Question about the Christian God

[Jyosua]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

Existentialism and existence are pretty well related, methinks. Free will and actions is bordering causality, though.

They're related, but not in the sense that he's implying.

[Esau of Isaac]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

Because it all surrounds existence; it's analysis of it, and you're saying that one cannot prove existence or discuss it because it's not an object.

It's ridiculous. Existence is just as much a concept as love.

[Jyosua]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

Because it all surrounds existence; it's analysis of it, and you're saying that one cannot prove existence or discuss it because it's not an object.

It's ridiculous. Existence is just as much a concept as love.

I never said you can't prove existence or discuss it. It's a word, like I said, indicating a state of being. If you'd like to discuss philosophically about it, by all means go ahead. But I still hold that it's not an abstract concept, and basically just means something has been proven. Discussing why we are here is entirely different from discussing what being here means. And if you want to discuss the latter, well then you're going to have to change the definition of the word exist.

[Esau of Isaac]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

Because it all surrounds existence; it's analysis of it, and you're saying that one cannot prove existence or discuss it because it's not an object.

It's ridiculous. Existence is just as much a concept as love.

I never said you can't prove existence or discuss it. It's a word, like I said, indicating a state of being. If you'd like to discuss philosophically about it, by all means go ahead. But I still hold that it's not an abstract concept, and basically just means something has been proven. Discussing why we are here is entirely different from discussing what being here means. And if you want to discuss the latter, well then you're going to have to change the definition of the word exist.

The point is --one which you are being ridiculously headstrong about and inventing distinctions that don't exist-- that existence is intrinsically verified by the fact that we are here. The same exact thing holds true of causality. It exists because it's needed for us to analyze the world in the first place.

And existence doesn't only mean "proved". It is a term that can be quite abstract. The entire above example (which you totally left on a tangent unrelated to the argument) tried to explain to you the entire concept of everyday ideas that are readily observable and innately true by simple logic.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Jyosua]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

Because it all surrounds existence; it's analysis of it, and you're saying that one cannot prove existence or discuss it because it's not an object.

It's ridiculous. Existence is just as much a concept as love.

I never said you can't prove existence or discuss it. It's a word, like I said, indicating a state of being. If you'd like to discuss philosophically about it, by all means go ahead. But I still hold that it's not an abstract concept, and basically just means something has been proven. Discussing why we are here is entirely different from discussing what being here means. And if you want to discuss the latter, well then you're going to have to change the definition of the word exist.

The point is --one which you are being ridiculously headstrong about and inventing distinctions that don't exist-- that existence is intrinsically verified by the fact that we are here. The same exact thing holds true of causality. It exists because it's needed for us to analyze the world in the first place.

And existence doesn't only mean "proved". It is a term that can be quite abstract. The entire above example (which you totally left on a tangent unrelated to the argument) tried to explain to you the entire concept of everyday ideas that are readily observable and innately true by simple logic.

I'm going to end this here, because we'll have 20 pages of me arguing with you over this matter, otherwise, and it's gone completely tangental to the original thread anyways. I'd appreciate it if you leave it at that.

[Celice]

You didn't quite need to return a wit, you know, in order to "end" (an action proclaimed as your doing) a discussion. Your request is an insistant, a statement, directive of you towards others.

Thus such deemed "off-topic" reply would not exist had this happened.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Celice

[Jyosua]

You didn't quite need to return a wit, you know, in order to "end" (an action proclaimed as your doing) a discussion. Your request is an insistant, a statement, directive of you towards others.

Thus such deemed "off-topic" reply would not exist had this happened.

Celice, I'm not quite sure I even understand what you're saying here, but it clearly has nothing to do with the original topic. So please, cease such banter.

[Blackbird]

Whew, just read through this. There's a lot of frustration and bad blood on both sides, so I'll try to keep this neutral, rather than trying to argue an absolute truth.

I wanted to express a few ideas of my own, because the thread seemed to have a strong adversarial relationship between science and what is logically provable, and faith. The assumption being that the two cannot coexist. I feel that this is not the case. Rather, I feel the two complement each other.

Addressing the three topics I felt were the main thrust of the conversation:

The proof that God exists, the question of why God allows suffering, and the question of free will. These are only my opinions, not truth, and I'm a fallible human, etc.

Why does God allow suffering? I personally feel that God wishes to prevent suffering, but is unable to. But wait! I just admitted God isn't omnipotent! Well, yes and no. I'll attempt to explain in a vaguely mathematical way.

First, we have a good force, called God. It's an infinitely powerful force, of the greatest scale possible, that seeks only to cause good.

Second, we have an evil force, called Satan. It's also an infinitely powerful force, but of a scale only slightly smaller than God. It is still infinite, but not as large an infinite as that of God. (If the concept of infinities of differing sizes sounds nuts to you, read Hawking) Satan exists only to cause evil.

The conflict of these two forces, with infinite Good being only slightly greater than infinite Evil, causes the world we observe, in which Good just barely prevails (this statement, of course, being my opinion). Life exists and people can be happy to an extent, but that is always tempered by an ever-present entropy. At least it's not utter death, or non-existence.

Short answer: Even God can be betrayed. Really short answer: Satan, lolz.

