Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[BradCube]

However, skepticism and Ockham's razor force me to reject the possibility that our intuitions/emotions pick out objective moral properties/facts.

Sorry to cut out everything else you had said so far but I wanted to bring up Ockham's Razor as I have been giving it a bit of thought recently. My problem lies in that it seems to stop research into areas that aren't fully explored or explained. It does this on the basis that it assumes that the simplest answer must be the best answer. Surely though the simplest answer is not always the best answer. This is especially the case in areas that aren't completely known about or proven.

Indeed, area's such as morality and freewill/dualism I find don't see as explained or explored without doubt. In this was I find it quite hard to see how Ockham's Razor can be used with such confidence.

 

[KFunk]

A couple things word keeping in mind when consider Ockham's Razor (much the same goes for the principle of parsimony):

• Its aim is not to prevent inquiry into a certain hypothesis. All it does is arbitrate on the facts as they stand. In other words, if we take a given state of human knowledge, Ockham's razor is a tool used to help us choose between competing hypotheses (i.e. competing theories aiming to explain the same phenomenon). It should not be taken to discourage research or inquiry into hypotheses which are unsupportable at present - science would grind to a halt if this were the case.
  
• The reasoning behind Ockham's razor does not entail that the simplest answer is the best answer. Rather, it calls for the simplest necessary hypothesis (there is an important difference here). Thus you could have to hypotheses A and B where A is simpler but lacks features (possessed by B) which are necessary to explain the phenomenon in question. Hence, even though A is simpler than B it is nonetheless rejected.

Let me give you an example of how Ockham's razor is applied to hypotheses which are competing to explain a phenomenon.

Phenomenon: When a billiard ball in motion hits a second, stationary, billiard ball, the second billiard ball is set in motion (my apologies to the physicists if I don't phrase things quite right).

Hypothesis 1: The first billiard ball possesses a property which allows it to move. This property can be transfered to another billiard ball, thus setting it in motion. Let us call this property Kinetic Energy (note, the name is arbitrary... the important part is simply that we are positing 'stuff').

Hypothesis 2: Every billiard ball is connected to a demon entity. When a ball in motion collides with another ball, the demon associated with the moving ball argues with the second demon who then sets the second ball in motion.

Hypothesis 3: When the first billiard ball hits the second it releases invisible billiard balls which hit the second ball and set it in motion. Also, when the second ball is hit, it too releases invisible billiard balls which hit the first ball, slowing it down.

Hypothesis 4: A causal relation between the balls cannot be verified (see Hume for a skeptical argument to this end) so there must exist a god who destroys and remakes the world every instant in such a way as to make it seem as though the balls interact. Really all that happens is that we observe a series of god-created instants.

Ok, so how do we choose between these options? It is important to note that, the way I have constructed things, it is very possible that hypotheses 2 - 4 contain elements which may well be unverifiable (demons, invisible balls, god) and so it is possible that no empirical evidence could ever support them. Does this mean they are wrong? No, of course not. Are we not then justified in believing any one of them? No, and Ockham's Razor claims as much.

It is far too easy to create variations on any given hypothesis. In fact, an infinite number of variations can be provided in (I expect) every singl case. But how on earth can we choose amongst so many competing theories when we have such a massive swarm to choose from?? We select the simplest theory which can explain the phenomenon in question. Of course, other factors are in play, e.g. we have a whole history of scientific/mathematical/logical knowledge to fit into and so we also look for theories which cohere with others that have been tested and accepted (other considerations may come into play, but it is late and I am about done with thinking for the night). Nonetheless, if a theory contains an element which a) is not needed for coherence with other theories and b) is not a necessary component of an explanation of the phenomenon in question then we reject that element. If we don't accept this principle then we are plagued by arbitrariness and the infinitude of alternative hypotheses.

It is important to realise that Ockham's Razor is not about what is true, but is about what we are justified in believing is true. It does not say that all the other hypotheses are wrong. Indeed one of them may, in fact, be right! Nonetheless, unless they can garner acceptable empirical (or logical) support which makes them essential in our explanation, or scientific coherence, we cannot be (epistemically) justified in accepting them.

