Questions for God

[InChrist]

Then God made mistakes, because how can things a God wants not go the way he wanted it?

Many don't need commands, and just naturally empathetic. I suppose some need to follow rules how to be decent, or at least not cause others problems.

Yeah, God really needed to kill a guy so he can give himself permission to forgive sins? That makes sense. Like zero sense.

I don’t think God made mistakes. I think it is just very, very important to God that human beings have freewill and the ability to respond to Him freely, not forced or robotically. This involves the possibility that people would do things selfishly, hurt others, fight with others, incite wars, display greed, abuse the environment, etc. which is what we see occurring throughout history.

Obviously, people do need guidance and instruction. You may think you are so good and a lot of people may also think they are naturally good and decent because they don’t murder or do anything really bad or harmful…in their own opinion of themselves. But lying, or gossip, cheating someone, or insulting can be harmful to others.

The penalty of sin is death and it’s a good thing because God will not allow evil or sin to exist forever. It will be put to death and will not exist in the new heaven and earth. God didn’t “kill a guy”. God Himself paid for the sins of the world, something only God Himself could do.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Then God made mistakes, because how can things a God wants not go the way he wanted it?

According to the Bible, God also has regrets (Genesis 6:6-7; 1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10).

Many don't need commands, and just naturally empathetic. I suppose some need to follow rules how to be decent, or at least not cause others problems.

I believe that this is yet another reason for me to agree with Penn Jillette: "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?" And my answer is: I rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them, they would go on killing and raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine." I believe that he was correct and that I don't need to believe in God to be a moral person. I believe the same for other people as well.

Yeah, God really needed to kill a guy so he can give himself permission to forgive sins? That makes sense. Like zero sense.

I believe that it makes perfect sense when you read about Jesus in comparative mythology and see how the stories about him are strikingly similar to the stories of other demigods in Greek mythology who died and were resurrected from the dead to redeem mankind. There are similar stories relating to the life of Jesus and his savior story in both Greek mythology and other pagan religions that preceded the Bible and Christianity (see my previous post here).

 

[InChrist]

That is testifying, which is nothing more than preaching.

Lots of people “testify” or share their experiences around here. Check out post #405.

 

[ppp]

Lots of people “testify” or share their experiences around here. Check out post #405.

Testify. No scare quotes. And "someone else did it too" is callow.

 

[blü 2]

What is it you don’t understand about the concept of eternal LIFE; as in NOT dead?

How it could possibly be desirable, since there's no point or purpose to it.

 

[blü 2]

Snuggle up? I don't think God snuggles up with anyone.

If the present condition of the earth is any guide, yes, you're right on the money there.

 

[blü 2]

I have pointed out your non-physical parts

No part of me is non-physical and your assertions don't amount to pointing out to me anything different.

My brain functions, life support systems, everything about me, is the product of chemical and biochemical bioelectric phenomena. Nor have you demonstrated anything different.

God is objectively real.

That means God exists in reality, the world external to the self.

So some videos please.

I was taking actions before last Thursday. Check on some of my replies of the past. Check the dates. You can't escape reality regardless of how hard you try.

There wasn't any reality before last Thursday. The universe sprang into being just as you see it last Thursday, with all your memories in place exactly as they are now.

As I said, your job is to demonstrate that that's incorrect, not merely assert it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

God didn’t “kill a guy”. God Himself paid for the sins of the world, something only God Himself could do.

Is God so bloodthirsty that He can't forgive our sins without someone being killed?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No part of me is non-physical and your assertions don't amount to pointing out to me anything different.

My brain functions, life support systems, everything about me, is the product of chemical and biochemical bioelectric phenomena. Nor have you demonstrated anything different.

So now it's up to you to show how observed correlations between your subjective conscious experience and electro-chemical activity in your brain, are causal, and how the former is a product of the latter.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Or does [he] freely admit there are things [he] doesn't know?

God of the Bible? Yes. He regretted creating humans for example...

 

[blü 2]

So now it's up to you to show how observed correlations between your subjective conscious experience and electro-chemical activity in your brain, are causal, and how the former is a product of the latter.

I've been following brain research since last century, as an interested citizen, and I have personal memories of the articles in science reports as new technology was developed in the 1990s for observing the brain in action by eg observing which parts consumed more oxygen when the brain was set various tasks; and at the same time, programs to automate genetic sequencing suddenly flung open the door to a vast new land to explore; and it's only got better since then. The mapping of the brain and its functions is now being refined, and we're continuing to accumulate insights into where various functions are located and how they interact with the rest of the brain. It is of course a work in progress, but its relevance here is that it shows the brain is indeed biochemistry and bioelectricity.

I was recently chatting with an anesthetist, and said I'd buy him lunch so he could tell me the relationship between his chemicals and consciousness (in the sense of aware, what you don't have when you're anesthetized). He said, "Good question. We don't have all the answers yet, but it appears that we're doing something very basic, because the same chemicals have the same effect on jellyfish, and they're a looooong way from humans in the evolutionary tree." He was not entirely joking ─ what he said is correct. Again, a work in progress. (He declined my offer of lunch, which I thought was a pity, because there are very interesting questions in there.)

