If God keeps on bailing us out of trouble, we’ll never grow up.
Look, He has a hundred billion galaxies with perhaps a trillion different sentient races. We should feel lucky if he even notices our fucking planet.
**
So are you. And I’m happy that so far this is staying civil. I hate it when the discussions around here get too heated 
That’s interesting. Does this mean that God cannot see / look upon . . . what exactly? The act of sin? I was always under the impression that God was not just omnipotent and omniscient but also omnipresent. But do you mean that a person “steeped in sin”, to use a silly phrase I picked up somewhere, would be basically not just out of God’s favor, but out of his sight and presence as well? I had always thought that no matter how great our sin God was always with us.
This raises another point: Does intent matter to God? For instance there are bilions of people around the world who are not Christians. Most of them will never come to know the Christian God, in spite of the efforts of missionaries and the like. Are people born in, what is to them, a world without God judged the same as people who are born in the Christian World? What of the people who existed in pre-Christian times in Greece, Rome, or the Americas?
**
Why do you think God feels the need to test us like that? Does he love us all equally, or does he reserve his love for those of us who are truly faithful? What use is our strength of faith in the afterlife?
The reason I asked was the first part of your previous post where you compare God to a Judge and Jesus to a Lawyer staying God’s vengeful hand. It seemed like you were describing an argument or at least disagreement as to the correct path between them.
I think we all are on a lot of this
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I cannot conceive of a cruel God. Nor would I want to. Cruelty to me is evil, and is always evil. Since we were made in God’s image, I assume it is the same to him. I was never one of the kids frying ants with a magnifiying glass
See that’s what I’m asking. Why would a caring God, who set the very rules of the universe, allow us to suffer. I understand that your dog cannot understand why she needs a shot the way you do; but I ask you a question, if it was in your power to take the pain of the shot away woulnd’t you? If you really did create the rules of the game, the way she thinks you did, would you even make shots neccesary? For us, and your dog, there isn’t much to be done. We didn’t really make the rules. For God, why do you think he did choose to set the rules that way?
Weren’t the angels his creations as well? What if he creates something new to follow us? How long does it take for God to get tired of his creations love?
I don’t see how it is easier. I really don’t like that explanation, because of the questions it raises about the nature of God. (The ones I’ve been asking :)) I don’t really know how to explain it myself, but I’m still looking.
Meanwhile, I really really really should try to get some work done before bed tonight. Hope to talk some more tommorow. G’night!
Accepting the Bible more or less with a liberal slant, God comes across as a vainglorious, petty deity that apparently enjoys playing cruel games with his creations in order to test their strengths, loyalties, and whatnot.
Still, his son’s genius at PR helped quite a bit. The spin was brilliant. Make -humanity’s sins- the problem, not God’s indifferent, moody, worship-me-or-die style. Solve the ‘sins’ problem with a miracle stunt. Lo, the world is saved. Keep ol’ blood-and-guts Dad from meddling further, and the approval rate stays high.
For those athiest bible readers out there, do you not see the main theme in the bible. If you do wrong, there are consequences. Some are more catostrophic than others, but that is the moral of the story. If you see them as a collection of myths and fables, than look at the message behind them. It’s obvious that you don’t believe (or have very serious doubts) in the existance of a supreme being, so why do you portray the stories as truth about how evil and malevolent God is?
Instead of saying that the God you obviously don’t believe in is a huge mass murder due to the world wide flood that you also do not believe in, why not see that it is simply a story to show a point; that there are consequences for actions, and you do not always have control of those consequences, but you do of your actions. It’s rather quite simple.
so we need something MORE POWERFUL than God to arrest, try and execute God and send him to Hell. contradicts all powerful God concept.
sounds like maybe you need to reevaluate the way you think th system works. think you’ve been listening to too many christians.
try THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL OF JESUS THE CHRIST
by Levi (Dowling)
Dal Timgar
“For those athiest bible readers out there, do you not see the main theme in the bible. If you do wrong, there are consequences. Some are more catostrophic than others, but that is the moral of the story. If you see them as a collection of myths and fables, than look at the message behind them. It’s obvious that you don’t believe (or have very serious doubts) in the existance of a supreme being, so why do you portray the stories as truth about how evil and malevolent God is? Instead of saying that the God you obviously don’t believe in is a huge mass murder due to the world wide flood that you also do not believe in, why not see that it is simply a story to show a point; that there are consequences for actions, and you do not always have control of those consequences, but you do of your actions. It’s rather quite simple.”