 

[KFunk]

Meme theory has certainly received some criticism but I think that at least some of this criticism is unwarranted. When looked at in a certain way evolution is simply a process which occurs within a system which can be mapped onto a certain mathematical structure. What is this structure? What we need [from Dennett (1991)] is:

(1) Variation (elements which vary with respect to one or more parameters)
(2) Heredity or replication
(3) Variable fitness (i.e. the features of an element interact with its environment to dictate how well it can replicate or be inherited)

An example I used in another thread was the 'fishing method' meme. Within a local region in the midwest of the USA we might have two competing fishing method memes: Uncle Joe's fishing method, and Cousin Betty's fishing method. Firstly, they are different from one another so we have variation (e.g. one might use worms while the other uses bugs, and one might use a pole while the other uses a hand reel). The methods have the property of heritability/replicability in that they can be, and are, taught to other people who can continue to use / pass on these fishing method memes. We also have variable fitness since one of the memes may turn out to be more successful in its environment due to its being better for catching fish or perhaps one of the methods may simply be more enjoyable (Uncle Joe's method may involve bringing along a couple friends and an ice cooler full of canned beer).

Thus, in such an environment the more popular meme will live on and spread. There may also be alterations to a given meme in local regions which increase/decrease its 'fitness' in that area (e.g. an area may lack the bait used in a certain fishing method, and so may substitute in something else more suited to the local area). Of course, the situation is extremely complicated because it involves interactions with human society (thus memes interact heavily with other memes, generating convoluted meme structures) and technology (think how fast memes can spread with the advent of the internet! In fact, it is happening right now).

Two succesful meme types to ponder:

• Fads such as the yo-yo. They spread like wildfire and while later on they don't persist with their initial intensity they nonetheless provide an interesting model of meme spread.
• Conspiracy theories. These memes have the curious property of being resilient to competing facts in that they assert that all competing facts are part of some sort of coverup or trickery (compare the similarity of faith which discourages rational criticism of itself and chain emails with threaten dire consequences if they are broken).

 

[BradCube]

I'll try to find time (either tonight or in the next few days) to remake my case against free will. Are there any particular points of yours that you would like addressed (for the sake of economy)?

Thinking back on what we've addressed, I don't know that I even raised that many points! I suppose definitely address the intuition that "I could have done otherwise", the ability to do irrational things and how free will does not fit in with current scientific findings.

On the question: could the will be free on the basis that provided with enough reason and convincing, it can carry through any action? If you wanted to define 'free will' that way, sure. I don't, however, think it entails the 'truly free' model where given any time 't' it was possible for you to perform an action other than what you actually performed at time 't' (i.e. the notion that you 'could have done otherwise').

True, such a will in this case is not very free at all. It does however point out that the will is separate from the reasoning process doesn't it?

On dualism: Yeah, you're right that there is a relation here. Funnily enough it actually has to do with your other question regarding consistency with scientific theories. The general idea is that if you have a truly free will which isn't determined then it has to somehow be causally isolated from the physical world (which science views as being a deterministic system - ignoring quantum mechanics, of course, which could potentially offer a mechanism for randomness). So, since the physical world is essentially deterministic and a free will isn't you can't identify the free will with an aspect of the natural world, forcing you to invoke some kind of substance/property dualism. Standard scientific method is typically skeptical of any move to invoke dualism (particularly given respect for the principle of parsimony - which is often used in the form of Ockham's Razor). It is important to note, however, that this is not a argument showing dualism to be possible or false. Rather, it is a guide for intellectual conduct which says that if we are to accept dualism we better have a damned good reason! I am actually reading a book at the moment (Chalmers' The Conscious Mind) which defends a form of property dualism. I am open to the general idea and do not rule it out categorically however my feeling is that the present balance of evidence is against dualism.

Seems like dualism could be a very important issue to look at. If dualism could be shown to have some form of credibility then it would open up the thought that free will is a perfectly reasonable concept.

In this vain I thought I would throw some criticisms (against the physicalist position) up here that came from a book I have been reading. Not sure if I agree with all of them (indeed some seem ridiculous enough that I have left them out entirely) but I thought it would be worth hearing other opinions. The book is called "The Case for a Creator" and is written by Lee Strobel. Its more a collection of interviews from professionals in their relevant fields. The person interviewed in this case is J.P. Moreland.