What the thought-is-spirit people are NOT doing is anything of the kind. I've never heard of them running impartial and objective tests and experiments to find out whether and if so how their thought-is-spirit notion actually works in reality, how it in fact interacts with the biochemistry of the brain.

Why is that?

 

[PearlSeeker]

No part of me is non-physical

What about information? Is it physical or non-physical?

 

[ChristineM]

and just as true as what you disbelieve.

Yet you are still in the minority

 

[RestlessSoul]

I've been following brain research since last century, as an interested citizen, and I have personal memories of the articles in science reports as new technology was developed in the 1990s for observing the brain in action by eg observing which parts consumed more oxygen when the brain was set various tasks; and at the same time, as programs to automate genetic sequences suddenly flung open the door to a vast new land to explore; and it's only got better since then. The mapping of the brain and its functions is now being refined, and we're continuing to accumulate insights into where various functions are located and how they interact with the rest of the brain. It is of course a work in progress, but its relevance here is that it shows the brain is indeed biochemistry and bioelectricity.

I was recently chatting with an anesthetist, and said I'd buy him lunch so he could tell me the relationship between his chemicals and consciousness (in the sense of aware, what you don't have when you're anesthetized). He said, "Good question. We don't have all the answers yet, but it appears that we're doing something very basic, because the same chemicals have the same effect on jellyfish, and they're a looooong way from humans in the evolutionary tree." He was not entirely joking ─ what he said is correct. Again, a work in progress.

What the thought-is-spirit people are NOT doing is anything of the kind. I've never heard of them running impartial and objective tests and experiments to find out whether and if so how their thought-is-spirit notion actually works in reality, how it in fact interacts with the biochemistry of the brain.

Why is that?

I don't doubt that the functions of the brain can be explained in terms of biochemical and bio electrical activities. But in failing, or refusing, to malke any distinction between the mind and the brain, you fail to address the qualitative experience of conscious awareness. In order to reduce all of human experience to material phenomena, don't you have to deny recognition of the experience itself?

 

[blü 2]

What about information? Is it physical or non-physical?

"Information" has two senses ─ that which informs (a brain, or an information-gathering tool); and as an alternative word for "data".

"Information" and "data" have in common that they're abstractions, names of categories. And as you know, abstractions, generalizations, categories, are all concepts with no real counterpart, so "information" and "data" only exist in individual brains that happen to know those concepts.

 

[F1fan]

I don't doubt that the functions of the brain can be explained in terms of biochemical and bio electrical activities. But in failing, or refusing, to malke any distinction between the mind and the brain, you fail to address the qualitative experience of conscious awareness. In order to reduce all of human experience to material phenomena, don't you have to deny recognition of the experience itself?

You have adopted the notion that a "spirit" exists, and it must be the part of consciousness that can't be detected (as anything claimed to be immaterial by definition can't be detected). Yet you offer no evidence that this notion is objectively true, and not just a false artifact of the Abrahamic religions.

You routinely claim or imply a "spirit" exists, but consistently fail to explain how it's true. We understand you believe it, but who cares? The forum doesn't. What we care about is what evidence that have that your belief is true, or at least likely true. Thgus far you make a religious claim, and then justify it with more religious claims. That isn't valid for discourse. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand the difference bewteen a false/invalid claim versus a claim you can demonstrate is true?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When people lean on It's truth to me, it seems that they are making themselves the epistemological foundation. Rather than the reality in which we live. I have been wrong about reality in all sorts of ways over the course of my life. If I approached the world with It is truth to me as being a satisfactory foundation, I could never have been corrected,

There's the difference between the empiricist and the faith-based thinker. Only one is amenable to evidence. Only one can be shown his errors and modify his beliefs.

As you likely already know, the moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked them, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

God did not write the OT, men wrote about God.

Agreed. So why read it except for the reason one would read The Iliad - as literature with cultural significance? I might take advice from a deity, but not from ancient people who knew less about how the world works that any of us living today do, and whose moral (and intellectual) development lag behind the humanist's.

I do not believe that God is responsible for the conditions of this world.

Agree again, but that's because I'm an atheist. I don't believe that the god of Abraham exists, but according to its description, it is omni-responsible, that is, everything that exists and every action is its doing and was foreseen. If I were an Abrahamists, I wouldn't be able to think like that. I'd be obligated to do what the faithful did - assume that everything in scripture is accurate and that everything that deity did was good, which would have me justifying the contradictions and errors in scripture with motivated rationalizations as are typical of Abrahamic apologists.

There is nothing wrong with wrath when deserved.

It's probably impossible for most of us including me not to experience red-hot anger under certain circumstances, but in my opinion, it doesn't help us. Better would be to retain equanimity, make the same moral judgments, and respond with a cool head. But I don't fault myself for having such a reaction, just for acting on it.