Do we have free will? I believe yes. Earlier, I saw the opinion expressed that God is omnipotent and omnipesent, therefore this means he has already determined our actions. In other words, we are instead bound to fate, because our actions are predetermined by God. Instead, I propose that it is a "chicken and egg" scenario. Did you eat an apple because God predetermined that you would do so, or did God predict that you would eat an apple because you had already chosen to do it?

Can I prove that God exists? Yes, but only for myself. There was a time when I felt biologically compelled to die. Then, for an inexplicable reason, I felt suffused by a divine vigor, and now I desire only to live and encourage others to do the same. To me, God existing is as natural as breathing; I can feel a divine will, even now, pushing me to live. There's no question, for me, if God exists or not. However, for you, you only have my word, and the word of others. As a stranger, I'm not very trustworthy, nor reliable. Is the "God" I feel just an illusion created by my sentiment? By my biological drive to survive reasserting itself, as it rightfully should? Am I merely at the edge of madness? I feel confident that it is the divine that I feel, and I'm also confident of my sanity. Trust me if you like, or don't.

Getting back to the comment about logic and faith coexisting: Logic provides us with concrete, tangible relief from some problems which society. Where logic can provide no relief, where the solution seems impossible, faith is a good substitute. Faith is necessary, because it provides hope where none exists.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Blackbird

[Defeatist Elitist]

Getting back to the comment about logic and faith coexisting: Logic provides us with concrete, tangible relief from some problems which society. Where logic can provide no relief, where the solution seems impossible, faith is a good substitute. Faith is necessary, because it provides hope where none exists.

Incorrect. It provides hope for some people.

I do not have faith in anything, and I enjoy every moment of my life. Not everyone requires faith.

As for your arguments, let's break this down:

Why does God allow suffering? I personally feel that God wishes to prevent suffering, but is unable to. But wait! I just admitted God isn't omnipotent! Well, yes and no. I'll attempt to explain in a vaguely mathematical way.

First, we have a good force, called God. It's an infinitely powerful force, of the greatest scale possible, that seeks only to cause good.

Second, we have an evil force, called Satan. It's also an infinitely powerful force, but of a scale only slightly smaller than God. It is still infinite, but not as large an infinite as that of God. (If the concept of infinities of differing sizes sounds nuts to you, read Hawking) Satan exists only to cause evil.

The conflict of these two forces, with infinite Good being only slightly greater than infinite Evil, causes the world we observe, in which Good just barely prevails (this statement, of course, being my opinion). Life exists and people can be happy to an extent, but that is always tempered by an ever-present entropy. At least it's not utter death, or non-existence.

So you're saying God can't stop evil, because he KNOWINGLY CREATED a being who could STOP him from filling the world with good and niceness?

Also, lolmoralabsolutes.

Do we have free will? I believe yes. Earlier, I saw the opinion expressed that God is omnipotent and omnipesent, therefore this means he has already determined our actions. In other words, we are instead bound to fate, because our actions are predetermined by God. Instead, I propose that it is a "chicken and egg" scenario. Did you eat an apple because God predetermined that you would do so, or did God predict that you would eat an apple because you had already chosen to do it?

Except in reality we don't. Well, not really. What we do, what I am doing RIGHT NOW, is determined entirely by my biology, my experiences (physical and mental) up until this point, and my current environment.

Either way, the point remains, you MUST eat the apple. It is predetermined that you will. It doesn't matter if you've already made the choice, the point is that you cannot do anything else, therefore you do not have free will.

Also, evolution solves the whole "chicken and the egg" thing. The egg came first, since ProtoChicken34 laid a Chicken egg, from which came a Chicken. Iamsosmart!

Can I prove that God exists? Yes, but only for myself. There was a time when I felt biologically compelled to die. Then, for an inexplicable reason, I felt suffused by a divine vigor, and now I desire only to live and encourage others to do the same. To me, God existing is as natural as breathing; I can feel a divine will, even now, pushing me to live. There's no question, for me, if God exists or not. However, for you, you only have my word, and the word of others. As a stranger, I'm not very trustworthy, nor reliable. Is the "God" I feel just an illusion created by my sentiment? By my biological drive to survive reasserting itself, as it rightfully should? Am I merely at the edge of madness? I feel confident that it is the divine that I feel, and I'm also confident of my sanity. Trust me if you like, or don't.

See, that's not really proof. It's great for you and everything, but proof really has to be possible to share with anyone, otherwise it really is not trustworthy, and it is not reliable. It's not even really proof.

[Hero]

It's impossible to argue that God exists or does not exist, because the theological consensus among all Abrahamic religions since the era of the Prophets is that direct knowledge of God can only be through divine revelation as opposed to reason. If you haven't experienced any divine revelations, you have no way of knowing what the truth is. If you have, then God's existence is proven through the fact that you have.

Of course, it is possible to infer facts about God's nature based on revelations that have been written down or passed down orally using reason, if this wasn't possible thousands of theologians throughout history would never have found employment. But unless you are willing to have faith in God's existence and to accept the material you're working from as a divine revelation, no progress can be made. If people aren't willing to take this step, this topic will just keep moving in circles for a hundred more pages.

Now for the problem of evil.

The explanation for it that Blackbird offered, that suffering, or evil, exists because there is a force with the same power as God but the opposite effects doesn't really work within the boundaries of mainstream theology throughout all of monotheism. By mainstream theology here, I mean the ideas that God is omnipresent and omnipotent.

