wants. Your non-skedo theology seems based more on what you want God to be and do than any evidence supposed received by others of it. If you become a deist then you get to believe in whatever non-interventionist God you want. But if you call yourself a Christian, how do you reject the universally shared tenets of Christianity?
I used to believe that Moses received the Torah. Then I learned that it was written much later, and a quick examination of the Bible supported this. I chose to not continue believing when all the basic premises of my religion turned out to be false.
if( God == true && God == Omni_Potent && God == Omni_Benevolent)
{
Suffering_on_Earth = x;
}
if (Suffering_on_Earth > 0)
{
msg= “God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent or he does not exist”;
}
To a degree, means not completely right? So Bob has amnesia and remembers nothing about 30 years of his life. Did they never happen? I mean all his friends and family still remember everything. But wait! Something happens and now Bob remembers again. Guess what people were telling him was true. The point is you saying that not remembering means it didn’t happen is just silly since we can easily find examples to show that isn’t the case.
Talk about any after like is just idle speculation, and you have every right to your beliefs that life and consciousness ends with physical death, but you can’t know in absolute terms. That’s why it’s annoying when you make statements claiming to “know” something you can’t really know. It’s the same thing when any believer uses " I know" instead of “I believe”
Because I’ve never heard of someone suffering from complete amnesia and being able to actually function as a person afterwards. And by complete amnesia, I mean being reduced to the level of a baby; not just no conscious memory, but no skills, no knowledge of language, no ability to so much as walk or crawl.
They happened. But they’d have still happened if his head was blown off by a shotgun too.
I didn’t say it didn’t happen; I said it didn’t matter. In your Hollywood-amnesia scenario, Bob was unconscious while a new personality took his place; and then Bob woke back up and the new personality died.
Except I was doing no such thing, and you are trying to counter arguments I haven’t been making.
I don’t "Know’ anything about God, nor does anyone else, it is just a belief passed on by another human.9Or humans) And so belief is from humans not God. One can believe anything they want, but that doesn’t prove anything, If there is proof then it is not faith. and so far there is no proof. But if belief helps a person then I say …it doesn’t bother me and they can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, and men do live on mars,but not try to force their beliefs on others.
“IF still suggests you don’t know or are not sure! If it is dry we will go to the Zoo is used in the same not sure way , it will depend on the circumstance. If Jesus knew God’s will he would not have used the word"IF”.
My papa suffered from such a total collapse into senile dementia; in his last few months, he was as a baby. The “person” I used to know was gone. There was only a continuity of the body, which we respected for the memories of the man it had once housed.
That said, and I certainly do agree with you – I often feel it’s a shame that the rules of Karma aren’t the guiding rules of life and morality. It would be nice – cathartic! – if we knew that bad people were getting punished and good people rewarded. A “Final Judgement” is also dramatically elegant: everyone is faced with their actions.
The absolute lack of the vaguest scintilla of evidence makes these ideas useless to us. The Revelation, like Dante’s Divine Comedy, like Milton’s Paradise Lost, and like Tolkien’s Silmarillion – are fictionalized ideas, made up from the imagination of the writers.
It might be a better world if there were perfect justice at its end. It would also be a better world with glowing trees and brilliant magical jewels. So it goes.
An irrelevant tangent. Your initial point was that you know you never volunteered to come here because you had no memory of it. You added that because you had no memory of it it wasn’t you. It’s a silly argument and just as much idle speculation as my intial post. You’re welcome to your opinion, but your argument of why you KNOW you never volunteered doesn’t make sense, meaning, that’s what you think, but you don’t know.
Also irrelevant to this conversation.
Then you ought to inderstand the speculation I’m talking about. Many religions teach that we are essentially unconcious to our real spirtual selves and nature, believeing this physical life is our primary identity {because we don’t remember our other selves} When we wake up, or when this physical body dies, we wake back up to our true selves.
I’m not trying to counter them. Just pointing out how silly they are. If there was an implied IMO, with your
then there’s no issue to discuss other than the memory argument is silly.