1. If dualism is false then consciousness does not exist, because there would be no such things as conscious states that must be described from a first person-person point of view.

2. If dualism is false, free will cannot exist since every action is a chemical response (as we have discussed already)

3. If dualism is false there could be no disembodied intermediate state. Ie when people are pronounced clinically dead but have a vantage point from above. What explanation to we provide to people who claim to have experienced this?

4. If Dualism is false how do we explain cases where patients brains where electrically stimulated, causing physical movement, yet they deny that they caused the movement? How can it be involuntary if both the consciousness and control of the body originate from the brain?

5. This next point I will quote because I don't think I really understand it:

On the the points that positively affirm dualism:

"There are valid philosophical arguments as well"..."For instance, I know that consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon because there are things that are true of my consciousness that aren't true of anything physical"..."For example, some of my thoughts have the attribute of being true. Tragically, some of my thoughtst have the attribute of being false - like the Chicago Bears are going to the SuperBowl"..."However, none of my brain states are true or false. No scientist can look at the state of my brain and say "Oh, that particular brain state is true and that one's false." So there's something true about my conscious states that are not true of any of my brain states, and consequently they can't be the same thing."

6. Don't know if this next point really proves anything at all, but I will leave it in case someone else understands the point better than I:

Since the consciousness is inner and private, a scientist has no way to study it. A scientist may know more about what is happening in the brain but not in the mind.
Hence I think the conclusion was that they must be separate?


I think that sums up for the most part the arguments that were put forward regarding consciousness (although there are some more interesting arguments later on regarding the origins of intellect and consciousness)

Also would like to apologize for all of the posts I have not replied to yet. I will get to them (I haven't ignored your lengthy response veloc1ty ). This stuff is pretty full on for me, and I need a bit of time to digest it all. With that I am retiring for the night to spend some time with my brother I should get some questions answered tomorrow.

 

[BradCube]

1. On what grounds do you have to judge God perfectly good, if he allows evil for reasons unknown to you? To be consistent, if you do not understand his motives or reasons, you don't actually know whether he is good or evil.
2. If there is a purpose behind the evil, why do people attempt to prevent it? If you've ever given money to the poor, or helped someone in some way, how do you know you aren't circumventing the suffering God has alloted them for a greater purpose?
3. Assuming God is omnipotent, it is entirely possible that he has the power to do whatever he wants achieved without unnecessary suffering of any kind.

1. This question had me stumped for a while. The answer I came to is that I agree with the conclusion you have made - I cannot actually prove that he is perfectly good. However, this is separate from the question we are currently addressing. We know that we will never be able to prove such a thing, because we would need the same knowledge as that God to do so (plus we would need to be able to prove that he existed in the first place). What we are currently assessing is whether a perfectly good God can have sufficient reasons to allow suffering. This first makes the assumption that God is perfectly good and tests whether it can hold up.

2. If God is all knowing than His purpose for allowing suffering could include those that try to prevent it.

3. This point makes the assumption again that suffering of any sort is evil - which we do not know. An omnipotent God may also know that His purpose may be better achieved in a world with suffering. Thirdly, if God has allowed free will then he has also allowed the ability for suffering to occur. If he gave people free will yet limited them in what things they could choose to do (ie causing suffering) - it wouldn't be very free at all.

1. Why don't people suffer equally?
2. Why do people have to suffer to gain knowledge of God? Why not learn some other way, or better yet, create beings who are already perfect and connected to God?

1. Whilst I would be very interested in seeing you try to undertake the proof of all people's degrees of suffering and how they are different, I will pass since essentially, I agree with you. However, I don't see any reason to think that different degrees of suffering is any less proof of God. All people are different, hence different levels of suffering will impact all people differently.

2. I would put forward the idea that without any form of suffering or sacrifice, it is impossible to be in a truly loving relationship. A relationship where one party only has thankfulness for the other is hardly love at all. Suffering also in this vain allows God to demonstrate His love for us (through death on a cross).

