Reasons for belief and disbelief in God

Great Debates
221

I agree 100%. We can share ideas and we can react to the actions of those around us but I hope we learn to have reverence for our own freedom to choose {reverence includes facing the consequences} and that of others as well. The “right” path has to be the one we choose as individuals based on our own sense of what is “true”

Exactly. One of the important things to realize is that we truly do not know what is best for someone else. That doesn’t mean we don’t try to help or take a stand. That’s interaction and part of the process. It just means recognizing someone elses path may be far different from our own but just as valid.

And of course we can’t prove that so we have no authority to try and impose moral or religious views on anyone else except as society and a system of laws demand.

Correct. Moreover, I feel whatever the differences in our beliefs we can still honor what we have in common. If I strive to be kind because of my spiritual belief and you try to be kind because of a philosphical belief, we can still honor and respect the kindness we experience in each other rather than become contentious over the foundational belief that led to kindness. If I meet an incredibly honorable loving person why would I critisize that path that led them there? I wouldn’t. I would celebrate their virtues.

Yes that, but more than that. Because we have admited we cannot know what is best for someone else or force our path upon them where do we draw the line between relieving suffering and interfering with the consequences of their own choices? Would you say welfare, which was intended to help the less fortunate, has in some ways created a cycle of less fortunate? People who feel it is their right as citizens to be supported? Ever seen parents who don’t have the will to kick out their 30 year old child who lives in the basement?
Finding that line isn’t easy.

222

We’re in 100% agreement with the first part!

For welfare, studies (which I can look up) show that most welfare recipients drop in and out of it.

I’ve never said that no suffering is required - just no unnecessary suffering. We, as fallible humans, may not hit this correctly. God, to get back to the main thread, can. But we need to provide alternatives for people in all cases. For welfare, we must provide jobs or training, so that those who want to get off welfare can. (And decent education, and a living wage so that those who are employed full time don’t need public assistance anyhow.) In days before welfare people starved. The Clinton adjustments worked well, but it is telling how the welfare rolls dropped when unemployment did. There are surely lazy bums around, but they are not in the majority. This is not to say that the welfare system is anywhere near optimal, of course.

For a child, we need to provide an education, and to be a role model, and not be saps for 29 years to be cruel at year 30. (My kids are gone so I can be obnoxious on this subject.) My daughter’s old boyfriends parents not only support their stupid other kid (not quite 30) but his girlfriend too - or did until they had a fire and he’s stuck living in her house.

223

Oh but I disagree I think it has everything to do with this thread and your dismissal of God as an useful framework by which to understand the cosmos, even though clearly billions have found it useful for that very purpose.

Fair enough, I agree with that estimation, but I don’t agree with limiting to that estimation.

I am not playing WYOD, generally what I am trying to get across is that people like yourself and many others on this board eliminate whole sets of semantic interpretation from their lexicon thus diminishing the ability for people with different semantic frameworks to communicate effectively with you, and you assume that the output of their thoughts is the same as the output from eating simply because they have a very different semantic framework from your own, and this is what irritates people like Trust and myself so much. I am far from playing WYOD, I am discussing nuance for which the language you choose to use is not adequate.

Fair enough. I generally do like your answers because there is a very clean crisp and precise understanding of what you are saying, and I can feel the understanding saturate my body, which I happen to think with. The brain is merely the routing system that connects sensory perception, and is just one part of a whole conscious matrix that I call my ‘self’.

Fair enough.

Say that the unique set of memories leaves an imprint upon time-space, sort of like ripples in a pond so to speak. Is that not the self? If those unique sets of memories continue to influence the further Genesis of the species is not that unique set of memories then still ‘alive’?

When a Caterpillar comes out of it’s Pupa and leaves the shell of the cocoon behind as a butterfly, is it still the same “self”? If the necrotic cells of the discarded cocoon would not interact with you would you determine that the creature was dead?

No one is saying that a dick is a brain so your comparison doesn’t follow. What I am saying is that thought involves the entire being and not just the brain, so if your genitalia are part of the motivating factor for a certain action, then you are in essence “Thinking with your dick”, as they are both part of a whole system, and were you to lose your dick, your experience here on Earth would be quite different, and you would probably think very different thoughts than you would think if you still had your dick.

The brain alone is equally useless without any sensory apparatus as the sensory apparatus is without the brain. You would not survive without a heart or lungs either.

