Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

What gives you the right to assume the position of an arbiter of what constitutes a bad argument or a good argument. It seems clear to me that all of your arguments are good and any others are bad because they do not agree with yours.

That is what goes on in debates and discussions where arguments are presented. People debate the validity of the arguments being made. Instead of being offended by it, just defend your argument instead.

Prejudice is just another word for bias, which all of us are to our own beliefs so you have said nothing untowards, other than I am committed to my beliefs.

As for "snark" it is slang for an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm. That is your opinion, which, in my opinion, bears no resemblance to reality, but you are entitled to that opinion as I am to mine.

Your opinion and your misjudgement again. You flatter yourself. You are not even a particularly hostile or aggressive atheist in comparison to many others that are here. please be assured that you are not a member of the elite group of aggressive non-believers who have a positive hatred for Christianity and what it stands for, although you do have the same fixation that all atheists have it right and all Christians have it wrong because you are more intellectually astute then we are when the exact opposite is true in that non-believers do not have the intellectual capacity to see God and all of His works. No, I have many other more suitable atheists to use as a broad brush for painting my beautiful painting of truth and honesty.

Neither do I, it is my opinion. You do not have to respond to it, in fact, you didn't address one point in my post that gave considerable weight to the existence of God, you just criticised my person instead of critiquing my opinions constructively.


It would not be compelling to you as you are obviously convinced that there is no God. It is only compelling to those who seek Him. It is so disconcerting to realise that you have cast your pearl before swine, however, there is a thread by me that has several thousand posts and many thousands of views, related to the topic, that people must have thought compelling enough to contribute so many posts on the subject. bad arguments do not usually do that. Would that be the case if your appraisal of me were true?

Bad arguments often do that.

So the arguments for god are only compelling if one already believes in, or wants to believe in god? So they can't really be all that compelling then.

 

[VioletVortex]

Satan is the anti Christ, that old serpent, defined as a sly or treacherous person, especially one who exploits a position of trust in order to betray it Also called the adversary or the devil, is the enemy of all righteousness and of those who seek to follow God. He is a spirit son of God who was once an angel “in authority in the presence of God” But in the premortal Council in Heaven, Lucifer, as Satan was then called, rebelled against God. Since that time, he has sought to destroy the children of God on the earth and to make them miserable.

One primary issue in the conflict between God and Satan is agency. Agency is a precious gift from God; it is essential to His plan for His children. In Satan's rebellion against God, Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man”. He said: “I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor”.

Satan persuaded “a third part of the hosts of heaven” to turn away from the Father. As a result of this rebellion, Satan and his followers were cut off from God's presence and denied the blessing of receiving a physical body.

Heavenly Father allows Satan and Satan's followers to tempt us as part of our experience in mortality. Because Satan “seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself”, he and his followers try to lead us away from righteousness. He directs his most strenuous opposition at the most important aspects of Heavenly Father's plan of happiness. For example, he seeks to discredit the Savior and the priesthood, to cast doubt on the power of the Atonement, to counterfeit revelation, to distract us from the truth, and to contradict individual accountability. He attempts to undermine the family by confusing gender, promoting sexual relations outside of marriage, ridiculing marriage, and discouraging childbearing by married adults who would otherwise raise children in righteousness.

You speak of him as being someone who is good when he is the essence of all evil. Why would you promote such evil?

Well, you are a Christian and therefore you think of Satan as the Devil. However, if you do s one research, you will find that Satan did not originate in Christianity. It's roots are further back, the word comes from the Pagan times. There were two Pagan gods with similar qualities, Set and Tan. Together, they make Settan which morphed into Satan. Satan is not only the Christian name for this god, but it's also the most commonly known name. Why make up some weird name? I don't see Satan how you see him. I see him as a god of logic, intelligence, wisdom, strength, and most important, individuality. Also, many of the things you call evil, I don't see as bad. If you spell "evil" backwards, you get "live". I don't see dedicating ones life to an all powerful god and restraining from "sin" as living. Living a good life involves indulgence, but no so much that it is counterproductive. I have no respect for those who indulge themselve to the point where they are seriously incapacitated.