Quimby my man, you make it too simple. What you espouse is a sort of, philosophically speaking, weak form of Christianity but with all the fire and brimstone. The idea of a wrathful God is just as implausible as all the bible stories. I can as easily believe that Christ rose from the dead, there was an enormous deluge, God destroyed all the Sodomites and whatnot as believe that there is a heaven with the twinkly eyed bearded dude presiding over what must surely be a very dull place. What’s the difference? Why see the bible as a caveat if it you don’t believe the stories? Even the idea of a series of men (where are the women?) having a direct line to the big guy to write his thoughts down is absurd.
I was almost ready to believe it was possible to have a philosophical discussion in GD without it turning into:
“Christians suck!”
“Burn in Hell, athiest dog!”
“There is no Hell, you deluded sap!”
“Eh, bite me, you amoral babykiller.”
Oh well.
the·od·i·cy
Pronunciation: thE-'ä-d&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: modification of French théodicée, from théo- the- (from Latin theo-) + Greek dikE judgment, right – more at DICTION
Date: 1797
: defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil
Now, as to the OP, if you posit God for the discussion (at least the Christian God), you must also posit afterlife, etc. Given that framework, starving to death, et. al. may not be the worst outcome. Hence condemning God for causing/allowing death is no longer necessarily a reasonable conclusion.
In that framework, you can ask about the existence of evil, but you must keep in mind that death is not the end. So, if God kills to, say, prevent more evil, then this is good–those who die go on to their eternal reward (whatever it may be).
Now, I think that anyone who believes in ex nihilo creation cannot reconcile God’s good with the existence of evil. I’ve had this discussion a few times, and have yet to see it seriously addressed by someone who believes God created everything from nothing. On the other hand, I’ve never seen an atheist really add an afterlife into the consideration for judging God.
So, to the atheists in the thread: are you willing to accept the idea of an afterlife for the purposes of the discussion?
Whew . . it sure is getting deep in here.
Thank you. I’ve always been of the opinion that an honest question can never be offensive.
On with the show!
I’ve heard two different theories on this one as well. The first is that, yes, God does not even SEE the sinner, unless said sinner is “washed in the blood of the Lamb.” As a non-Christian, you do not even exist to God.
The second theory is that God, who sees the sparrow fall from the tree, does see the sinner, but his pleas and prayers are meaningless and unheard until he accepts Christ, and God will not do anything for that person until they become a Christian.
God will not punish the person who has never heard of Him. He will only punish the ones who hear the Gospel, but reject it. The person who has never heard of Him will be judged the same as a child . . . unable to be held accountable because they never heard the rules. God will judge that person according to their life . . . if they were a person who intentionally hurt others and took pleasure in evil, they will be sent to hell. But a good, decent Hindu who never heard the Gospel, but lived a good life will be allowed into heaven.
It gets pretty murky here. Do you remember the story of Christ on the cross saying to the thief “Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise?” I was taught that Paradise and Heaven are two seperate places. All of the people who lived and died according to the laws of Leviticus and Dueteronomy and good people of other nations who died before Christ came were sent here. During the three days after the crucifixtion before he Rose again, Christ visited Paradise and converted all of those people, and brought them with him when he ascended into Heaven.
He does love us all equally, but punishes us when we reject him, just as a parent regretfully punishes their child for breaking the rules. He may love us, but he expects and demands obedience. He tests us to see if we will remain true. Let’s say I have a kid, who I think is stealing from my purse. So, I go to the bank, make a big withdrawal, and put my purse in a conspicuous place. I carefully count the money and mark the bills to see if he will do it again. When the money turns up missing, I search his room, and find it hidden. I ask him about it casually at dinner, and he lies about it. Then I tell him about finding the stash. Did I set him up? Yes. Did I test his honesty? Yes.
Not all of God’s tests are as easy and simplistic as the one I just used as an example. (Assuming, of course, that God takes enough of an interest to test us at all.) As I said before, maybe he sees it as a way to make us stronger.
Not an arguement, but the fulfilment of a contract between God and man. Perhaps without Jesus, God would still be smiting us left and right, but after Jesus came, God’s vengeful hand was stayed, at least until he gets us before the Throne of Judgement.
Glad to hear it . . . there are already too many little bastards running around who think that it’s jolly good fun to pull the wings off of flies and whatnot.