In order for two opposite entities to be omnipresent, they would need to coexist in the same space. This is impossible, just like how at the same point can't be both white and black at the same time or how a person can't be both alive and dead at the same time. Therefore, neither can be omnipresent.

Similarly, neither entity can be omnipotent, since as opposites each entity's power is canceled out by the other entities. They also must have equal power, since if they did not the stronger one would destroy the other.

In order to reasonably explain evil while maintaining that God is omnipresent and omnipotent, I only know of two options. Either evil is part of God's plan or created by God or evil is the result of God-given free will. The second option still works if God is all good, if the goodness of the creation of free outweighs any evils that result from that action. The first option doesn't work unless God is evil to some degree as well as good.

I hope my summary makes sense.

[Blackbird]

Incorrect. It provides hope for some people.

I do not have faith in anything, and I enjoy every moment of my life. Not everyone requires faith.

Yes, I apologize. You are correct there. Not everyone needs faith in the religious sense of the word. I got a little carried away there, and forgot to add that "some". Even still, I hope you have faith in something. If nothing else, at least believe in yourself, and in reason.

So you're saying God can't stop evil, because he KNOWINGLY CREATED a being who could STOP him from filling the world with good and niceness?

It makes the most sense to me, if you try to rationalize why a deity that is supposedly good would allow evil. Perhaps even he couldn't foresee that his own creations, which were intended to further his objectives, would instead turn against him and undo all of his efforts. It's unfortunately the best "hypothesis" I can come up with, for now.

See, that's not really proof. It's great for you and everything, but proof really has to be possible to share with anyone, otherwise it really is not trustworthy, and it is not reliable. It's not even really proof.

Well, let's switch directions. Rather than try to prove that God exists, I'll try to explain why some people feel the need to prove that God exists. Think of God just as an ideal. It is worth trying to prove that God exists, in the same way we'd like to prove that concepts like goodness, immortality, a utopian society, and free will can exist. Maybe these ideals are unobtainable, but the world would be a bit more grim if that were the case, so we want them to be true. It is hard enough to convince someone that a concept like altruism really exists, let alone that there is a being of pure good that exists in the universe.

Of course, some or all of these ideals might be realized without God. However, there is a camp of people that believes God is a necessary entity in order to achieve these ideals. For them, it is worthwhile to try to prove that God exists, so that these ideals can also exist, even if such a proof is unobtainable.

That's a more mainstream argument. As for me, I don't think it's worthwhile to prove that God exists to other people. I think it is more profitable for people to come to a personal conclusion regarding the existence of the divine, affirmative or negative. Faith isn't something you can instill in someone by coercing or goading them into it. That defeats the purpose of faith. You have to come by it honestly.

In order for two opposite entities to be omnipresent, they would need to coexist in the same space. This is impossible, just like how at the same point can't be both white and black at the same time or how a person can't be both alive and dead at the same time. Therefore, neither can be omnipresent.

Schrödinger wants a word with you ;). Jokes aside, I don't see why opposite forces can't exist simultaneously. We observe this all the time in nature. Life exists, despite the fact that everything seemingly tends toward entropy. It might not exist in the same location, but rather, it's a pervasive conflict which underlies reality.

They also must have equal power, since if they did not the stronger one would destroy the other.

I think the Christian supposition that Satan was not destroyed, merely defeated, is good evidence for closely matched powers. God might be stronger, but if they are close to evenly matched, perhaps it is simply taking a very long time to destroy Satan?

[Crystal Shards]

I think the Christian supposition that Satan was not destroyed, merely defeated, is good evidence for closely matched powers. God might be stronger, but if they are close to evenly matched, perhaps it is simply taking a very long time to destroy Satan?

Or maybe the Bible is just a text that's useful for anthropological reasons and nothing else.

[Hero]

Or maybe the Bible is just a text that's useful for anthropological reasons and nothing else.

I was just talking about the assumptions that you need to make in order to respectfully participate in a theological argument.

Read my last post.

[FionordeQuester]

TC, I don't know the exact answer to your questions. Only God knows. BUT, I CAN at least come up with a theory!

You see, God believes very much in free will. He loved Adam and Eve very much, and as a result, he didn't want to control their actions. To demonstrate his love for him, God made Adam and Eve the rulers of all his other creations and gave them the sole power to influence, changed, and tend to the world however they pleased. Any blessing that came their way would make it so that all creation under their rule was blessed as well.

Wasn't there a lot of danger in that though? Well, of course! God also knew that Adam and Eve, being nowhere near as intelligent or wise as he himself was, were completely incapable of acting in a way that was on every level, indisputably, and in every possible way completely free of blame and wrongdoing. So he made them free of the knowledge of good and evil and to compensate for that loss, gave them a MUCH easier way of remaining pure simply by using their free will to obey his one instruction to not eat from a certain tree. Here's where your questions come in I believe....

Why would God even allow them the freedom to destroy themselves by not following him?

I know free will may SEEM like a pretty weak argument at first, but think of this for a second, will you? Suppose a mom comes home and finds that her son has cleaned the whole house for her. Does that say anything about the goodness in his heart? Well, if he only did it because his mom or pops ordered him to, then heck no, of course it doesn't. He could be another Adolf Hitler for all anyone knows. But if he did it entire of his own free will, with no influence or encouragement from his mom to do so, then that's something that says something very special about the goodness of his heart.

