The Problem with Belief in God

[Thief]

Not only does God know [his] creation but being omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent and perfect [he] knew the entire history of spacetime perfectly, down to the tiniest detail, before [he] made the universe. [He] can never be taken by surprise. [His] creatures have no choice but to move down the grooves of spacetime that [he] foresaw, indeed being omnipresent had already visited, and they have not the tiniest alternative, only the illusion of choice.

How could it be otherwise, given God's powers? Talk me through it.

you simply apply too much of your terms.....

and time does not exist

 

[outlawState]

EITHER God is omnipotent, and hence as pleases [him] omniscient, omnipresent and perfect, and therefore knew everything that would ever happen in the universe [he] intended to create, down to the tiniest detail, every thought, word and deed of every creature that would ever be, and created the universe knowing all that, so that the universe is the perfect outcome and reflection of [his] perfect will

OR God is not omnipotent, hence not omniscient, or omnipresent, or perfect, and made the universe blindly, not knowing what would happen, and had to wait some 14 billion years for H sap sap to crop up by chance on one of the maybe 1 to 20 septillion planets in the universe, an example of inefficiency that will never be matched

OR nature just got on with things and biochemistry happened on at least one of the planets of the universe and over 3.5 bn years or more produced H sap sap.

Which hypothesis best fits the facts we observe, do you think?

The redundancy in the univserse is a testament to God being very great and that it was made to show his glory. Of it man is a very small part. Yet this was for God's purpose, because God delights to exalt the weak rather than the pretentious.

The key thing to note is that although man is the image of God he is but a very paltry image. In that sense God has arbitrarily limited his own power to an extent, but not to the extent of foreknowing or in some sense predestining every man's destiny. Man always has a choice. That is the key message that is taught by reason of God's covenants (especially). The greater the choice the more the punishment if it is exercised wrongly. The second point is that that choice is not open forever. It is time limited and must be acted upon prompto. If you're planning to leave the choice till the day of your death, the judgement will invariably be that you elected not to follow God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If you are searching for one you will find the other.
Know thyself.

This is mystical mumbo-jumbo. I get the idea, but it is fairly useless in my opinion. I don't need to call any part of myself "God." It doesn't matter if a piece of us all is divine... if we all have it, then the playing field is level. You want to pretend it isn't by pretending that "enlightenment" comes with realizing that divine part of yourself, and that the condition of thereby being "enlightened" somehow provides you something over ordinary human beings. To my mind this is not much more than eye-roll material, and doesn't really further the advancement of anything.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What people believe about God is not what makes God exist.
Logically speaking, God either exists or not.
If not even one person believed in God, God would still exist if God exists.
If everyone in the world believed in God, God would not exist unless God exists.

Nobody can ever prove that God exists because God is the Unsearchable Being.
All we can do is look at the evidence God provides and decide if it constitutes proof for us.
We cannot prove that God exists to others. Everyone has to prove that to themselves, or choose not to do so.

And I choose not to do so. It is proven by statements like yours that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether God exists, and so it does not matter one way or the other if I search for Him or not. Let's take a look at some of your words:

"Nobody can ever prove that God exists" - which is exactly why there will always be people who simply can't believe the arbitrary fairy tales about Him/Her/It.
"God is the Unsearchable Being" - then why in the world bother searching?!
"look at the evidence God provides" - which is none in many, many people's opinion, and for extremely good reason.

I swear... when people try and get all "spiritual" and sincerely seem like they think they might actually convince/convert others with these kinds of silly, unknowable assertions, it is just so comical. It is, quite literally, one of the things that keeps me coming back for more.

 

[Katzpur]

For me it’s a whole lot more like, “Give a man a fish...” If God is a given, by virtue of having been proved, how in the world can we (as the Bible says) “work out our own salvation?” I think that everyone is different, and God is multifaceted, so that each one meets God on each’s terms. If God we’re proved, nothing would need to be worked out, and God would remain a cognitive proof, rather than an inner journey.

We do frequently disagree, but you nailed this one!

 

[Thief]

God is multifaceted, so that each one meets God on each’s terms

God may have more than one Face....
I hope He will be smiling when my last hour arrives

but the meeting will be on His terms......no doubt

 

[dfnj]

"Nobody can ever prove that God exists" - which is exactly why there will always be people who simply can't believe the arbitrary fairy tales about Him/Her/It.