Ok, so the self is that which is constantly in communication with the memory-apparatus. However, the person is part of a the whole system that is the Earth, and so the Earth is in constant contact with the sensory apparatus, it’s merely a matter of the way the matter is ordered to determine the hierarchy of that connection. Maybe it feels like you are talking to yourself, but that’s part of the essence of what God is, we are all one, we are all part of the same system. We are part of a superset self, from our bodies to our nations to our world, to our solar system to our galaxy and on and on.

As I said I find your perception of the situation to be logically consistent, I just feel like you are eliminating a whole range of sets by your rigid adherence to a particular semantic interpretation. Rigidly adhering to meanings of words while useful in maintaining a common language by which to communicate, also can limit the ability to communicate when there becomes a conflict in the way that people interpret the words. Unfortunately the only way we have found to expedite the function is for a conflict to arise and one particular cultural meme to win out over the other rather than both sides coming to understand the other’s side without crushing their own semantic interpretation of it. This is how words can become an impediment to understanding even though they are so vital to communication.

Erek

224

The problem with suffering is that as we understand more and more about neurology we will find ways to eliminate or greatly reduce emotional suffering. We will not only work to eliminate the negative events that create suffering (disease, torture, mental illness, etc), we will also find ways to contain and control emotional pain so even an event that should cause suffering does not. Two hundred years ago surgery was rare in part because of the pain it caused, now we have anaesthesia. Right now its been found that beta blockers can cut down on the rates of PTSD, we have tons of drugs for depression and anxiety, etc. 300 years ago physical pain was a taken for granted part of life. Now it is reasonably rare in the developed world, at least compared to what it was like hundreds of years ago.

The arguments of God and suffering really don’t make sense to me as it is only a matter of time before we understand enough about suffering and the mind to fight it off. What of god then? If this is all part of gods plan then we aren’t going to go along with it, and good for us.

225

He could blink. Noone is saying that he could not. What we are saying is that he cannot blink and still give us free will and the ability to learn what he values as bad and good. Otherwise we have no possible way of discerning what is good and bad.

If you do not understand the mechanism for something, does that necessarily mean that it is impossible? I will argue with you on this point as long as you see fit.

Noone is saying that it is required. If you take into account free will and being just to His people, then that is what He chose.

For God to be just to His people.

You are assuming that all people do not go to heaven.

Because he chooses to value every human being. What kind of a question is this. Do you think I am God? Do you think he is just gonna make a cutoff line?

Nothing is unjust about it. It goes against the premise that God cares about his people.

It doesnt punish bad people. It takes away the punishment.

It is necessary provided you believe all the other premises I believe in.

A cite that noone has ever been perfect besides Christ? …Thats gonna be easy to find…You really got me. I cant prove that there has ever been someone that has been perfect. What a mind blowing concept.

I am saying that we cannot decipher what is good and bad like God can. We do not know all of the variables.

How so?

No. The lack of a mechanism means that we do not know one way or the other. It could be, it might not be.

Do you usually bring this many opinions into conversations?

You see, we have writings of how Jesus lived his life. That is evidence. If a person witnesses a crime and gives a statement of the crime, is that evidence? Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

You really like giving opinions. If you used logic, you would realize your opinion means nothing in evaluating logical arguments. The logic is what matters. Not the plausability.

If you actual read what I had to say, then you would realize that I was saying that the odds very small that it is as easy as saying A does not imply B. Whether you continue to take what I say in the way you want to take it is your baggage.

You do not know how a logical argument works my friend. Why is it that SentientMeat understands that I will always be able to have a valid argument. Yet you try so hard to disprove the unproveable? Don’t you see the irony in that. Here is some logic for you to try: Is it logically possible to prove the unprovable?
I am completely confident that you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong. You do have one thing in common with the religious extremists. Your way is the only way. You try so hard to get away from that type of thinking. Yet you are the one giving it.

Noone is disagreeing with this statement. Nothing is necessary. It is optional and that option has been chosen. Hence the reason we are talking right now.

226

Wow, all you need is to have something written down, that’s preferably old? All hail Quetzalcoatl!

What’s that quote…
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Stephen F Roberts)

227

Agreed, but the teachings of Jesus are not the religion.
Buddhists worship Satan and are going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior™ (that’s Christian teaching too).

228

Sure he can. He’s omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If he can’t accomplish his goals without evil then he’s not omnipotent. If he can but chooses not to, he’s not good. It’s quite simple to grasp, this “Problem of Evil,” an no one has ever solved it. If you imagine that you have it figured out then you don’t understand it.