The point is, doing good deeds must be followed by a sincere desire to BE good. In order for good to exist, we must do good things for the sake of being good. Since God himself is nothing but pure good, doing things for the sake of being good is literally the exact same thing as doing good things for the sake of God. So in order to be good, we must do things for the sake of good and God, and in order to do things for the sake of either of those things, we must have the free will in order for that to happen.

God himself proved this I think by making it so that all they had to do was follow his command. He made it much easier for Adam and Eve by making it so that they couldn't be faulted for anything but not following him.

Why didn't God protect his most beloved creations against Satan?

Well, I think God WAS protecting them...physically at least. As for why he didn't destroy Satan...well, I've thought long and hard on that, and here's what I got. At first, I thought that Satan was just a tool used by God to give Adam and Eve the chance to do the ultimate good by destroying Satan themselves. However, then I would've had to accept the fact that God intentionally created a creature that was doomed from the very start of its life to burn for all eternity in a lake of fire. Pretty harsh considering that it wouldn't have even been the creatures fault for being that bad, don't you think?

However, I still believed that God allowed Satan to exist because Adam and Eve were supposed to be the ones to destroy him. However, remember that Satan wasn't the only one to fall. He's simply the leader and champion of all the others who fell. So, since Adam and Eve were the tenders of the Earth, they were the ones who were responsible for keeping it pure and godly in what should've been a very simple process of simply following God despite the temptations....

....Unfortunately for us, Adam and Eve just had to make what should've been a very simple process a whole lot more complicated by disobeying God, eating the fruit, and gaining the knowledge that they weren't supposed to have.

So, now we have the knowledge that we weren't supposed to have and the lack of ability to use that knowledge well that God knew we would always suffer from. But that's not all. Now, thanks to the fact that they did not only that, but have ALSO tainted themselves by refusing to do the godliest thing of all, they and the entire world have already been twisted and cursed before they've even STARTED to try to be as absolutely perfect as they needed to be to survive.

So, now they've cursed themselves and their children to having to be perfect in every way while Satan was barring them every step of the way with the strongholds he has set up in every one of the childrens hearts. From then on, history goes on until Jesus steps in and relieves humanity of having to be perfect in absolutely every way by dieing for us.

So now with that impossible task out of the way, all that's left for us to do is follow God and dismantle whatever strongholds Satan has set up in our hearts. Whether or not every child is born at an immediate disadvantage because of what Adam and Eve did, I have no clue, but now we have something that Adam and Eve didn't, the ability to tell good from evil. Therefore, thanks to Jesus dieing for us, we now finally have the chance that all of Adam and Eves sons and daughters never had up until Jesus's death, being able to go to Heaven simply by using our free will to follow God.

And THAT is why God will not eliminate evil. It's up to us to use our free will to follow God. By doing so, good fills our beings and gives God the opportunity he wants to get rid of the evil within us. If he were to start eliminating evil right now, he would have to either kill us all or eliminate our free will by brainwashing us even though we hadn't chosen to follow him. By us asking him to cleanse us, he cleanses us in a way that still allows us to hold on to our free will.

But like I said, that's just a theory!

Edited October 14, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Shuuda]

Suppose a mom comes home and finds that her son has cleaned the whole house for her. Does that say anything about the goodness in his heart? Well, if he only did it because his mom or pops ordered him to, then heck no, of course it doesn't.

I hate to break it to you, but the heart is an organ used to pump blood around one's body; it cannot make decisions. Please avoid using such sappy things; this is the serious discussion area, not Disney Land.

But like I said, that's just a theory!

No it isn't. It's not even a hypothesis. You don't have a scrap of evidence for anything you have said, nor does it explain anything. Your post is nothing more than rampant, blind speculation. At the very best, your post is a regurgitation of something some other clod said.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Shuuda

[Hero]

A lot of text

Despite what Shuuda said, your argument makes sense, but you could certainly shorten and polish it a lot.

For the question of why God created free will, a more concise and traditional form of your argument would be that God created it because, in the end, more good than evil will result from it, or even that the act of creating free will is in itself a humongous moral good.

A kid cleaning his room is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of what's possible with free will, and sounds pretty cheesy. With arguments like this, you're best off avoiding making examples unless they're completely unambiguous and serious.

As for the question of why God doesn't protect creation against suffering, I think you meant to say in your answer that this does not happen because suffering is a result of free will, which was itself given by God.

You also talk a lot about the temptations that lead people to do evil. Personally, I don't like the way you used the term Satan. In the New Testament, Satan is identified as a synonym of the devil, which is identified as the serpent that seduced Eve. The term is used many times after this story, of course, but always either in reference to this event or as a metaphor for other temptations. I'd suggest entirely avoiding the word, or clarifying what it means when you use it. The idea of Satan and God being opposing forces is very romantic and has been repeated so much for a reason, but as I proved earlier can't be the case if God is truly omnipotent and omnipresent.

[FionordeQuester]

I hate to break it to you, but the heart is an organ used to pump blood around one's body; it cannot make decisions. Please avoid using such sappy things; this is the serious discussion area, not Disney Land.