For people of faith, God is an axiom. God is assumed to be true without any need for evidence of proof. If good evidence existed, then people would make a decision to believe in a particular type of God. People who have faith choose to have faith precisely because there is no evidence.

Fairy tale has a negative connotation. I would say everyone has a set of fairy tale beliefs. One set is no better than any other. It's not like scientists are all happy people. Belief determines how we subjectively experience our lives and the World. We might as well choose a set of fairy tale beliefs that give us the most satisfaction.

"God is the Unsearchable Being"

- then why in the world bother searching?!

Religion exists for a specific reason. It doesn't matter if God is unsearchable. Religion exists to answer the four great existential questions:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What will happen to me when I die?
Now, you could argue these questions could be answered without religion. In many ways these questions are unanswerable. People do not like having unanswerable questions. Religions exist so people feel safe and comfortable. As I said, scientists are not always happy people. Most scientist simply do not care if grandma is feeling "safe" about her existential issues.

"look at the evidence God provides"

- which is none in many, many people's opinion, and for extremely good reason.

So what is "evidence" and what is not is purely subjective. But you could argue God is the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our comprehension. Nature seems to turn out to always be much stranger than anything we could have ever imagined so maybe God does exist. Check out this video on materialism:

If you objectively look at the evidence suggested by recent experiments in quantum mechanics, with "idealism" on the rise, you could come to the conclusion the IT that decides which quantum state gets realized has a spooky intelligence about what is chosen.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I choose not to do so. It is proven by statements like yours that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether God exists, and so it does not matter one way or the other if I search for Him or not. Let's take a look at some of your words:

I did not say it does not matter if God exists... That is simply what you concluded from what I said.

"Nobody can ever prove that God exists" - which is exactly why there will always be people who simply can't believe the arbitrary fairy tales about Him/Her/It.

The fact that nobody can prove that God exists is not a reason not to believe in God, since God could still exist in spite of there being no proof. Since it is God who would be the provider of proof, if God chooses not to provide proof we can do nothing about that, since we cannot control an omnipotent Being. So what a rational person might do (if they wanted to believe in God) would be to ask themselves why God does not provide proof.

"God is the Unsearchable Being" - then why in the world bother searching?!

I meant that an immaterial God cannot be located by a GPS tracker so there is no point looking for objective evidence of God. When I say “searching” I mean searching for the evidence that God exists, and if any is found looking at it.

"look at the evidence God provides" - which is none in many, many people's opinion, and for extremely good reason.

No, it is not none in most peoples’ opinion, it is none only in the opinion of nonbelievers, which constitute about 7% of the world population. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and another 9% who believe in God have no religion.

The evidence God provides are the Messengers He sends and it is just too bad that for some unknown reason nonbelievers cannot accept that as evidence. But that is too bad because that has been God’s Method of making Himself known and communicating messages to humanity since the dawn of human history.

I swear... when people try and get all "spiritual" and sincerely seem like they think they might actually convince/convert others with these kinds of silly, unknowable assertions, it is just so comical. It is, quite literally, one of the things that keeps me coming back for more.

I have no interest in convincing or converting anyone. All I do is impart information. After that my job is done, unless some sincere seeker of truth has any questions. If so, it is my job to answer them.

What I consider comical is nonbelievers who keep asking me for evidence, and when I tell them what it is they come up with all manner of ridiculous reasons why it is insufficient for them. Yet not one nonbeliever has any better ideas about how God could communicate, except directly with every one of the 7.4 billion people on earth, which is the most comical thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Then, when I explain why God does not communicate directly to everyone and why it would not accomplish God’s goals, they just say God is evil or inefficient or incompetent or weak because god won’t give them what they want. No reasoned arguments are ever forthcoming. It is like a little child who wants candy and mommy won’t give him any so he throws a fit. That might work with mommy but it won’t work with God. God is not a short order cook.

The reasonable atheists just say they do not like my evidence and go back to doing whatever they are doing. In other words, they accept the reality that they are not going to get “other evidence” from God just because they want it and they happily live their lives doing good works without any need for a god... Smart atheists.

As for the others, I do not know why I waste my time but recently I have decided I am not going to continue going over the same ground over and over again.

 

[osgart]

I must say there is a compulsion out there to eliminate the God belief.