The mechanism doesn’t have to be understood. The fact that any innate mechanism exists at all renders free will incoherent. I really do think you’re having quite a bit of trouble understanding this. I’ll try again. In order to choose evil, one must already BE evil. In order to choose good, one must already BE good. Choices are EFFECTS, not causes. Are you following? Something has to CAUSE the choice? Whatever causes the choice is either innate (we’re born with it) or somehow implanted after birth (the old “nature or nurture” conundrum). If the former is true (if we’re born good or evil) then our choices are just a manifestation of how we were born. There is nothing “free” about them, and there is neither any personal virtue or any personal culpability in making them. In effect, we are programmed.

If the “cause” is implanted or “programmed” after birth, then the same problems apply. We have no choice about how we are nurtured (“programmed”) after birth, so any choices which result from that programming are not freely made and we still can’t be morally credited or blamed for them.

Are you still with me on this? Do you understand it now? Can you explain to me how it is logically possible to make a moral choice without a preceding cause? Please don’t just say it’s a “mechanism.” That’ is not a logical solution to the problem.

Free will is impossible. you still haven’t explained how it’s unjust simply to forgive everybody and you still don’t get it that an omnipotent God never needs a method to accomplish his will. If he requires a method- ANY method, then he’s not omnipotent.

If he voluntarily chooses a method which causes or allows suffering, then he’s not good because he can just as easily choose a method which does NOT cause or allow suffering, or he could skip the method altogether and go straight to the end zone.

This is so terse as to border on a non-sequitur. I’m guessing you’re simply answering the question “why do people have to be punished?” I think your answer is a little circular so let me ask it a different way: Why does justice require punishment?

I’d also like an answer to the question of whether all people deserve the SAME punishment. Does a pickpocket deserve the same punishment as Pol Pot, yes or no?

I’m not assuming anything, I was responding to your own assertion that God could not let everybody “live” and still be just. I’m asking why not?

How does it devalue human beings to refrain from creating evil ones? What do you mean by a “cutoff line?”

It sounds to me like you have some conception of human beings preexisting their own creation - like you see a bunch of uncreated humans in waiting and that it would be unfair to the evil ones to keep them sitting on the bench. If you think about this for a second, you’ll see how silly it is. If God doesn’t create them then they never existed. If they never existed then there is nothing to value or devalue. Even if you think that souls preexist their bodies, God still had to create the souls and was still free not to. Are you starting to understand this? God can’t be unfair to people he never created.

How so?

That’s exeactly my point. You say on the one hand that bad people need to be punished and then on the other hand that the murder of a 1st century Jewish wisdom teacher “Takes that punishment away.” How? If God can take away the need for punishment after a human sacrifice, why can’t he do it WITHOUT a human sacrifice? How did the death of Jesus make it ok for Jefferey Dahmer to kill and eat people without any punishment?

The assertion that God would ever require a human sacrifice is logically INCOMPATIBLE with your other premises.

What I asked for was a cite for your assertion that all people cause suffering, not that all people are “perfect.” I don’t even know what the adjective “perfect” is supposed to mean with regards to human beings, but I definitely would take issue with any proposition that people are inherently evil or that all of them cause suffering. My children don’t. My wife doesn’t.

Interesting. The Bible says that people DO know right from wrong. Is the Bible lying?

If humans can’t tell right from wrong then how can they be held responsible for their choices?

The above is not an opinion but a factual observation. If you wish to dispute my assertion that we have no way to know that Christianity is true, please point out the evidence and shut me up.

we have writings of how Quetzalcoatl lived his life. We have writings of how Krishna and Buddha and Mohammed lived their lives. So what?

No it isn’t.

1.There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus
2. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

[Sigh]…Nothing in my above statement is an opinion. All I dd was ask you a question? Can you answer it?

229

Ahem. “Reasons for belief and disbelief in God.” Yes, evidence is relevant.

The Inquisition thought of it first; the idea that an infinite afterlife make the present life unimportant is an old and evil idea. It wasn’t an idle comparison.

Your statement wasn’t a hypothetical, it was a false analogy.

Of course, and it’s irrelevant. If you cut off my skin and hand me some morphine, I can allevate my pain; that doesn’t make it any less your fault. If the universe was made by a god, everything wrong about it is his fault.