This ties in with your next quote:
Then again, the cruelty may not stem from God. After the fall of man, God lifted his potection and pampering, and left us to fight it out in this hard cold world. We may not like it, but that’s the price that all of man pays for Adam and Eve’s fall. (Blame them!) This also ties in with punishing you, your children and your children’s children. God punished man as a whole for the sins of his prototypes. Was it fair of Him to put that tree with its round, lucious, delicious-looking fruit in the Garden in the first place? Was it fair for him to allow the serpent access to the Garden? God plays with a loaded deck in some cases it seems. All human suffering is the price we pay for Adam and Eve’s original sin. It’s the price we pay for the priviledge to know good from evil. Origionally, Adam and Eve were much like the angels. They had free will, but didn’t know what sin WAS. The just scampered around the garden with the lions and antelope buck-nekkid and were perfectly happy with their lot. Then Eve was tempted into eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam came home from a hard day of scampering and frolicking, and Eve said, “Here, honey, taste this! It’s great!” Suddenly, they both realized that they were buck-assed, and gathered up some fig leaves for modesty’s sake. They had lost their innocence, and they had the ability to recognize sin and to feel shame. The price of these, the price of KNOWLEDGE was banishment from eartly paradise, and suffering came with it.
Right now, we have a pending contract with God, and until the final day, Judgement Day, He has to let things ride as they are. After we all go to heaven or hell, then there will be a new heaven and a new earth, according to Revalation. Maybe we will become like angels without free will. Will he give the gift of free will to the next bunch of people? He regretted in Genesis that he had ever made a man, so perhaps not.
The Bible was highly edited during the Middle Ages. A lot of the books describing women’s acts were taken out. The Book Of Suzanne comes to mind. You can read it in the Apocrypha, along with other Biblical-era books that were tossed out for one reason or the other.
In the present form, the only woman in the Bible that comes across as a strong, independant woman is Deborah. She totally kicked ass, and became the Judge of Israel. Read it, it’s pretty neat story.
First off, you will never hear me spout off any type of Christianity. IMHO, Judaism makes much more sense and shows just how flawed many of the Christian arguements are. But that is not what we are discussing here.
Why discuss it at all if you believe that there is neither a God nor the stories in it are true, that is a book of absurdities?Why attack something you put no credence in. You are using as proof of non-belief the very book you don’t believe in.
So my point is, for the non-believer, it should be as any other fable or myth, a story with a moral in it.
With every story you put forth, there are quite a few explanations for the reasoning behind it. Apologetics are very common. For every instance of a wrathful God, it can be shown just what made him so wrathful. For every instance of mass slaughter, there is more to it that the vengeful God. No whether or not these apologetics live up to your standard of plausible explanation is another story. My guess is they won’t.
But for those who do believe, they choose to try to understand the reasonings behind certain stories in the Bible. Just as in any relationship, your understanding of the other party evolves the deeper you get into the relationship. You have the ability to see things differently as your understanding grows.
I’m not saying that you should believe. Hell, I have a hard time believing. In fact I don’t blame anyone for not believing, especially with the aggresive and insulting tactics of many religious groups out there (mainly Christians in this country). But believing and understanding is not the same thing. I don’t need to believe in something to understand it. I don’t have to believe that there was an actual flood to understand the story’s meaning.
Jdemobrey
I must contest with all-powerful implying all-knowing. In fact, I must even contest all-powerful. It seems to mee that there can, logically, be no such thing because of the invariable amount of paradoxes that perfection implies. In another thread Gaudere had a suggestion for me that God was bound by logic…he could not stop evil from happening much like Lissa has suggested. Being an atheist its all word games to me anyway, but fun enough to think about from time to time.
My personal “non-scientific” disproof of God always had to do with heaven. That is, what can you do in heaven? Anything? Or is it, instead, a place of no temptation? Ugh…the latter scares me more than burning forever.
Anyway…
Good question, chronolicht, and not incendiary at all. It’s what philosophy and theology geeks often call ‘the problem of evil’. If I know a child is going to be killed, and I can do something to prevent it, and I do not, then most people would think me guilty of a wrong. But God knows, and God can, but God (in many known cases) does not. May we then conclude that God is guilty of a wrong?
To many, myself included, this is one of several quite good aruments against the prevailing concept of God. However, it is not a cast-iron argument, and in fact it can be countered quite effectively. kgriffey79 offered this rebuttal:
This doesn’t work, no disrespect, because it posits a God who has to take steps to find things out or know them, when in fact He is deemed to be omniscient.
There are better rebuttals. One is that we are in no position to comprehend or assess God’s actions (or lack of them). Human kind may pass judgement on human kind, and formulate social/judicial rules + policies to do so, but human kind may not presume to pass judgement on the divine, since we lack any meaningful frame of reference in which to do so. It would be kind of like an ant passing judgement on us, except infinitely more egregious.
Another is to say that although God, being omniscient, already knows all and knows whether we love Him, He has agreed to give us the gift free will to believe in Him or not. Any clear and conspicuous manifestation of His power would presumably diminish not only the need for faith but also the opportunity for faith.