...You knew what I meant when I said that, don't pretend you didn't. I'm not gonna be in a situation where I'll tell you to "use your head" just to have you turn around and say something to the effect of "hate to break it to you but I can't, my head has none of the brain cells needed to be efficiently applied to this situation. Only my brain can do that", am I? If not, then you knew what I was trying to say. Stop being sarcastic.

No it isn't. It's not even a hypothesis. You don't have a scrap of evidence for anything you have said, nor does it explain anything. Your post is nothing more than rampant, blind speculation. At the very best, your post is a regurgitation of something some other clod said.

According to dictionary.com.....

Hypthosesis (4)-A mere assumption or guess.

How is that not a hypothesis? And I do have evidence. I say that God put Adam and Eve in charge of creation, that's what the Bible says, I said that Satan was the leader and champion of the demons, it's heavily implied that he is in the Bible, etc.

And yes, the Bible is evidence in this scenario because we are not trying to decide whether or not God exists, we're trying to figure out why he acts the way he does if in fact he really did exist. That's what the TC wanted anyway.

No offense, but out of all of the things in my post that you chose to pick apart and argue, you chose some very....interesting parts to focus on. Really, out of everything I said, you chose "The heart does NOT have the power to make decisions" and "No, your theory doesn't really count as a theory"?

[FionordeQuester]

For the question of why God created free will, a more concise and traditional form of your argument would be that God created it because, in the end, more good than evil will result from it, or even that the act of creating free will is in itself a humongous moral good.

I wasn't thinking about nor do I care if it's "traditional", and I'm sorry if it wasn't very concise. I never was very good at condensing my arguments.

A kid cleaning his room is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of what's possible with free will, and sounds pretty cheesy. With arguments like this, you're best off avoiding making examples unless they're completely unambiguous and serious.

You weren't supposed to focus on the fact that he was cleaning his room though. The fact you were supposed to focus on was that he was doing an act of good entirely of his own free will for the mere sake of being a kind and generous person. That's an example of what it means to act righteously.

As for the question of why God doesn't protect creation against suffering, I think you meant to say in your answer that this does not happen because suffering is a result of free will, which was itself given by God.

Well, yeah, that's true to. I was more thinking about why he doesn't protect us against Satan, but your correct to. I think there are more reasons than that though, because often serving him involves doing things that you will suffer for. I think suffering is kind of a test of our character, something to remind us of how much we need God, something to teach us valuable life lessons, a necessary evil when serving him, and once it's over, proof that he'll never let us fall as long as we continue serving him.

You also talk a lot about the temptations that lead people to do evil. Personally, I don't like the way you used the term Satan. In the New Testament, Satan is identified as a synonym of the devil, which is identified as the serpent that seduced Eve. The term is used many times after this story, of course, but always either in reference to this event or as a metaphor for other temptations. I'd suggest entirely avoiding the word, or clarifying what it means when you use it. The idea of Satan and God being opposing forces is very romantic and has been repeated so much for a reason, but as I proved earlier can't be the case if God is truly omnipotent and omnipresent.

Should I say "the Devil" then? Am I wrong in referring to Satan as a person? How would you want me to rewrite it?

[Defeatist Elitist]

Incorrect. It provides hope for some people.

I do not have faith in anything, and I enjoy every moment of my life. Not everyone requires faith.

Yes, I apologize. You are correct there. Not everyone needs faith in the religious sense of the word. I got a little carried away there, and forgot to add that "some". Even still, I hope you have faith in something. If nothing else, at least believe in yourself, and in reason.

So you're saying God can't stop evil, because he KNOWINGLY CREATED a being who could STOP him from filling the world with good and niceness?

It makes the most sense to me, if you try to rationalize why a deity that is supposedly good would allow evil. Perhaps even he couldn't foresee that his own creations, which were intended to further his objectives, would instead turn against him and undo all of his efforts. It's unfortunately the best "hypothesis" I can come up with, for now.

See, that's not really proof. It's great for you and everything, but proof really has to be possible to share with anyone, otherwise it really is not trustworthy, and it is not reliable. It's not even really proof.

Well, let's switch directions. Rather than try to prove that God exists, I'll try to explain why some people feel the need to prove that God exists. Think of God just as an ideal. It is worth trying to prove that God exists, in the same way we'd like to prove that concepts like goodness, immortality, a utopian society, and free will can exist. Maybe these ideals are unobtainable, but the world would be a bit more grim if that were the case, so we want them to be true. It is hard enough to convince someone that a concept like altruism really exists, let alone that there is a being of pure good that exists in the universe.

I'll match your direction switch. It's not worth trying to prove that God exists, in the same way it's not worth it to prove that goodness, immortality, a utopian society and free will exist. Because they don't. Goodness, and morality in general are entirely subjective. Every single person will believe in a different version of them, and no-one is "right". Immortality is a physical impossibility, since if you live forever, you have an infinite amount of time to have something circumvent your immortality, so it is INEVITABLE that you would eventually die. A utopian society is also a rather subjective thing, what you consider a utopian society might not be what I do, or what someone else does. And I already addressed Free Will.

Of course, some or all of these ideals might be realized without God. However, there is a camp of people that believes God is a necessary entity in order to achieve these ideals. For them, it is worthwhile to try to prove that God exists, so that these ideals can also exist, even if such a proof is unobtainable.