Or it means that someone who shuts their mind off to the spiritual realm is deceiving themselves and missing a big part of reality.

Skeptics are not missing a big part of reality. How could that even be a thing? Reality includes things like trees and stars, and we (almost) all have the same faculties for experiencing it (obviously not the deaf, for example). There is no aspect of reality knowable only to people who believe in gods.

There's a way to determine whether one group is seeing something not discernible to another. Suppose I suffer from red-green color blindness (both look like the same gray to me), and one day, I decide to determine whether this is all a ruse. I can determine that it is not with a bag of numbered red and green socks that look identical to me but which somebody who claims to see color has identified and told me which is which. Then I survey people who claim to see these colors independently, and learn that they really are seeing something I can't see.

Next, I ask people who claim to experience gods and spirits what they see. Guess how that turns out. That's how I know that these claims are just people who have convinced themselves of something that they don't actually experience.

I think it’s truly sad that you do not know or understand the love of God.

Same answer: Nobody knows anything about gods including what such a thing would be like or if it exists.

According to the scriptures they are facts revealed from the Creator of heaven and earth to humanity.

You definition of fact is different from mine. I require empiric confirmation of a claim before I consider it a fact. Somebody making a claim about what a god allegedly told it to tell man doesn't rise to that standard.

I don’t think God made mistakes.

Yet the world is imperfect, so you're forced to blame man, which topic I just discussed above, or to find some way of explaining how what appears to be indifference or even malice from this deity is actually love and good for man.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You have adopted the notion that a "spirit" exists, and it must be the part of consciousness that can't be detected (as anything claimed to be immaterial by definition can't be detected). Yet you offer no evidence that this notion is objectively true, and not just a false artifact of the Abrahamic religions.

You routinely claim or imply a "spirit" exists, but consistently fail to explain how it's true. We understand you believe it, but who cares? The forum doesn't. What we care about is what evidence that have that your belief is true, or at least likely true. Thgus far you make a religious claim, and then justify it with more religious claims. That isn't valid for discourse. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand the difference bewteen a false/invalid claim versus a claim you can demonstrate is true?

I haven’t mentioned spirit anywhere in that post. I was identifying the distinction between the mind, and the organ of the body which apparently sustains it. Spirit is another matter altogether.

I understand that you have all sorts of preconceptions about what others might think or believe, but at this point you’re only really arguing with yourself.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You have adopted the notion that a "spirit" exists, and it must be the part of consciousness that can't be detected (as anything claimed to be immaterial by definition can't be detected). Yet you offer no evidence that this notion is objectively true, and not just a false artifact of the Abrahamic religions.

You routinely claim or imply a "spirit" exists, but consistently fail to explain how it's true. We understand you believe it, but who cares? The forum doesn't. What we care about is what evidence that have that your belief is true, or at least likely true. Thgus far you make a religious claim, and then justify it with more religious claims. That isn't valid for discourse. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand the difference bewteen a false/invalid claim versus a claim you can demonstrate is true?

In my opinion, it's a pointless endeavor for me to try to convince you and other atheists that my beliefs in spirits and the spiritual realm are valid. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to change your mind and believe me, then that's fine with me, but if you don't, then that's okay with me too. I have long since resolved not to argue and debate with atheists or other skeptics about my personal experiences with what I consider to be paranormal. I know what it is I believe, and I know why I believe as I do (as demonstrated in the posts I linked). While I often enjoy conversing with skeptics, whether online or in person, I don't feel compelled to have them validate my own beliefs, whether spiritual or what I consider to be paranormal. I'm not interested in convincing them.

Life From Dirt?

There is no evidence that he did even that. God is a imaginary product of human fear of difficulties and death. Perhaps also of the guilt of our own evil acts, like the thugs worshiped Goddess Kali. I know, but at least it is in the realm of unanswered questions. But I have noticed that...

www.religiousforums.com

What’s after death?

Nothing imo. The only death where something happens is when the man that god chose as his incarnate dies imo. Then of course all the dead, since this man’s inception, rise with him once again along with a new earth. What’s your view beyond death? I have no opinion, since I have never died.

www.religiousforums.com

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

I am personally struggling with this topic. As I started out by saying, I'm highly reluctant to make statements about God's nature. Because I interact with God, it is very difficult for me not to think of him in terms of a "person." However, it is also true that I perceive God imperfectly...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[F1fan]

I haven’t mentioned spirit anywhere in that post.

You’ve mentioned it in other posts. Have your beliefs changed?

I was identifying the distinction between the mind, and the organ of the body which apparently sustains it. Spirit is another matter altogether.

You, among other theists, get the best explanation by science wrong, and you add the in factual and baseless assumptions prevalent in the Abrahamic religions of an immaterial spirit.

I understand that you have all sorts of preconceptions about what others might think or believe, but at this point you’re only really arguing with yourself.

False, I have your claims and beliefs. It’s not as if new threads are dealing with unknown beliefs by long term members.