If there were no evil, and no babies being murdered, id believe God exists myself. I mean if nature wasnt so indifferently violent to life, id buy into it.

 

[outlawState]

I must say there is a compulsion out there to eliminate the God belief.

If there were no evil, and no babies being murdered, id believe God exists myself. I mean if nature wasnt so indifferently violent to life, id buy into it.

On the contrary, you are an ardent evangelist for the "god" belief, which is to say, belief in humanity as god, or humanism.

Your logic is transparent: anything that inflicts evil on humanity is not worthy of belief. Ergo humanity itself is not evil, but good. Contradistinguish the teaching of Christ "no one is good except God."

 

[osgart]

On the contrary, you are an ardent evangelist for the "god" belief, which is to say, belief in humanity as god, or humanism.

Your logic is transparent: anything that inflicts evil on humanity is not worthy of belief. Ergo humanity itself is not evil, but good. Contradistinguish the teaching of Christ "no one is good except God."

Humanity is no god of any kind. Happy is the person who knows their limitations. Not one living soul deserves a god position of authority. There is blindness in the world. A good hearted person knows that human judgment is far from perfect.

I have true love in my heart without jesus. I know it by my relationships, and by myself. I have basic decency. That in no way makes me a god, or anyone else.

A baby born into the world has to learn everything they can starting from nothing and given nothing. Why on earth and in heaven should i conclude that all of humanity is sinful?

Every person has got to grow into who they truly are for better or worse. Good or bad. The heart makes its choices.

Humanity has faults sure. The best humans i can think of have faults. That dont make them evil.

Evil is a choice some make, and they dont deserve anything and worse then that.

 

[outlawState]

Humanity is no god of any kind. Happy is the person who knows their limitations. Not one living soul deserves a god position of authority. There is blindness in the world. A good hearted person knows that human judgment is far from perfect.

But in your previous post you elevated humanity to the status of "persons who shall never have evil done to them." That is to elevate them into gods, even if not God.

Here are some who deserve to have evil done to them.

Moped muggers!

I have true love in my heart without jesus. I know it by my relationships, and by myself. I have basic decency. That in no way makes me a god, or anyone else.

I would not say that you love anyone by preaching what is plainly not true, which is that humanity does not deserve to have evil done to it! Indeed it is thanks to people like you ("see no evil hear no evil") that we live in such a lawless society. Were the crimes that are committed today committed in days gone by, there would be 10,000 executions a year, if not 100,000.

A baby born into the world has to learn everything they can starting from nothing and given nothing. Why on earth and in heaven should i conclude that all of humanity is sinful?

Because even from childhood children learn to imitate the sins of the parents and of others.

Every person has got to grow into who they truly are for better or worse. Good or bad. The heart makes its choices.

I don't disagree.

Humanity has faults sure. The best humans i can think of have faults. That dont make them evil.

Yes it does.

Evil is a choice some make, and they dont deserve anything and worse then that.

Some make? Have you ever seen anyone who had never committed an evil act?

The goodness that God displays to humanity does not make humanity inherently "good." It is in humanity's self-interest to maintain a measure of morality to preserve the goodness of God. That does not make them "good." To love one's enemies is too easy when it is frequently the politicians who demand the people make sacrifices for evil people. Yet when it comes to crimes on politicians, they are the first to demand justice. Differing standards, differing weights and measures, are the recurrent theme and manifestation of men's evil natures.

 

[osgart]

But in your previous post you elevated humanity to the status of "persons who shall never have evil done to them." That is to elevate them into gods, even if not God.

Here are some who deserve to have evil done to them.

Moped muggers!


I would not say that you love anyone by preaching what is plainly not true, which is that humanity does not deserve to have evil done to it! Indeed it is thanks to people like you ("see no evil hear no evil") that we live in such a lawless society. Were the crimes that are committed today committed in days gone by, there would be 10,000 executions a year, if not 100,000.


Because even from childhood children learn to imitate the sins of the parents and of others.


I don't disagree.


Yes it does.


Some make? Have you ever seen anyone who had never committed an evil act?

The goodness that God displays to humanity does not make humanity inherently "good." It is in humanity's self-interest to maintain a measure of morality to preserve the goodness of God. That does not make them "good." To love one's enemies is too easy when it is frequently the politicians who demand the people make sacrifices for evil people. Yet when it comes to crimes on politicians, they are the first to demand justice. Differing standards, differing weights and measures, are the recurrent theme and manifestation of men's evil natures.