That's a more mainstream argument. As for me, I don't think it's worthwhile to prove that God exists to other people. I think it is more profitable for people to come to a personal conclusion regarding the existence of the divine, affirmative or negative. Faith isn't something you can instill in someone by coercing or goading them into it. That defeats the purpose of faith. You have to come by it honestly.

Yeah, I don't have too much to say here.

In order for two opposite entities to be omnipresent, they would need to coexist in the same space. This is impossible, just like how at the same point can't be both white and black at the same time or how a person can't be both alive and dead at the same time. Therefore, neither can be omnipresent.

Schrödinger wants a word with you ;). Jokes aside, I don't see why opposite forces can't exist simultaneously. We observe this all the time in nature. Life exists, despite the fact that everything seemingly tends toward entropy. It might not exist in the same location, but rather, it's a pervasive conflict which underlies reality.

They also must have equal power, since if they did not the stronger one would destroy the other.

I think the Christian supposition that Satan was not destroyed, merely defeated, is good evidence for closely matched powers. God might be stronger, but if they are close to evenly matched, perhaps it is simply taking a very long time to destroy Satan?

The question remains though, why would God create someone who would become evil and fight him and whatnot? He's obviously not all powerful, and clearly not all knowing. I bet I could do a better job.

Also, how do I even know Satan is evil? For all I know, he could be a really cool guy! I only have God's word that he is evil, and God hasn't really proven himself to be all that reliable. Satan is also his main rival, why would he say good things about him? It's like if I go into a Best Western and ask them how good the Holiday Inn across the street is. In fact, God is kind of like a tyrant. He says "Do as I say or suffer forever!" From my perspective, Satan is more like a freedom fighter.

And besides, Satan likes drugs, rock and roll, premarital sex and all that stuff. He sounds like a pretty great guy to me!

[FionordeQuester]

The question remains though, why would God create someone who would become evil and fight him and whatnot? He's obviously not all powerful, and clearly not all knowing. I bet I could do a better job.

He wanted free will since nothing is really truly good unless its being good of its own volition. Unfortunately, this also opens up the possibility of something not being so good, so for God, the capacity for his creations to turn against him was a necessary evil to him (no pun intended) if he was to create ultimate goodness.

Also, how do I even know Satan is evil? For all I know, he could be a really cool guy! I only have God's word that he is evil, and God hasn't really proven himself to be all that reliable. Satan is also his main rival, why would he say good things about him? It's like if I go into a Best Western and ask them how good the Holiday Inn across the street is. In fact, God is kind of like a tyrant. He says "Do as I say or suffer forever!" From my perspective, Satan is more like a freedom fighter.

I guess your going to have to just completely ignore all of the wonderful advice written within the Psalms and those other things that start with a P then if you want to maintain that view. Say what you want about the evidence supporting Gods existence, but there's no arguing the fact that at least a good majority of the advice the Bible gives a person is sound and surprisingly relevant to even the people of today. I dare you to look at the Psalms and those other things that start with a P in the sections they are contained in and STILL be able to tell me that all that was written by a tyrant God.

And besides, Satan likes drugs, rock and roll, premarital sex and all that stuff. He sounds like a pretty great guy to me!

You mean the very substances that rots our minds, disables our brains ability to operate its fluids properly, and snares us in a downward cycle of addiction and inner decay? Yep, sounds like a straight up impeccable guy to me to!

Edited October 15, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Defeatist Elitist]

The question remains though, why would God create someone who would become evil and fight him and whatnot? He's obviously not all powerful, and clearly not all knowing. I bet I could do a better job.

He wanted free will since nothing is really truly good unless its being good of its own volition. Unfortunately, this also opens up the possibility of something not being so good, so for God, the capacity for his creations to turn against him was a necessary evil to him (no pun intended) if he was to create ultimate goodness.

Except if he was actually truly powerful he could give us free will without causing all this evil. That's what it means to be ALL POWERFUL

Also, how do I even know Satan is evil? For all I know, he could be a really cool guy! I only have God's word that he is evil, and God hasn't really proven himself to be all that reliable. Satan is also his main rival, why would he say good things about him? It's like if I go into a Best Western and ask them how good the Holiday Inn across the street is. In fact, God is kind of like a tyrant. He says "Do as I say or suffer forever!" From my perspective, Satan is more like a freedom fighter.

I guess your going to have to just completely ignore all of the wonderful advice written within the Psalms and those other things that start with a P then if you want to maintain that view. Say what you want about the evidence supporting Gods existence, but there's no arguing the fact that at least a good majority of the advice the Bible gives a person is sound and surprisingly relevant to even the people of today. I dare you to look at the Psalms and those other things that start with a P in the sections they are contained in and STILL be able to tell me that all that was written by a tyrant God.

First, I was joking. Second, what about all that stuff about killing gays and witches and disobedient children and whatnot? I dare you to look at those passages and STILL be able to tell me that it was all written by a benevolent God. Oh, and all that death and destruction and misery. And that's just getting started.

Also, it doesn't actually matter whether what he said was good and nice or not, he's still a tyrant. He has all the power, and he is telling us that if we don't obey him, he will make us suffer for all eternity. We have no democratic option. We have no power. We either obey his silly rules, whether they're good or bad, or we suffer for all eternity.