What about people born into suffering or away from God (atheist parents or a different religion)? Again, I don't see why some should suffer more than others in the same position of rebellion/knowledge of God if it can be prevented.

I'm confused by your point here. How do atheists suffer more than others in the same position of rebellion? How does being an atheist or someone from any other religion have any bearing on the degree of suffering?

Again, with free will being thrust into existence by God, the ability to choose to implement suffering or whatever is imminent.

No, this simply doesn't make sense at all. If I saw a person dying on the sidewalk, what would you think of me if I said "don't worry, I will come back to help tomorrow, and I will reward you for your patience"?

Well if you were God I would think you were perfectly justified in having that position since you would know all that would happen between that point and coming back tomorrow. I would think that you would therefore have reason for waiting.

Comparing what you would do with your limited knowledge to what God would do is always a difficult topic to address since we do not have the same knowledge of God.

I won't say anything to this, except that it's not much of an argument when presented to someone who doubts the existence of a god, much less the possibility of a relationship with him.

No of course its not. But that's not what we are addressing. We are looking at possible reasons God may have for allowing suffering - not whether he exists. What we are showing is that there is not a valid reason to think that the existence of suffering disqualifies the existence of God.

Those are particularly debatable, but it doesn't matter because it dances around the problem of evil. You're trying to offer more "proof" of a god while not fully addressing at least one blaring problem of the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good God.

The reason that this point is brought up is not to dance around the issue of evil - it was addressed in the previous points. The reason it is brought up is to show that there may be conflicting evidence when we disqualify the existence of God. What to we make of these other points then if there is no God? Clearly these issues must be addressed once we are done with the current debates.

Well, you got it right the first time but a quick question on this point: how does this explain evils such as natural disasters which kill and harm thousands?

Okay we will address this now but you must realize that we are dealing with a separate issue than that of what I originally quoted. I was addressing how evil could exist with a perfectly good God, not how suffering could exist. Your response has taken us back to the suffering issue. You have to show that suffering in all cases is evil to maintain that this is a logical progression - something I don't think you would agree with.

However, on to your point: What do we say about the suffering caused by natural disasters. There are two responses to the reasons for this:

1. God's Judgment upon humanity, ie Noah's flood
2. The fact that we live in a a sinful, broken world (according to the bible) means that it would be operating outside of what would be optimal - Natural disasters are caused by nature.

We know that the bible teaches that at least (1) is true. My personal opinion, is that both (1) and (2) occur.

Ah, ok. I see what you mean, but I don't see your point. Rape, adultery and pedophilia have no (evolutionary) purpose and simply cause unnecessary harm. What sane person wouldn't see that as wrong? I don't think you really need an objective standard to figure out those acts are immoral.

You will have to point out why these acts are harmful to keep this line of reasoning. Not only that, you would have to show that the reasons they are seen as harmful go beyond them feeling "bad" or "wrong" since the existence of these feelings towards these acts is exactly what we are debating.

Why should the male be the dominant one ("leader")?

Why not? Your sentiment seems to suggest that you feel that leadership is better or somehow superior to those being lead.

Furthermore, I quote from a link you provided:

They clearly admit here that by today's standards it is sexist (the first sentence also shows that the Bible simply reflects values of the time). Furthermore, apparently the reason we think it's sexist is because we're so sinful nowadays.

You may want to take a read of that section you had quoted again. I don't think it said any such thing although the way in which it was worded did seem slightly confusing.

I felt it said that societies roles for women in the the early periods of the bible would be regarded as sexist today (as I and practically everyone I know today would maintain). Then it went on to describe how this inequality in the standing of men and women is a result of sin throughout history. Therefore the practice of sexism or being sexist is a result of sin in mankind.

To clarify; I don't find an external source of morality necessary to have morality, but this just asserts what I said before. The problem you find is that any other morality other than the objective is not meaningful. Is this meaning necessary? Why can't ethics be a construct we derive?

Agreed, we have discussed that morals without true meaning can exist in society (this is the position that Kfunk and 3unitz maintain). The difference I find is that most people when they talk about right or wrong believe that they have said something that bears real meaning and truth - we know however, that with morals such as you propose, this could never be the case.