My point is that every Christian that tries to argue with me has a flawed argument. You see it from your perspective and I see it from mine. Because our perspectives are opposite, it's hard to compare the two beliefs.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That is what goes on in debates and discussions where arguments are presented. People debate the validity of the arguments being made. Instead of being offended by it, just defend your argument instead.

Bad arguments often do that.

So the arguments for god are only compelling if one already believes in, or wants to believe in god? So they can't really be all that compelling then.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your position as far as it goes, so yes, the only arguments for God aren't compelling. But then there are only two rational arguments to be had: God exists and created the universe, or the universe sprang into existence spontaneously. I choose the former based solely on hope, which of course isn't very compelling at all.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well, you are a Christian and therefore you think of Satan as the Devil. However, if you do s one research, you will find that Satan did not originate in Christianity. It's roots are further back, the word comes from the Pagan times. There were two Pagan gods with similar qualities, Set and Tan. Together, they make Settan which morphed into Satan. Satan is not only the Christian name for this god, but it's also the most commonly known name. Why make up some weird name? I don't see Satan how you see him. I see him as a god of logic, intelligence, wisdom, strength, and most important, individuality. Also, many of the things you call evil, I don't see as bad. If you spell "evil" backwards, you get "live". I don't see dedicating ones life to an all powerful god and restraining from "sin" as living. Living a good life involves indulgence, but no so much that it is counterproductive. I have no respect for those who indulge themselve to the point where they are seriously incapacitated.

My point is that every Christian that tries to argue with me has a flawed argument. You see it from your perspective and I see it from mine. Because our perspectives are opposite, it's hard to compare the two beliefs.

Satan is as manufactured as all the gods of revealed religion have been. Just as there is no evidence for revealed gods or the supernatural but hearsay, it's the same for Satan, by whatever name it may be known. Just another made up entity used to control people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your position as far as it goes, so yes, the only arguments for God aren't compelling. But then there are only two rational arguments to be had: God exists and created the universe, or the universe sprang into existence spontaneously. I choose the former based solely on hope, which of course isn't very compelling at all.

I'm not sure those are the only two possibilities though, are they? Maybe god exists but didn't create the universe. Back when I was a believer, I often wondered if maybe god wondered where he came from, just like we do.

I can see why it could be comforting to have hope that there is a god that created the universe and therefore maybe some purpose to it all (as opposed to a potentially uncaring universe with no purpose). I guess to me, it would depend on what kind of a god we're talking about. I can see having hope if one believes that the god who created the universe is a kind, caring and loving god and I can see how that would comfort people. But what if the god who created the universe is a horrible, jealous, mean, vengeful tyrant (like the one described in the Old Testament)? That would freak me out a bit.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm not sure those are the only two possibilities though, are they? Maybe god exists but didn't create the universe. Back when I was a believer, I often wondered if maybe god wondered where he came from, just like we do.

But given the lack of evidence for gods of any sort or no God, the question of God's existence or not is rendered meaningless--sort of like dividing infinity by zero. But the universe is an infinite package of natural, rational evidence that begs the question of how it came to be; and that's where the only two possible answers come up. Yes, if the universe wasn't created, then all self-aware creatures it spawned, including God, would be much less than what a creator God would be, even if It's mind was the universe sized quantum computer.

On top of that, I often think that the lack of evidence for, or especially against, God is so perfectly absent, that that has to be evidence for God. But then we can't use the lack of evidence.....as evidence.

God wondering where It came from goes to the question of men who try to comprehend something that always was. But for whatever reason, time as a dimension had no influence or existence before the Big Bang. IOW, the cosos in which the universe is suspended(?) is timeless. So God wondering where it came from implies a question involving "before", which doesn't exist in a timeless environment. Incredibly, that would make the Bible right to have God say "I am that I am", since there could be no "was" or "before".

I can see why it could be comforting to have hope that there is a god that created the universe and therefore maybe some purpose to it all (as opposed to a potentially uncaring universe with no purpose).

....including a possible hereafter, which would be a reasonable conclusion given that God would have created us for a purpose other than this apparent Saturday night sit-com.

I guess to me, it would depend on what kind of a god we're talking about. I can see having hope if one believes that the god who created the universe is a kind, caring and loving god and I can see how that would comfort people. But what if the god who created the universe is a horrible, jealous, mean, vengeful tyrant (like the one described in the Old Testament)? That would freak me out a bit.