I never ever said that all of humanity should never be punished. And i know for a fact that there is a justified place for killing evil people.

Evil shouldnt be done to anyone. But a justified punishment is required. The punishment should equal the crime.

Which post are you referring to?

And i certainly do believe that people who are convinced that they are doing Gods judgment, elevate themselves to Godhood.

 

[osgart]

Not even my words, and an accusation is made

 

[outlawState]

I never ever said that all of humanity should never be punished. And i know for a fact that there is a justified place for killing evil people.

Evil shouldnt be done to anyone. But a justified punishment is required. The punishment should equal the crime.

Which post are you referring to?

You're talking at cross purposes. I was illustrating the evil that men do. You have now raised a separate issue of there needing to be an "appearance of justice." The "appearance of justice" is what is required where it is dispensed by men. But we are talking about the justice dispensed by God.

Originally you said:

"If there were no evil, and no babies being murdered, id believe God exists myself. I mean if nature wasnt so indifferently violent to life, id buy into it."​

I pointed out that humanity is of full of evil, evil even if only by thoughtlessly applying differing weights and measures. As Christ said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I argued, if humanity is evil, then what has it to complain of?

I pointed out that you were a humanist, elevating mankind to the role of a "god," without any merit.

You then retorted, you accept the principle of retribution "eye for eye", but that you don't accept the right of God to dispense evil without justice being seen to be done in individual cases.

That's not the point for God, because being God, you are not capable of understanding his ways. That is your problem in being a human. You are not privy to his way of doing things. The justification is the capacity of men for evil, and the tendency towards evil. For every human that suffers, or is killed, there is a lessening of sin in the world.

Every man who lives sins, and carries on sinning, to an extent, greater or lesser. If by killing them sin is precluded, then why is man complaining? Does he have a right to do evil? You say "yes." It is axiomatic with God that he has no such right.

Parents with a rebellious son were, under the Levitical law, allowed to have them put to death. Where God knows the end from the beginning, he can foresee the evil that men would do if they were allowed to live, and freed from their suffering.

As God has ordained, death is the punishment for the sins committed whilst in the body and extends to all men. It is the result of sin in the world, and the proclivity to imitate it.

God also has rights of a creator. He who gave life can take it away.

And i certainly do believe that people who are convinced that they are doing Gods judgment, elevate themselves to Godhood.

Not if they are only doing what God has commanded in the Levitical law - i.e. the law of which Christ said "not one tittle will fall before Christ comes again."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I did not say it does not matter if God exists... That is simply what you concluded from what I said.

You're absolutely right... this is exactly what I conclude from the things you say. "God is unknowable", "God is unsearchable", "God cannot be defined". Um... then what's the point of searching again? What is the point of "knowing"? What is the point of defining? It is theists who grasp at straws and pretend their explanations are sufficient, and then when the going gets tough have to turn to statements like these, which they strangely don't seem to understand only shake their position to pieces.

So what a rational person might do (if they wanted to believe in God) would be to ask themselves why God does not provide proof.

And this is where you make a slight error in judgment about me... and you do it again later in your post. I do not "want to believe in God." I don't need this whatsoever. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I assert this, and no matter my sincerity, I am pegged as a "God lover" regardless, because theists can't seem to help themselves but to want to believe that everyone is at least as goofy over Him as they are. I make these points and ask these questions because, to me, it is glaringly obvious that He's not there. So the "why this?" and "why not this?" questions I pose are NOT because I expect God to do anything! Nothing could be further from the truth of my intent with those questions. I don't need God to prove His existence... I am 100% positive He never will... and not because He's supporting some great mystery... not because He's "testing" us... not because He simply doesn't have the time, or has better things to do... not because his hands are tied. There is simply nothing there to provide such proof.

Do I know this with 100% certainty? I have no choice but to admit that I don't. However, the more excuses (for this is ALL that they are, especially if God cannot be searched, cannot be known, or some similar "works in mysterious ways" attribution) I hear from theists, the more I am made keenly aware that I have made the right choice.

I meant that an immaterial God cannot be located by a GPS tracker so there is no point looking for objective evidence of God. When I say “searching” I mean searching for the evidence that God exists, and if any is found looking at it.