I was taught that in heaven, God, as the giver of all things, made people whole. All our needs and desires were met, we would be without want. The problem is why would God “want” things at all, being entirely self fulfilled in every conceivable way? Knowing every potential outcome of Creation even for beings of “freewill” and without desire or want (which would imply a state of imperfection) what would motivate God to make Creation in the first place? Taking note of all the mental gymnastics people go through to perpetuate this notion of the biblical God, it seems much simpler to believe he doesn’t exist.
This is why the merging of Jewish mysticism with Greek neo-Pythagoreanism is so silly. It’s painfully obvious that the God of Genesis was limited; he didn’t have the philosophical “omnis” that were grafted on to him in later centuries. He didn’t know where Adam and Eve were in the Garden; he had huge fits of wrath, and then succumbed to contrition; he reveled in the scent of burnt meat; he played hideous mind-games with Abraham and Isaac; he urged his followers to commit acts of insane viciousness; he sent bears to kill kids who made mock of a bald dude…
Modern Christianity tries to put lipstick on this pig, but it doesn’t work. The God of Genesis was a nasty little piker, a backwoods Zeus, a tribal god, not a cosmic one. The retro-fitting to a God that could stand up to Greek philosophical scrutiny, with the strap-on “omnis,” is grievously unconvincing.
Christianity can work…but only by stepping way back and allowing it to take on an austerity, and a recognition that it involves the heavy use of metaphor. You have to go in the direction of George Burns – "Jesus was my son, Buddha was my son, Mohammad, Moses, you, the man who said there was no room at the inn was my son . . . "
Only when reduced to this kind of “Zen abstraction” can the “omnipotent” God be made consistent with the world’s pain.
Yes, the calisthenics required in this case are overwhelming. Why do we need to go through all of this if there is already a predetermined outcome? Why create evil in the first place? And if God is in control, as my SIL is so fond of repeating online, why pray? (I know that she and her whole family must be tearing their hair out right now over the re-election of Obama, but if this is all part of some divine plan, why whine about it?)
Half Man Half Wit, your argument requires that the universe with the least amount of suffering contains smallpox until October 26th, 1977. Presumably if smallpox was cured early or never existed, suffering in the world would be much greater. This seems like a reasonable argument?
“Trust me, the universe with smallpox would be worse in a way that I can’t describe, you just have to believe me because otherwise my worldview falls apart” doesn’t really cut it.
Yes, I know you’re not a theist, but this argument is basically assuming the premise. If we assume that evil is minimized, then evil is minimized is the argument.
If one is aligned with God’s will then prayer isn’t necessary,one can just trust that God knows how to handle things with out a human’s in put.If God is all knowing ,all powerful and all loving, he would surely be better than a human parent we call good. a human parent doesn’t know ahead of time what their child will do for sure!
Right. I think what they’re saying is that the person praying is supposed to pray until they realize, somehow, that their desires will or will not be met, at which point they’re supposed to accept it–along with any suffering that might be involved.
The only real resolution seems to me to be a belief that is fairly common among religions: the belief that the world as we know it is not real, but an illusion, and none of this is really happening at all. The actual reality is either all-good or transcendently empty, or perhaps both.
Alternatively the problem of children suffering is also rather moot if one considers that from a viewpoint of a deity, we are all children. The inequality of suffering is also rather subjective. One person may find being taunted and belittled by her peers so intolerable she kills herself; another may remain happy just to be alive through intense pain caused by severe, terminal illness and its desperate treatment. And the subjectivity can never really be known by anyone else, especially if the sufferer dies; one child may cry pitiably when his favorite toy breaks and another may lie in stoic silence as she is kicked and pummeled. We can use our empathy and past experience to conjecture which suffers more, but it’s not something we can know.
I don’t find logic at all convincing of the existence of God. I believe in God for emotional reasons that I know aren’t logical; I don’t think it’s faith, I feel rather as though it’s a pull or consolation to an existential emptiness, but maybe that’s what faith can be. I believe in God because I feel like believing in God, without really having any sense that God is real in the way trees or books or cookies or the Sun is real. Instead, God is real the way love is real, or the way, really, that suffering is real. If there weren’t people, would there be God? There wouldn’t be anyone to care what the answer was