And besides, Satan likes drugs, rock and roll, premarital sex and all that stuff. He sounds like a pretty great guy to me!

You mean the very substances that rots our minds, disables our brains ability to operate its fluids properly, and snares us in a downward cycle of addiction and inner decay? Yep, sounds like a straight up impeccable guy to me to!

Dude. Dude. You really don't know much about drugs, do you? I mean like, seriously. There are a lot of drugs that do nothing of the sort to you.

This is pretty much a pointless argument though, because, as said a billion times in this thread, there is no evidence to suggest that God exists.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Fia 

[Shuuda]

...You knew what I meant when I said that, don't pretend you didn't. I'm not gonna be in a situation where I'll tell you to "use your head" just to have you turn around and say something to the effect of "hate to break it to you but I can't, my head has none of the brain cells needed to be efficiently applied to this situation. Only my brain can do that", am I? If not, then you knew what I was trying to say. Stop being sarcastic.

I was not being sarcastic. "The goodness of the heart" is a sappy thought that belong in bad fiction. This might be a good place to start reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

Try developing your understanding of humans beyond the "humans have free will" regurgitation.

How is that not a hypothesis? And I do have evidence. I say that God put Adam and Eve in charge of creation, that's what the Bible says, I said that Satan was the leader and champion of the demons, it's heavily implied that he is in the Bible, etc.

The Bible is not evidence.

"No, your theory doesn't really count as a theory"?

A theory requires verifiable facts. How do you know that the Bible of today properly reflects what the original human author wrote? It has been edited many times after all, for political and propaganda reasons. Unless you are prepared to find a much earlier copy (preferably in the original language it was written in), you will have a hard time trying to theorise on what the author wanted to say.

I dare you to look at the Psalms and those other things that start with a P in the sections they are contained in and STILL be able to tell me that all that was written by a tyrant God.

It was not written by God, nothing in the Bible was written by God. It was written by men with an agenda.

I cannot really be bothered to go on. This argument has the same value to me as using Harry Potter to see what facts we can find about wizards.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Shuuda

[FionordeQuester]

I was not being sarcastic. "The goodness of the heart" is a sappy thought that belong in bad fiction. This might be a good place to start reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

Ugh, alright, apparently you don't get it, so let me explain. "Goodness of the heart" is simply a metaphor used as another way of saying how much goodness ones ways contain. It's a lot like the expression "bullshit". Even though all it is is a bulls poop according to the literal definition, it's more often used as something to describe a situation, action, or decision that is completely illogical, out of touch with reality, and quite often undeserved. That's the same kind of metaphorical definition that "goodness of the heart" is.

...I'm sorry if you read this and become enraged, but you clearly didn't even know what I meant when I said "goodness of the heart". Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Try developing your understanding of humans beyond the "humans have free will" regurgitation.

Actually, I think I understand them quite well, and that you simply don't know anything about me outside of the fact that I believe in Christianity. If you think this makes me seem like an idiot, well, too bad.

The Bible is not evidence.

Not for proving that God exists, no. But it is evidence to be used for supporting your opinion of why you think God does this or acts that way.

It was not written by God, nothing in the Bible was written by God. It was written by men with an agenda.

Ok fine, so technically it was written by men. God still was in control about what was written about him. Besides, how would you know whether or not the men were "pushing an agenda" in the negative light?

I cannot really be bothered to go on. This argument has the same value to me as using Harry Potter to see what facts we can find about wizards.

Ok.

Except if he was actually truly powerful he could give us free will without causing all this evil. That's what it means to be ALL POWERFUL

Ok fine, maybe, just maybe, there's a minor, insignificant check to his power. Or maybe there's a good reason he doesn't just warp reality somehow. Either way, he's still in complete control of just about everything.

First, I was joking.

That's why I gave a sarcastic reply instead of a straight one.

Second, what about all that stuff about killing gays and witches and disobedient children and whatnot? I dare you to look at those passages and STILL be able to tell me that it was all written by a benevolent God. Oh, and all that death and destruction and misery. And that's just getting started.

About the Witches? That's an easy one I think, I think it was mentioned somewhere that their power was demonic somehow, as in inspired by Satan.

About the Gays? Where the heck does it say that people should be killed just because they're gay? The only thing it says about gayness is that just happened to be one of the qualities that the worst of the worst usually had. Even then, Gods reason for being mad was that they were "worshipping the creation instead of the creator". I think he was mad not because of the mere fact that they were gay, but because the gay men knew that having sex with each other was the equivalent of giving God the middle finger (since he intended sex to be between a man and a woman). God doesn't hate gays, he hates the act of men having sex with other men.

About the disobedient children? Interesting you should bring that up actually, because I know the answer to that. According to my dad, the Hebrew scriptures claim that even though God said this, not one of his people ever once literally killed their son or daughter for being disobedient. God never had a problem with that either, because what he said wasn't even meant to be taken literally. It was just supposed to mean that God looked upon disobedient sons and daughters with extreme disfavor.

Remember the quote "If your right eye sins against you, gouge it out. If your right hand sins against you, cut it off"? That didn't literally mean to actually dismember your limbs at the first sign of them doing something sinful, that's just supposed to mean that God looked upon people who didn't try their hardest to not sin with extrem disfavor.

So yes, I still believe that my god is still a benevolent god.