Okay, then at least prove to me this immaterial world. Is there evidence for that? It certainly sounds like a pretty big place... being a whole "world" and all. No evidence for that either? Or just none that I would accept? And there's the rub, isn't it? The fact that any "evidence" - NDE's, ghost-sightings, creepy or other-worldly "feelings", people being "miraculously" healed - these are believed only in a very spotty manner... even by theists themselves.There is far less support for those ideas individually than there are theists - and this is because none of those ideas are sufficient as proof, most of them are completely subjective, and none are verifiable or reproduceable. Anybody you know not believe in gravity? I'm sure YOU would assert to me that God is as prevalent as gravity is in the universe... and yet?

No, it is not none in most peoples’ opinion, it is none only in the opinion of nonbelievers, which constitute about 7% of the world population. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and another 9% who believe in God have no religion.

You sure you want to claim that 93% as people who genuinely believe in God? Not so sure I would. I wouldn't even claim all atheists as true non-believers. And this obviously ignores that there are a great many faiths, not all of which believe in "God" as a single, all-encompassing entity. The numbers don't matter. I'll admit that it is ingrained in us to look outward for the answers to the big questions, so what? We've found that the answers to the big questions aren't intrinsically within us... so of course people are primed to look elsewhere. History is filled with the rise and fall of hundreds of belief systems. People MADE THINGS UP to explain everything because everyone kept asking... so how do you quell such unrest? Well... if you're a clever person, you devise a clever story. Why is that so hard to admit to? It is literally what you would say happened with all other religions you choose not to believe in. What makes yours so special? I believe the answer to be nothing.

The evidence God provides are the Messengers He sends and it is just too bad that for some unknown reason nonbelievers cannot accept that as evidence. But that is too bad because that has been God’s Method of making Himself known and communicating messages to humanity since the dawn of human history.

Why in the world would I find human testimony on this subject convincing? Especially with statements made like "God is unsearchable?" You don't accept MY testimony! Aren't I a human, like you? Why do my ideas about the spiritual realm have no merit? Because they conflict with those of "believers?" Because I don't meet a sufficient quota of "mystery" or "spiritual-ness?" Seriously... what makes your testimony on the subject more important than mine? Please tell me, I am very interested to know.

What I consider comical is nonbelievers who keep asking me for evidence, and when I tell them what it is they come up with all manner of ridiculous reasons why it is insufficient for them.

I didn't ask for evidence... I asserted that there is none. What "evidence" you do have wouldn't stand up in court... not even if the cross-examiner of your testimony were a 5 year old. And are you serious? Calling "ridiculous" the reasons why your brand of "evidence" for this stuff is insufficient? Then you're calling "logic" and "reason" ridiculous. You're also calling even the fairest and most balanced justice systems we humans have "ridiculous." In fact, I would have to say that based on this assertion, humanity could not devise a justice system that would appease your qualifications that would also be anywhere near "fair." It would be a "court of the witch-hunts."

Yet not one nonbeliever has any better ideas about how God could communicate, except directly with every one of the 7.4 billion people on earth, which is the most comical thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

So... no direct contact whatsoever and you expect people to what? What is it you expect people to do with that? I also don't get any direct contact with leprechauns. I mean... rainbows exists... and so does gold... and I have seen green clothing, so I know that's plausible. Should I believe in leprechauns based on the testimony of other people's stories, even though I get no direct contact with them? It's about the same premise as what you're proposing... your idea is just bigger, with more people buying in, and supposedly answers more questions... that is literally all it has that is different than the idea of leprechauns.

Then, when I explain why God does not communicate directly to everyone and why it would not accomplish God’s goals, they just say God is evil or inefficient or incompetent or weak because god won’t give them what they want.

Again... don't pretend like I want God to give me anything. That is completely unfair.

No reasoned arguments are ever forthcoming.

This is hilarious, and so untrue it makes my brain hurt.

It is like a little child who wants candy and mommy won’t give him any so he throws a fit. That might work with mommy but it won’t work with God. God is not a short order cook.

I'll just say it again... I don't need God's "candy." The fit I throw is for the benefit of the believers of this world, who I can't help but believe are not only wasting their time, but are also damaging their ability to more-objectively discern what is true versus what is not.

The reasonable atheists just say they do not like my evidence and go back to doing whatever they are doing. In other words, they accept the reality that they are not going to get “other evidence” from God just because they want it and they happily live their lives doing good works without any need for a god... Smart atheists.