230

Are you sure you understand the difference between physicalism, which this thread is about, and utilitarianism, which this thread is not about?

Argument ad populum.

Then you and I differ in the importance we attach to Ockham’s principle of parsimony.

If you use words in ways I simply do not accept, like God = existence, universe, consciousness or whatever, there is little more I can do than tell you so and leave it at that. I care little what you think of my (largely standard) dictionary, so I’m puzzled as to why you get so irritated when others don’t think much of your highly personal one. Tomato, tomahto and all that.

Then go ahead and keep using your peculiar language of mswas-ese, but don’t be surprised if people keep telling you time and again that it is the very thing which inhibits effective communication.

The unique set of memories is encoded in the neural structure, itself housed in the human body. I assume that by “imprint upon time-space” you mean some effect that a person has after their arrangement disintegrates (death), such as memories of that person in other people’s neural structures, or a posthumously published book.

No, anymore than the footprint is the shoe. Those unique memories themselves are no longer accessible. The only accessible memories are of the housing those memories resided in. When I die, nobody will access my memories, only memories of my housing (whose actions were caused by those memories together with sensory inputs, innate cognitive modules, and perhaps some random element).

The self changes continually: new memories are stored and others become lost. Insofar as caterpillars possess neural memory in order to have a ‘self’, the same would presumably apply (though on a far simpler level). Of course, what I think you’re really asking is how we justify calling one thing a caterpillar and another thing a pupa, or a butterfly. And the answer is: because that is what human language is - a means to arbitrate or distinguish entities.

If they had no interaction with them at all, I couldn’t determine anything about them - that is what science is about.

When attached, the memory-apparatus permanently receives signals from it (flat “monitoring” signals, usually), and thus can be said to be “part of me”. When removed, no signals are sent and it isn’t. So what?

Actually, the brain has sensory apparatus within it (ever had a headache?), and the processing in the retina leads most neuroanatomists to consider the retina to be part of the brain. So the brain might well be useless without sensory apparatus, but luckily it has plenty such apparatus built in. You heart/lungs point is a non sequitur: I wouldn’t survive in a vacuum, but Earth’s atmosphere is not part of me, either. The heart and lungs are part of me if, yet again, they are in permanent communication with the brain.

But it isn’t. Whenever I lie down, jump or board any vehicle I break my connection. In any case, lumping all sensory input together as “the Earth” does not change the fact that it is still sensory input.

I repeat: Like, whatever.

And I just feel that your questions and critiques have absolutely no substance and are mere picayune wordplay. Seriously, I know the weak points in my own argument and I’d be overjoyed if you were to find them and debate them. But you’re not even close, instead preferring to continually berate me for not accepting your bungee-jump stretches of perfectly plain language.

And fora like these are where the battle joins. You try to spread your meme, I try to spread mine, and the winner is the meme which transfers to the most new hosts, ie. whoever is most convincing.

mswas, I strongly suggest you read some books on cognitive science and philosophy of the mind and come back when we can have a far more worthwhile conversation. “Consciousness explained” (Dennett) and “How the Mind Works” (Pinker) to start, then a must-read for you is “The Mind Does Not Work Like That” (Fodor), specifically abduction and modularity. I keep telling you that my position has all kinds of interesting gaps, but instead you prefer to continually bash your head against its strongest bulwarks. I would genuinely be happy for you to find those gaps and have me on the ropes. This is just so boring.

231

On what grounds do you claim that I have an “obvious distaste for God”? (I’ll address God below.)

As are you.
Is there any other way?

Then why say,[

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7047346&postcount=60)
call me :confused:

So we’re not talking the age of any given religion, just whether said religion is being currently practiced?
If so, it’s more than a few others,[

](http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Classical)
Do all of the above meet your “common modern day religions” criteria?
Just to emphasize,[

](http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
“I do not know enough about other religions, but from what I have seen they do not seem that different from Christianity.”
“All of the modern day religions are similar to Christianity.”
That’s quite a leap of faith ya got there.

You do understand that most (if not all) solar/lunar religions do not actually worship the sun/moon, but see them as physical manifestations of god, and not god itself?
I don’t think you really addressed my question though,
“Why is it obvious that non-modern day religions worship false idols?”
Given your apparent definition, Non-modern day religion = not currently practiced, was the Assyro-Babylonian religion a “real” religion, or did they worship obvious false idols?