But why do you wish to please God?

Using my example from before, asking me such a question is akin to asking me why I wish to please my wife or girlfriend. I wish to please God because I want to maintain a healthy and loving relationship with Him.

 

[BradCube]

proverbs 3:27 "do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act." god is a hypocrite?

Like I said in my original quote, if God had not helped the person dying on the street then there must have been sufficient reason. To not not allow that sufficient reason carry through God would be denying that person the greater good.

if god knows exactly what will happen in life including if we're going to choose to reject him or not. what then is the purpose of life on earth?

Although this is going to be different on who you talk to - Christian doctrine teaches that purpose of life is different for every person and is set out by God. Of course, with free will, people have the choice of following this purpose or not. Is this what you are getting at? Possibly you are asking why life exists at all?

The overbearing answer I have found through Christian teaching at least is the purpose of God creating life is to demonstrate his glory. I fully admit this is a difficult position to maintain (although I suppose the reasons for this are more emotional than intellectual).

what would be the point of free-will?

To provide the opportunity for true love to exist (since we have the choice). Free will also allows us to know that we made the choice to turn toward or away (implicates responsibility)

how would god know you wont choose to kill yourself and go to hell within that time?

You may very well choose to kill yourself - thats the point of free will. God would also know that you made that choice and would know that you were going to make that choice. This does not change the fact that you were the one who made the choice however.

god made a covenant with noah and his descendants to not wipe us out in floods anymore (gen 9:11). why just floods? why say "im not going to wipe life out in floods... *mumbles* maybe through fires and tsunamis though"? (tsunamis arent the same "flood type" mentioned in the bible)
if you use the argument that god meant "all life" (as said in the bible), then youre implying that noahs flood was also "all life" and wasnt local (ie. covered the whole earth). i would think if we look at the implications of a whole earth flood (eg. spread of species), you would be strongly contradicted by scientific evidence.

The flood could have been universal in effect (wiping out all human life) and still been local. For a more detailed explanation have a look here.

if god told you its in his unchanged will (and why question his will?) for you to go to hell. would you still want to please him with your remaining time on earth?

As you said his will is unchanged and this means it cannot be changed to something outside of his will (like a wanting people to go to hell). It is on those ground that this question is invalid. You are supposing that a Gods unchangeable will is different from what it is.

if you say my question is invalid because then god would not be just or everything he says he is... how do you justify his commandments of murder in some stories of the old testament which also go against his own good nature and commandments?

Difficult topic. Most common explanation is that God is against killing and not murder. Murder being "the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice". God commanding the death of people does not fit into this definition since there is always sufficient reason behind these actions or commands. Extra reading can be found here.

 

[KFunk]

True, such a will in this case is not very free at all. It does however point out that the will is separate from the reasoning process doesn't it?

Maybe, maybe not. If the will is the end product of reasoning then you could feasibly include it in the 'reasoning process'. Really this seems like an arbitrary case of labelling to me and so I'm not sure whether it matters.

1. If dualism is false then consciousness does not exist, because there would be no such things as conscious states that must be described from a first person-person point of view.

2. If dualism is false, free will cannot exist since every action is a chemical response (as we have discussed already)

3. If dualism is false there could be no disembodied intermediate state. Ie when people are pronounced clinically dead but have a vantage point from above. What explanation to we provide to people who claim to have experienced this?

4. If Dualism is false how do we explain cases where patients brains where electrically stimulated, causing physical movement, yet they deny that they caused the movement? How can it be involuntary if both the consciousness and control of the body originate from the brain?

5. This next point I will quote because I don't think I really understand it:

On the the points that positively affirm dualism:
6. Don't know if this next point really proves anything at all, but I will leave it in case someone else understands the point better than I:

Since the consciousness is inner and private, a scientist has no way to study it. A scientist may know more about what is happening in the brain but not in the mind.
Hence I think the conclusion was that they must be separate?

Replies to these points on dualism/consciousness:

(1) I'll address this in point six because they are saying something quite similar.