You mean "convenient atheists," don't you? Because they let you go about your business of belief without having to confront the really tough ideas and questions. I can take your questions to me day in and day out, without a single scratch to my resolve. But with the way you tend to respond to some things... like casting me as a temper-tantrum throwing child... it only makes me think I've struck a chord somewhere. And don't feel awkward about it... it isn't just you this happens to. It is nearly all theists/believers. There are very few I have met who can maintain their composure when these types of questions and ideas are put in front of them. I, myself, think this speaks volumes more than their words. But what do I know?

As for the others, I do not know why I waste my time but recently I have decided I am not going to continue going over the same ground over and over again.

Then you're defeated. I understand that there are always others who need refreshed on the ideas I bring to the table. I don't think I'll ever back down. Maybe some day the ideas like mine will out-pace all the others, specifically because people like you will have given up. Well... a man can hope, can't he?

 

[osgart]

You're talking at cross purposes. I was illustrating the evil that men do. You have now raised a separate issue of there needing to be an "appearance of justice." The "appearance of justice" is what is required where it is dispensed by men. But we are talking about the justice dispensed by God.

Originally you said:

"If there were no evil, and no babies being murdered, id believe God exists myself. I mean if nature wasnt so indifferently violent to life, id buy into it."​

I pointed out that humanity is of full of evil, evil even if only by thoughtlessly applying differing weights and measures. As Christ said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I argued, if humanity is evil, then what has it to complain of?

I pointed out that you were a humanist, elevating mankind to the role of a "god," without any merit.

You then retorted, you accept the principle of retribution "eye for eye", but that you don't accept the right of God to dispense evil without justice being seen to be done in individual cases.

That's not the point for God, because being God, you are not capable of understanding his ways. That is your problem in being a human. You are not privy to his way of doing things. The justification is the capacity of men for evil, and the tendency towards evil. For every human that suffers, or is killed, there is a lessening of sin in the world.

Every man who lives sins, and carries on sinning, to an extent, greater or lesser. If by killing them sin is precluded, then why is man complaining? Does he have a right to do evil? You say "yes." It is axiomatic with God that he has no such right.

Parents with a rebellious son were, under the Levitical law, allowed to have them put to death. Where God knows the end from the beginning, he can foresee the evil that men would do if they were allowed to live, and freed from their suffering.

As God has ordained, death is the punishment for the sins committed whilst in the body and extends to all men. It is the result of sin in the world, and the proclivity to imitate it.

God also has rights of a creator. He who gave life can take it away.



Not if they are only doing what God has commanded in the Levitical law - i.e. the law of which Christ said "not one tittle will fall before Christ comes again."

Actual justice is in the heart. I meant nothing of what you say in regards to justice. Severe and absolute evil must be punished. But wrongfulness, and fault are completely forgivable. There are degrees of justice.

Violence as you specifically mentioned must be defended against. So equal measure applies.

My truth is not your truth. And your truth is not mine. I mean my truth and it harms no one.

I am convinced of the capacity for goodness people have. Otherwise there would be no homes, furniture, food, jobs.

I am also convinced that the plight of mankind is rooted in chaos, and total indifference to life.

And the death penalty for those who murder innocent babies.

I know its irrational, and unreasonable to expect a man to literally believe in a Noahs ark as literal history. The Bible means it that way, as does Jesus in Matthew. So its a fact it aint a true account of reality.

You seem to think literal evil is something that should be doled out to the masses. And i say evil has no place for tolerance in existence.

Faults, and wrongfulness is something like stealing. That is forgivable. But mercy comes with two things forebearance and repentance.

Mercy has its limits. I could never ever forgive a jeffrey dahmer, or a charles manson.

Why would God leave justice in the hands of sinners? And let evil in the wide open to do as it wishes? Because God dont exist.

Im not angry at God. Because why set up a hypothetical being as God.

You even want to set up Levitical law in the land. Sounds like destruction to me.

 

[outlawState]

Actual justice is in the heart. I meant nothing of what you say in regards to justice. Severe and absolute evil must be punished. But wrongfulness, and fault are completely forgivable. There are degrees of justice.

Violence as you specifically mentioned must be defended against. So equal measure applies.

My truth is not your truth. And your truth is not mine. I mean my truth and it harms no one.