Also, it doesn't actually matter whether what he said was good and nice or not, he's still a tyrant.

Um, yes it does. If the stuff he said was bad and mean, he would be an evil dictator who just wants to make us suffer. This way, at the very worst, he's a guy who, although his heart is in the right place, is also a guy whose overbearing, baised, jealous, and maybe slightly insecure (although that's definetly a stretch).

No, I do not believe that he is any of the negative qualities I just listed off, I'm just saying, I have a hard time believing that even his worst critics could think any more negatively of him than that without being ignorant to what most of the Bible says, and/or just being flat out ignorant.

He has all the power, and he is telling us that if we don't obey him, he will make us suffer for all eternity. We have no democratic option. We have no power. We either obey his silly rules, whether they're good or bad, or we suffer for all eternity.

Well of course. According to him, he himself is pure goodness, so by not following him, we're also choosing not to follow the path of pure goodness. And how is suffering for all eternity for not serving him an example of us not having any choice? It's still having a choice if we're even capable of choosing eternal suffering rather than him. It's like I always say about our country, you have the freedom to do whatever you want, and you also have the freedom to suffer the consequences of your decision.

Dude. Dude. You really don't know much about drugs, do you? I mean like, seriously. There are a lot of drugs that do nothing of the sort to you.

Sheesh, give me some benefit of the doubt, will you? And if that's what you meant when you said that Satan endorsed drugs, those harmless pills that help you, then I'm sorry. I didn't know.

This is pretty much a pointless argument though, because, as said a billion times in this thread, there is no evidence to suggest that God exists.

Actually there is some slight evidence. I've actually read a nonfiction story about an African prophet being visited by God in a dream, and being warned that evil invaders from afar would take and steal everything from them and also said something to the effect of "snakes made out of iron will cover your land"

Surely enough, a bunch of Europeans started coming to Africa, started stealing everything from them, and covered their lands with trains.

Point being, a prophet and other witnesses said that the prophet had a vision of God warning him, and everything God warned him about came true. You can choose to believe it, or not believe it, but I choose to believe it. Like I said, slight evidence.

But even if you don't believe it, there still isn't any evidence to contradict Gods existence either.

Edited October 16, 2009 by FionordeQuester

[Esau of Isaac]

Ok fine, so technically it was written by men. God still was in control about what was written about him. Besides, how would you know whether or not the men were "pushing an agenda" in the negative light?

Prove that any real divine being had an actual say in what was written, relative to any other "holy texts" across the world, including the Koran and the Talmud.

Ok fine, maybe, just maybe, there's a minor, insignificant check to his power. Or maybe there's a good reason he doesn't just warp reality somehow. Either way, he's still in complete control of just about everything.

Then God is not omnipotent, and one more quality of it becomes senseless.

If God cannot change reality to suit its whims, how did it possess the ability to put together reality as it is today?

About the Witches? That's an easy one I think, I think it was mentioned somewhere that their power was demonic somehow, as in inspired by Satan.

But they weren't, and as a result thousands of innocent men and women were murdered because of fundamentalist beliefs.

About the Gays? Where the heck does it say that people should be killed just because they're gay? The only thing it says about gayness is that just happened to be one of the qualities that the worst of the worst usually had. Even then, Gods reason for being mad was that they were "worshipping the creation instead of the creator". I think he was mad not because of the mere fact that they were gay, but because the gay men knew that having sex with each other was the equivalent of giving God the middle finger (since he intended sex to be between a man and a woman). God doesn't hate gays, he hates the act of men having sex with other men.

Are you fucking joking? The main passage that supports the death of homosexuals is one of the most well-known passages in the entire Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

About the disobedient children? Interesting you should bring that up actually, because I know the answer to that. According to my dad, the Hebrew scriptures claim that even though God said this, not one of his people ever once literally killed their son or daughter for being disobedient. God never had a problem with that either, because what he said wasn't even meant to be taken literally. It was just supposed to mean that God looked upon disobedient sons and daughters with extreme disfavor.

I highly doubt that no children ever died as a result of the Scriptures stating it was best to stone them to death; and the fact of the matter is that God stated it was good to do such a thing. If it was supposed to mean that God didn't like bad children, it wouldn't have explicitly said it's alright to kill them.

Remember the quote "If your right eye sins against you, gouge it out. If your right hand sins against you, cut it off"? That didn't literally mean to actually dismember your limbs at the first sign of them doing something sinful, that's just supposed to mean that God looked upon people who didn't try their hardest to not sin with extrem disfavor.

Alright, let's apply this elsewhere; I think that God, which is stated to exist explicitly, is just a metaphor of the Bible.; what do you think?

So yes, I still believe that my god is still a benevolent god.

Then you're fucking blind.

[FionordeQuester]

Are you fucking joking? The main passage that supports the death of homosexuals is one of the most well-known passages in the entire Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

I have to go to bed soon, so I don't have time to respond to all of your arguments, but I just HAD to deconstruct this particular one. I bolded this specific part of the sentence, because I don't know if you realize it or not, but you just proved that I was completely in the right! Because you know what? God isn't even SAYING that being gay is a sin at all! He's saying that a man sleeping with another man is a sin regardless of whether or not someone is gay according to this passage!

So....thanks! Now I know for a fact that God only hates gay men having sex, and not gay men themselves.