(2) I agree, provided we ignore the possibility of random quantum effects. But, as you know, I am not troubled by this point which is really just a rhetorical one aiming to bait those who value free will. It doesn't amount to much unless a strong independent case can be made for the existence of a truly free will...

(3) I disagree. Firstly, there are a lot of issues with reports of near death experiences. Secondly, there is no reason to think that a naturalistic explanation can't be provided. Neuroscience has managed to find, in the brain, seats of emotional experiences such as anxiety and transcendental religious experience. It is not implausible to think that neurobiological and social factors could explain near death (or out of body) experiences - e.g. people having these experiences often report some degree of euphoria, but note that this can be caused by oxygen starvation (the same minor 'high' which leads some children/adolescents to play 'choking games'). Also near death/out of body experiences are inconsistent in terms of mythology - e.g. some people encounter angels, some encounter elves, and some encounter a chimera. This suggests that such experiences are informed by contingent social factors, such as those which determine which mythological beings have pride of place in one's brain.

(4) Consciousness is likely associated with areas of the brain other than the motor cortex (many areas of the brain have been proposed as the 'seat of consciousness' but, to the best of my knowledge, the motor cortex is not one of them). Executive areas of the brain (where one might feasibly posit the seat of the 'will) send signals to motor areas of the brain which cause movement, sure. But motor regions can be stimulated independent of executive input, e.g. reflexes and ingrained behaviors, cases of brain damage and cases of direct stimulation. Nothing about direct stimulation of the brain causing movement makes dualism more likely. If anything, it creates problems for dualism because it shows that movement can be generated by purely physical input. This brings up the problem of interaction between the physical and the non-physical which may cause one to ask 'how can a supernatural substance interact with the physical? If it can interact doesn't that just make it part of the causal physical system?'

(5) That argument seems to rest on a question begging fallacy to me. To argue that no brain states can be true or false he has to first assume that belief states cannot be identified with brain states. So the argument follows:

Belief (or similar) states cannot be identified with brain states --- therefore ---> there is something true of my beliefs (or similar states) which is not true of brain states (i.e. that they can contain propositional content which can be true/false in the relevant sense) --- therefore ---> Belief (or similar) states cannot be identified with brain states.

Bad argument.


(6) Both points one and six run with this idea, which interests me a great deal, that conscious experiences are private and first-person. The argument then goes that naturalistic science speaks solely in third-person, descriptive terms and so is not suited to an explanation of consciousness. Understandably we see our experiences as private events which we alone have access to. However, if we were to establish that specific neural/physical events created certain phenomenal/conscious events that we would be in the position to say "oh, the phi-circuit is firing - the subject must be experiencing euphoria!". In such a case the experiences themselves are subjective in that they are had by an individual subject. However, knowledge of the content of the individual's experience may be accessible to third parties (e.g. via examination of a detailed brain scan) even if these parties are not themselves having the experience in question. Serious methodological issues arise out of this whole issue, but I wouldn't say that dualism is the obvious conclusion. Our intuitions regarding the mind can be very dangerous, because they so often turn out to be incorrect.

 

[sam04u]

Does God exist?

Yes.

 

[KFunk]

Top notch affirmation - but do you have any current arguments you'd care to share? (given that you have done as much in the past)

 

[sam04u]

Top notch affirmation - but do you have any current arguments you'd care to share? (given that you have done as much in the past)

Many times I'd argue, I don't know if it was to convince the person I was arguing with or myself. But I no longer require validation of Allah (Subhana W'talah)'s existence. Because now I know. I've experienced it.

I have no way to convince you I expereienced what I did, other than explain what I did and ask you to emulate it. Perhaps it will yield similar results. I foolishly attempted to communicate with Allah (Subhana W'talah) with absolute conviction, and only then after feeling Allah (Subhana W'talah)'s extreme power through an unrelenting light, which tore at the pit of my soul, like the amalgamation of every human being I've ever known's guilt and shame, did I come to realise that Allah (Subhana W'talah)'s existence is certain.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Many times I'd argue, I don't know if it was to convince the person I was arguing with or myself. But I no longer require validation of Allah (Subhana W'talah)'s existence. Because now I know. I've experienced it.