These are just examples of pro-theist arguments, not my own beliefs at all.
In the interests of preserving the admirable civility of this thread, may I just point out that in many very fundamental ways those with religious beliefs and those without tend to think and reason and arrive at their conclusions in very distinct ways. I’m not saying better or worse, just different. Meaningful debate/discussion can only really be achieved if both sides have agreed on the rules by which the game is played - what constitutes a valid conclusion, what are valid routes to knowledge etc. If this agreement is missing, then it’s like two guys with a full deck of cards and one thinks they are playing bridge, the other poker. Not going to be much of a game, is it? Both perfectly good games, but different rules. Likewise with believers and non-believers, such as myself.
hey guys, man this is getting to be a very nice debate, and guess what?? IM LEARNING!!! i dont know all that much so i just go by my heart and as you can see am staying out of it, but id just like to say, i like this thread! i congratulate all of you! you are all civil and kind, regardless of your difference of beliefs and are (as scary as it seems) open-minded! man! im loving this thread every time i check up on it!
Ah… God and omniscience. A pet subject. Here’s just a little somethin’ extra, for those who fancy a good ol’ theological work out.
There are quite a few faiths which state, as an item of belief, that God is omniscient. There is a very serious flaw of reasoning here which is worth thinking about. It has nothing to do with whether He is, or is not, omniscient. That’s not where the problem lies. The problem is this: how would we know?
Here’s the nub of the logical difficulty. Supose you have two sentient beings, A and B (not very original names, huh? but they’ll do). Suppose that A can safely - and non-controversially - be said to ‘know’ more than B e.g. A is a 50 year old person and B is a 5 month old baby, or A is Leonardo da Vinci and B is a shellfish. (If you don’t like my suggestions, make up your own A and B, just so long as you’re happy that A knows more than B).
Now, it is the case that A is in a position to assess how much B knows, but not the other way around. Any attempt by B to do this must fail, since by definition B cannot assess all of A’s knowledge - if he could, he would know as much as A.
In short, the more knowledgeable may assess the lesser knowledgeable, but not the other way around.
Now, take the argument into the theological realm. If we posit a God who knows more than we do, then we have no means whatsoever of assessing the extent of his knowledge. We have no means whatsoever of determining whether he is omniscient, or just a little bit more knowledgeable than we are ourselves.
Let me emphasise the nub of this argument once again - it is not about ‘is He omniscient?’. You are prefectly entitled to state, as a matter of faith, that you believe Him to bo so.
No, the point is this: whether it is true or not, it is logically impossible for us to know that it is true. We can believe it, sure, and millions do, but we can never know it.
It follows that many people express a belief, the truth of which it is logically impossible for us to know.
If you have no problem with this, then you may espouse religious beliefs which include ‘God is omniscient’. (There is nothing disparaging about this).
If you do have a problem with it, then you cannot. You are probably (like me) a non-believer. Like I said in an earlier post, different ways of thinking suit different people. Or, as a wise man once said, different rules for different fools.
I don’t know that I understand why we can’t know that God is omniscient. For one thing, He’s defined that way. Without being omniscient, he’s not God.
**
In my case, I’ll pick my Ph.D. advisor (in chemistry) as A, and I’ll choose myself as B. He’s been doing chemistry since before I was born. He taught the same course on group theory for over 20 years. He’s obviously smarter than me (in chemistry, at least, for the sake of argument).
By your logic, I can’t know the extent of his knowledge, because then I’d know as much as he does. I don’t see why this follows. I know that he has most of the character tables memorized (if you don’t know what that is, that’s fine, it’s just an example). The ones he doesn’t know, he can derive in about 5 minutes. I don’t know how to derive character tables (beyond the very rudimentary), but I know that he DOES know how to do so. A situation impossible by your logic.
I don’t know how to make a nuclear reactor. I know that God does. Again, I’m assessing knowledge that I don’t have–an impossible scenario, according to you.
Your logic makes no sense to me.
Quix
Is that so? God never changes his mind?
GE 6:6.
EX 32:14
NU 14:20
1SA 15:35
2SA 24:16
Hi Quix and thanks for your reply. Let me answer a couple of points.
I’m not picking fights, honestly!, but I’m pretty sure this is an example of circular reasoning (which is the subject of another current thread, as you may know).
Defining something doesn’t make it so - if I define ‘acid’ as ‘substance containing carbon’, this doesn’t make all acids contain carbon. But, you say, acids aren’t defined that way. True! But the point stands: definition does not cause. For a long time the coelocanth was defined as ‘extinct’; for many people homosexual love was for a long time defined as ‘a sinful abomination’; many people for a long time defined a person with black skin as ‘a slave’.