If I ignore the specifics my cat and my car are very similar.
The Devil is in the details!
Now about “God”.
This thread’s OP is a bit disingenuous, it’s not about god, it’s about God™(ya know Jesus’s Dad).
This confusion is clear in the first few posts,
#4 aurelian “…Do you really believe that these are representative reasons for why people choose to believe in a god?..”,"…In terms of Christianity…"
#8 Wesley Clark “there are endless definitions of God and so many attributes that it is impossible to know what is true or not. Who is to say that the Judeo Christian creator god is anymore or less real than the Greek Apollo Gods or the Hindu Gods?”.
And since you (Trust) accuse glee of “trying to bring down my character”,“discrimination”, and “group{ing} all “believers” into one category” for simply asking “Your entire Church used to believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Do you agree they were all wrong?
There is a thriving Christian belief that the World is 6000 years old. Do you agree?”.
IMHO it seems clear that we’re not even talking about God™ we’re talking about Trust’s version of God™.

It’s my experience that “believers” take great offense when you dismiss their beliefs, but it pales compared to my offense, when they dismiss the beliefs of others.

“…When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen F Roberts

232

Nice try but still wrong. I was responding to an arguement that **Voyager ** put forth that was clearly hypothetical and you know it. I had already dealt with my belief because of subjective evidence and acknowledged that it was useless in regard to convincing others in a post directly to you. You were responding to my hypothetical arguement not the original post. You made a mistake. My experience with you is that you won’t admit it until you’ve wasted numerous posts trying to dodge the issue. Why don’t you surprise me.

Here at least is an actual arguement instead of just venom. I* never* said that an infinite afterlife makes this life unimportent.** Voyager** already asked that {rather than assume it} and I answered quite clearly. My point was that if we are timeless spiritual beings the perspective on suffering changes. It is completely possible to revere each life as precious and still see suffering in a different light.
It was an analogy that was part of the same hypothetical arguement. What exactly made it a false analogy?

As simplistic as this is, if you add that popular belief puts God still in charge of the universe he created, I see it as a valid arguement. Again, better than just venom and insults.

If you give someone a precious gift and allow them some time to see what they will do with it , whose fault is it when they screw up?
For the record, I don’t hold the traditional view that God created the universe and is reigning over it. I sometimes use the language to participate in a discussion.

I know you are very capable of a rational arguement but when revert you expressing your disdain for belief in general and organized religion in particular in hateful language I have no interest in communicating with you. I realize you have ne reason to care about that but you insist on coming into spiritual and religious oriented threads. Why waste your time and everybody elses simply regurgitating the same old useless spite, when you are capable of more reasoned communication?

233

You are quite right that Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are different although they would never admit it. Still, one of the books I linked to displays the words of Jesus from the NT on one page and Buddhist scripture on the other. It’s really surprising how similar the teachings of these two men living 600 years apart are. In fighting ignorance we can’t let “nothing alike” stand unchallenged.

234

You’ve mentioned this before. It’s a good thought but we don’t know how it will all turn out. As we conquer certain diseases and longevity increases new diseases come to the fore. Will that be an endless cycle? We can deal with the symptoms of mental illness with drugs but is that a cure? Will our technological advances create as many problems as they solve? We don’t know.

235

I guess welfare wasn’t a good example. 20 some odd years ago my wife and I spent a few months in housing assistance so I don’t really know any recent statistics. My experince has been that if we “help” too much to relieve suffering then we don’t help. Too many people just get lazy and irresponsible. We don’t know where the lines are drawn between helping and enabling but of course we should continue to try and find that balance by helping.
For myself the faith aprt is trusting life to bring me what I need to grow. Even the hard and painful parts. Each struggle and painful experience has helped me to learn something about life and myself. I guess because of that and my tendency to believe I extend that trust out to the world as a whole. Most suffering I see as our own choices, but the parts that aren’t, such as natural disasters, I have to trust to something more aware than I. Although it obviously hurts, we know hurting can sometimes help. I trust that God, the Universe, or just life in general knows the balance.

My ex mother inlaw is a very sweet woman who is very much the enabler. She has helped and hurt her kids through her helping for decades. It is a hard balance to strike sometimes. I’ve gone through it myself with one of my adult children.

236

It may be. But as we become more technologically proficient the diseases will be fewer, easier to treat and easier to prevent. Overall I doubt technological advances will create more problems than they solve.