I have no way to convince you I expereienced what I did, other than explain what I did and ask you to emulate it. Perhaps it will yield similar results. I foolishly attempted to communicate with Allah (Subhana W'talah) with absolute conviction, and only then after feeling Allah (Subhana W'talah)'s extreme power through an unrelenting light, which tore at the pit of my soul, like the amalgamation of every human being I've ever known's guilt and shame, did I come to realise that Allah (Subhana W'talah)'s existence is certain.

beautiful. you have restored my faith in Allah.

 

[darkliight]

2. If there is a purpose behind the evil, why do people attempt to prevent it? If you've ever given money to the poor, or helped someone in some way, how do you know you aren't circumventing the suffering God has alloted them for a greater purpose?

2. If God is all knowing than His purpose for allowing suffering could include those that try to prevent it.

If that is true, you worship a seriously fucked up god.

 

[BradCube]

If that is true, you worship a seriously fucked up god.

I think you may have mis-understood my point. The point was not that God wants to prevent people from helping those that are in suffering. It was saying that God may have allowed them to stay in suffering knowing that a greater good could be achieved by allowing someone else to help them (or any variety on this). There seems to be an infinite number of possibilities of why God may withhold help from those suffering. That being the case, it is impossible for us to use this as a reason for why God doesn't exist.

 

[DownInFlames]

I think you may have mis-understood my point. The point was not that God wants to prevent people from helping those that are in suffering. It was saying that God may have allowed them to stay in suffering knowing that a greater good could be achieved by allowing someone else to help them (or any variety on this). There seems to be an infinite number of possibilities of why God may withhold help from those suffering. That being the case, it is impossible for us to use this as a reason for why God doesn't not exist.

Was this a typo or on purpose?

 

[quixote studios]

Was this a typo or on purpose?

ie That God allows suffering to exist cannot be used as evidence against his existence. lrn2english

 

[bubbly89]

ie That God allows suffering to exist cannot be used as evidence against his existence. lrn2english

To back this up, there is actually a section in the bible that addresses this- the book of Job

Very simplistically put there is this guy called Job, he's a loyal Christian, but then due a bet made by god with satan God screws with his life, throughout all of this Job still stays loyal (after being put through a lot of shit mind you...). At the end God is happy with Job but Job asks why he did it. God gets a bit hissy and tells him its not his place to know, and he ends with he will tell Job when Job becomes God. nice one God

God allows suffering to occur, but it is for a reason which we probably will never know, only to say that our suffering is not the result of our own actions ie karma.

 

[Rhanoct]

I'm right here.

sup?

 

[HalcyonSky]

so, in summary

1) God put Job through a life suffering because of an awesomely fun bet he made with Satan

2) He has no good reason for this, other than for the lulz and to win the prize.

3) He gets angry when people question his gambling habits

4) ?????

5) People actually believe in this god, and defend his maliciousness with the cliche'd trump card "God works in mysterious ways"

 

[quixote studios]

God allows suffering to occur, but it is for a reason which we probably will never know, only to say that our suffering is not the result of our own actions ie karma.

Ergo it is completely useless to speculate on God's intentions, motives, train of thought, etc. This is the crux of why I'm non-denominational. To lecture and dictate about morals, right and wrong, and God's intention for us on one hand and then defend with "we cannot know his intentions, for he is God and we are imperfect etc" is...well it says a lot about Faith in general. AND then to go on and attack evolutionists on trivial (and often incorrect) points...

 

[shut up]

so, in summary

1) God put Job through a life suffering because of an awesomely fun bet he made with Satan

2) He has no good reason for this, other than for the lulz and to win the prize.

3) He gets angry when people question his gambling habits

4) ?????

5) People actually believe in this god, and defend his maliciousness with the cliche'd trump card "God works in mysterious ways"

a lot depends on your perspective on suffering

typical wordly outlook ( put simplistically) is that suffering = Bad , and this is unconditional

HOWEVER what Job went through would have not only made him a better person but closer to God - its a basic tenet of most belief systems that through suffering - with the right mindset, of course - you mature, deepen and become closer to God

also - if you have any sort of spiritual life, you have an active relationship with God
You know Him, you love Him, and you do communicate with Him