In any case, my point was not whether God is or isn’t omniscient. I understand that God is, by many people, defined as omniscient. But that does not, in and of itself, answer the question of how we could know that he is. I contend that we cannot know.
You say you know your advisor can derive character tables. Now, I do understand that in real life this is a perfectly reasonable conjecture for all sorts of social and cultural reasons - it’s stuff someone in his position would know; he teaches this stuff all the time; not many academics lie about their knowledge of this ‘routine’ stuff… and so on.
But let’s look at it a bit more deeply. Suppose you ask your advisor to demonstrate his knowledge of how to derive character tables (whatever they may be). How do you know he’s right, and not bluffing or lying or deceiving you? There are only two ways to assess if he really knows. The first way is you know the right answer (i.e. you have equivalent knowledge). The second way is to verify what he tells you by recourse to another source of information (book, person, whatever) - and as soon as you check that fact you come into possession of equivalent knowledge.
It’s the same for any factual assertion a sentient being might utter. You are only in a position to say “He knows his stuff” IF (a) you have equivalent knowledge OR (b) you can obtain equivalent knowledge. Otherwise, you have no way of evaluating what he knows.
Some examples might help.
Suppose you ask me the capital of France and I say ‘Paris’. You probably already have equivalent knowledge, and if not there are lots of ways to access it. So you can evaluate how much I know (about the capital of France). If I say ‘Arkansas’ you will know I’m wrong.
Next, suppose you ask me my age and I say “30”. You don’t already have equivalent knowledge, but you could probably obtain it if you really wanted to. However, you might presume I’d know this information. Alas, it’s not that easy. If you checked you might find out that in fact my age is quite different - and I gave the wrong answer for some reason (e.g. I suffered some brain damage a while back and don’t know the right answer) (e.g. #2 my own family have always deceived me about my age and I’ve never checked). So your conjecture - that I know my own age - would be very reasonable, but wrong. And you can only discover this by coming into possession of the correct answer.
Now suppose you ask me what I dreamed about last night and I say “Winning the lottery”. You don’t have equivalent knowledge, and you can’t obtain it. Again, you might feel on safe ground presuming I know the answer, but you could be wrong. It might be true, or it might be a lie, or I might be mistaken. (The fact is, I don’t know or remember what, if anything, I dreamed about last night.)
The problem with ‘God is omniscient’ is that (a) we cannot interrogate Him (b) even if we could, we would only ascertain the extent of his knowledge if we had equivalent knowledge, or could come into possession of equivalent knowledge.
I suspect this is going to be one of those things where it seems one way to you, and another way to me, and pretty much all we can do is agree to differ! I could provide some supplementary levels of explanation, or present the logic in more formal terms. But at the end of the day, not everyone likes the SDMB being used for massive essays… and besides, live and let live!
I think this question relies on a few very ignorant assumptions.
-
Death is evil
-
Living on Earth is better than where you go after death.
-
Pain teaches us nothing
-
Children’s lives are somehow more valuable than adult lives.
-
Free will is not valuable enough to risk death over.
So let me pose these questions: -
Why is death evil?
-
How is it better here than where we would go next?
-
Couldn’t it be possible that the death of that child teaches us more than their life could?
-
What is the magical age when your life becomes forfeit?
-
Would we truly be alive without free will? Would we not just be mindless automatons? Isn’t free will the essence of the life given to us?
- I am not preaching Christian ideals just offering a perspective.
Erek
**
What constitutes “hearing the Gospel”? Does a Jack Chick comic count? And why are people punished if they reject the Gospel? How does that make any sense? Shouldn’t people be punished for their sins rather than for their opinions on historical questions?
**
God hated Esau.
**
Are people in heaven able to sin?
Why does God create people who will choose to reject him? Why not choose to only make those people who will choose, of their own free will, to follow God?
What do you make of Newcomb’s paradox?
-Ben
Ben,
You or any others interested may wish to look at this URL:
http://www.origins.org/offices/billcraig/docs/newcomb.html
Dr.Craig gives an extremely well thought out answer IMHO. Keep in mind that man is a limited 4 dimensional entity if you also include time. In some of my recent readings from the “near death” thread, I was exposed to the concept of time being immaterial in the actual precense of God…,i.e. that past, present, and even future cease to exist as individual entities and just ARE and can be plainly seen simutaneously without effort. “Foreknowledge” would then be merely our feeble efforts to explain the unexplainable.