The problem with the idea of suffering or Gods purpose for us is that life as we know it in the 21st century is totally artificial compared to how we were created. Humans evolved in groups of small tribes that were hunter/gatherers for tens of thousands of years, so did our ancestors over hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization with farming, domestication and a divistion of labor is only about 6000 years old, barely a blip on the timeline as far back as humans and our ancestors go. And life throughout most of civilization was totally different than life today. It was filled with childhood deaths, disease, famine, slavery and war. Alot of people in the world today don’t really have these problems anymore, at least nothing like they used to.

237

Yeah, it changes to “no big deal”, at least for you. You do constantly claim this life is trivial, in this thread and others. It seems to be the central tenet of your religion. That is the “perspective change”.

Not if the different light is that “this life is just an eyeblick; the suffering in this life doesn’t matter.”

You compared real suffering to imaginary suffering, in an attempt to say real suffering doesn’t matter, in that “different perspective” of yours.

It’s simplistic becaue it’s a simple situation. If God created the universe, and is omnipotent, then all it’s flaws are his fault, and it’s his fault nothing is/can be done about it by us. After all, it’s his fault we’re so flawed and limited; if we do something bad or stupid, it’s because of his shoddy workmanship.

The fault of the person who forced the “gift” on them, forced them to use it, gave them no users manual, and gave him a lobotomy so he couldn’t figure it out on his own. Besides, being human in this world is hardly a “precous gift”; for most people throughout history, it’s been nothing but misery and degradation. Or worse.

238

This is not a problem. God can choose to do as he pleases. There is no possible way if you take into account all of the premises.

Incorrect logic. This is mere opinion. You are under the assumption that choices are effects. Simply because you cannot imagine how choices can be made that are not effects, does prove that they are false.

We are not programs under my set of beliefs. If this is your belief that is fine. I do not attempt to tell you that your set of beliefs are impossible because they could very well be.

Once again. I do not need to show you how anything is done to prove that it has a possibility of being proven true in regards to faith.

No. Free will is possible. For you to claim that something is impossible just because you do not know of a way for it to be is incorrect logic. Once again, God does not have to do any method. He chooses to. Notice the difference.

Not with all of the other premises my friend.

God chooses to be just to his people. It is impossible to prove or disprove assumptions that require faith.

I am not God. Why are you asking me?

Because of the premise that God is just to his people. This would be a contradiction. He make justice anyway he chooses. He choose Christ.

You are proposing that God only create “good” people. Not only do we not know for 100% certainty what is good in God’s eyes, this would also mean that we probably would not have been born. I can’t speak for you but I love my life.

So let me get this straight. You assumed that this is my perception? You act like if I dont have all the answers to every question then my viewpoint is wrong. This is a fallacy.

I never said he couldnt do it without a human sacrifice. I never said it made it okay for Jefferey Dahmer. You’re quite funny my friend. You rely on emotion in logical arguments more than you do on the actual logic.

What are these premises?

It is common sense. Everyone in their lifetime is going to cause some sort of suffering. Its the nature of choices. You are still using incorrect logic in assuming that everything needs proof to be true in regards to faith. If this was a scientific discussion you would be completely fine. But you cannot disprove (or prove) the premises in a discussion on faith.

You act like we compare to God. Sure we can decipher what is right and wrong when we are being genuine with ourselves and actually look at both viewpoints. That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about how God uses right and wrong. Not right and wrong in our little lives.

I will answer your other questions when I return. I have been answering all of your questions that get us nowhere so I am going to ask you questions that can show you where you are using faulty logic.

239

We agree again. The proper balance is hard for us imperfect humans to find.

240

No, you are using circular reasoning. Don’t you see that the only reason you are giving for god being just is that god is just? The equal punishments, you are saying, are just because they must be because they are made by god who is just. Do you have any reason at all to consider these punishments just besides this?

The reason you should give an argument is to avoid just asserting your position. Maybe that is what your preacher does, but we have a slightly higher level of discourse around here. Why doesn’t sacrificing lambs come close to the level of sacrificing one person - who wasn’t really sacrificed, any more than a kid “shot” while playing cops and robbers is really dead. God specifically made one lamb equivalent to a person - you need to show why this was not true anymore.

I’m not saying God had to do anything - just that he could. You are the one claiming that Jesus had to be sacrificed, so the burden of proof is on you to give a rational argument for this besides just asserting it.

And circular reasoning, as I said before, is illogical. If you don’ t get that (and you’ve never addressed it, just repeated your illogic) you don’t know anything about logic.