I am convinced of the capacity for goodness people have. Otherwise there would be no homes, furniture, food, jobs.

Ever heard of self-interest?

I know its irrational, and unreasonable to expect a man to literally believe in a Noahs ark as literal history. The Bible means it that way, as does Jesus in Matthew. So its a fact it aint a true account of reality.

Were you there?

You seem to think literal evil is something that should be doled out to the masses. And i say evil has no place for tolerance in existence.

Evil is doled out to the masses every day. Taxation is evil. So is pollution by motor vehicle fumes. What you see on TV is evil, which is why I don't have one. The US justice system is quite evil too, in some areas.

Faults, and wrongfulness is something like stealing. That is forgivable. But mercy comes with two things forebearance and repentance.

What if it were kidnapping? What it was your wife, child, reputation, house, job or motor car that was stolen, such that you lost your means of earning a living? Even with repentance, you might say "no forgiveness" because "you cannot make amends."

People can and do sin so much that it becomes well beyond their means to repay the debt. Very few thefts are ever made amends for.

Mercy has its limits. I could never ever forgive a jeffrey dahmer, or a charles manson.

I agree mercy has its limits, Yet why should anyone show mercy, especially an atheist? If man is chemicals, then why should chemicals be shown mercy? The least merciful people in the world do tend to be atheists. Mercy is ultimately only compatible with belief in a God requiring mercy and favouring those who show it.

Why would God leave justice in the hands of sinners? And let evil in the wide open to do as it wishes? Because God dont exist.

God does hide his face at times, it is true. But God does not leave all justice in the hands of sinners. Think "day of judgement."

Im not angry at God. Because why set up a hypothetical being as God.
You even want to set up Levitical law in the land. Sounds like destruction to me.

Because it condemns adultery or some other such sin? Too bad if that is your sin. I just can't credit anything you say as being rational. God is infinitely more rational than you.

 

[Truthseeker]

You're absolutely right... this is exactly what I conclude from the things you say. "God is unknowable", "God is unsearchable", "God cannot be defined". Um... then what's the point of searching again? What is the point of "knowing"? What is the point of defining? It is theists who grasp at straws and pretend their explanations are sufficient, and then when the going gets tough have to turn to statements like these, which they strangely don't seem to understand only shake their position to pieces.


And this is where you make a slight error in judgment about me... and you do it again later in your post. I do not "want to believe in God." I don't need this whatsoever. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I assert this, and no matter my sincerity, I am pegged as a "God lover" regardless, because theists can't seem to help themselves but to want to believe that everyone is at least as goofy over Him as they are. I make these points and ask these questions because, to me, it is glaringly obvious that He's not there. So the "why this?" and "why not this?" questions I pose are NOT because I expect God to do anything! Nothing could be further from the truth of my intent with those questions. I don't need God to prove His existence... I am 100% positive He never will... and not because He's supporting some great mystery... not because He's "testing" us... not because He simply doesn't have the time, or has better things to do... not because his hands are tied. There is simply nothing there to provide such proof.

Do I know this with 100% certainty? I have no choice but to admit that I don't. However, the more excuses (for this is ALL that they are, especially if God cannot be searched, cannot be known, or some similar "works in mysterious ways" attribution) I hear from theists, the more I am made keenly aware that I have made the right choice.


Okay, then at least prove to me this immaterial world. Is there evidence for that? It certainly sounds like a pretty big place... being a whole "world" and all. No evidence for that either? Or just none that I would accept? And there's the rub, isn't it? The fact that any "evidence" - NDE's, ghost-sightings, creepy or other-worldly "feelings", people being "miraculously" healed - these are believed only in a very spotty manner... even by theists themselves.There is far less support for those ideas individually than there are theists - and this is because none of those ideas are sufficient as proof, most of them are completely subjective, and none are verifiable or reproduceable. Anybody you know not believe in gravity? I'm sure YOU would assert to me that God is as prevalent as gravity is in the universe... and yet?


You sure you want to claim that 93% as people who genuinely believe in God? Not so sure I would. I wouldn't even claim all atheists as true non-believers. And this obviously ignores that there are a great many faiths, not all of which believe in "God" as a single, all-encompassing entity. The numbers don't matter. I'll admit that it is ingrained in us to look outward for the answers to the big questions, so what? We've found that the answers to the big questions aren't intrinsically within us... so of course people are primed to look elsewhere. History is filled with the rise and fall of hundreds of belief systems. People MADE THINGS UP to explain everything because everyone kept asking... so how do you quell such unrest? Well... if you're a clever person, you devise a clever story. Why is that so hard to admit to? It is literally what you would say happened with all other religions you choose not to believe in. What makes yours so special? I believe the answer to be nothing.


Why in the world would I find human testimony on this subject convincing? Especially with statements made like "God is unsearchable?" You don't accept MY testimony! Aren't I a human, like you? Why do my ideas about the spiritual realm have no merit? Because they conflict with those of "believers?" Because I don't meet a sufficient quota of "mystery" or "spiritual-ness?" Seriously... what makes your testimony on the subject more important than mine? Please tell me, I am very interested to know.


I didn't ask for evidence... I asserted that there is none. What "evidence" you do have wouldn't stand up in court... not even if the cross-examiner of your testimony were a 5 year old. And are you serious? Calling "ridiculous" the reasons why your brand of "evidence" for this stuff is insufficient? Then you're calling "logic" and "reason" ridiculous. You're also calling even the fairest and most balanced justice systems we humans have "ridiculous." In fact, I would have to say that based on this assertion, humanity could not devise a justice system that would appease your qualifications that would also be anywhere near "fair." It would be a "court of the witch-hunts."


So... no direct contact whatsoever and you expect people to what? What is it you expect people to do with that? I also don't get any direct contact with leprechauns. I mean... rainbows exists... and so does gold... and I have seen green clothing, so I know that's plausible. Should I believe in leprechauns based on the testimony of other people's stories, even though I get no direct contact with them? It's about the same premise as what you're proposing... your idea is just bigger, with more people buying in, and supposedly answers more questions... that is literally all it has that is different than the idea of leprechauns.


Again... don't pretend like I want God to give me anything. That is completely unfair.


This is hilarious, and so untrue it makes my brain hurt.


I'll just say it again... I don't need God's "candy." The fit I throw is for the benefit of the believers of this world, who I can't help but believe are not only wasting their time, but are also damaging their ability to more-objectively discern what is true versus what is not.


You mean "convenient atheists," don't you? Because they let you go about your business of belief without having to confront the really tough ideas and questions. I can take your questions to me day in and day out, without a single scratch to my resolve. But with the way you tend to respond to some things... like casting me as a temper-tantrum throwing child... it only makes me think I've struck a chord somewhere. And don't feel awkward about it... it isn't just you this happens to. It is nearly all theists/believers. There are very few I have met who can maintain their composure when these types of questions and ideas are put in front of them. I, myself, think this speaks volumes more than their words. But what do I know?


Then you're defeated. I understand that there are always others who need refreshed on the ideas I bring to the table. I don't think I'll ever back down. Maybe some day the ideas like mine will out-pace all the others, specifically because people like you will have given up. Well... a man can hope, can't he?

You're absolutely right... this is exactly what I conclude from the things you say. "God is unknowable", "God is unsearchable", "God cannot be defined". Um... then what's the point of searching again? What is the point of "knowing"? What is the point of defining? It is theists who grasp at straws and pretend their explanations are sufficient, and then when the going gets tough have to turn to statements like these, which they strangely don't seem to understand only shake their position to pieces.

WE cannot know God's essense, that's what she's saying. We can know His attributes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're absolutely right... this is exactly what I conclude from the things you say. "God is unknowable", "God is unsearchable", "God cannot be defined". Um... then what's the point of searching again? What is the point of "knowing"? What is the point of defining? It is theists who grasp at straws and pretend their explanations are sufficient, and then when the going gets tough have to turn to statements like these, which they strangely don't seem to understand only shake their position to pieces.

WE cannot know God's essense, that's what she's saying. We can know His attributes.

And I do not feel those can be known either. Since there is nothing you can provide that succinctly proves God's attributes (since there is a plethora of evidence of the exact same caliber that can be provided for any number of other gods, goddesses or mythical creatures) why is my stance on the topic any less authoritative than yours?

Now... if I stated that I didn't believe that gravity existed, or that gravity's attributes could be known, then you'd have some actual ground to stand on in defending gravity, and I'd be a fool to oppose you.

There is a world of difference between God and gravity - and yet believers would have us believe that both are just as prevalent and active in the universe. That people do not see the folly in this is troublesome.