I don't think God would be inevident in that case. That scenario would infinitely increase our fear while at the same time making us hopeless, which is what sadists and tyrants live for. Whatever God is, It has to fit the evidence, and the best theory that fits that is that God is Truth. And if that's the case, then God won't/can't deceive. God is whatever the Truth takes us too, even if that Truth is that there is no conscious divine spirit.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The onus on people should be to prove there is not a God because they didn't put the universe here, they can't even, despite the greatest minds create even an atom out of non existence or create even a seed that is not already composed of elements in the earth so the earth created itself and man evolved into a highly intelligent being all through evolution? PROVE IT. How does non intelligence beget intelligence. Show us the process scientifically where non intelligence creates intelligence having no intelligence itself. People are high and mighty about there being no God so prove it. Just saying there isn't one is no proof. Back it up with scientific proof please. All scientists can find, shows intelligence in the universe. There are laws of physics governing outer space that we didn't put there. So laws of physics created themselves? Look at the human body how intricate and complicated it is. It's a masterpiece. It works days and night unattended and so it just got that way by itself. No creator no nothing just a random happening? So superstitious and unrealistic that agnostics really are very irrational people to think that all existence just got here without any designer or creator. Why is there oxygen on a planet that has humans? Why is the sun the right distance from earth to sustain life? Oh of course it's just a 'coincidence' for agnostics. They don't really have any rational arguments except drivel that there's no God. Well prove it. Prove there's no God. How come there are a large variety of fruits and vegetables on earth? And they 'just happen' to be fit for human consumption. Everything seems to be set up for human existence and it all came about just accidentally? The universe and all the atoms in it are so well ordered, structured and organised according to scientific principles that it is impossible that they just got here by themselves and without any creator.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The onus on people should be to prove there is not a God

The last resort of those who've expended everything they've got, tell the opposition to prove a negative.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The last resort of those who've expended everything they've got, tell the opposition to prove a negative.

Not true. We've offered ample proof that existence is ordered, organised and full of scientific intelligence and that is proof of a creator so what is your explanation how all these physics laws came about? How did gravity come about? And the earth's distance from the sun to sustain life come about and that the right sustenance is in earth to sustain human life? What is your explanation of these things?

How are you to explain the genetics of life that everything is 'coded' to act to a certain principle or state? I desperately want to hear your arguments about how all these things that are intelligent and scientific came about. You tell me if you have the arguments. The human body. You tell me how all the organs are able to work together each performing a specific task. Agnostics are the ones with no valid arguments except denial but give some argument not just rhetoric because otherwise these claims are pure nonsense. I offer life itself and the universe with all its laws and sciences as proof there is a God. Offer your proof there isn't a God. Or are you afraid to offer it simply because there isn't anything but empty denial to put on the table. Put forward your arguments I have and have plenty more proofs. Rhetoric is not good enough. You don't get off that lightly. Produce your proof.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not true. We've offered ample proof that existence is ordered, organised and full of scientific intelligence and that is proof of a creator so what is your explanation how all these physics laws came about?

I don't have any but neither do you. Order isn't proof of anything if you can't show what caused the universe.

 

[Serenity7855]

The onus on people should be to prove there is not a God because they didn't put the universe here, they can't even, despite the greatest minds create even an atom out of non existence or create even a seed that is not already composed of elements in the earth so the earth created itself and man evolved into a highly intelligent being all through evolution? PROVE IT. How does non intelligence beget intelligence. Show us the process scientifically where non intelligence creates intelligence having no intelligence itself. People are high and mighty about there being no God so prove it. Just saying there isn't one is no proof. Back it up with scientific proof please. All scientists can find, shows intelligence in the universe. There are laws of physics governing outer space that we didn't put there. So laws of physics created themselves? Look at the human body how intricate and complicated it is. It's a masterpiece. It works days and night unattended and so it just got that way by itself. No creator no nothing just a random happening? So superstitious and unrealistic that agnostics really are very irrational people to think that all existence just got here without any designer or creator. Why is there oxygen on a planet that has humans? Why is the sun the right distance from earth to sustain life? Oh of course it's just a 'coincidence' for agnostics. They don't really have any rational arguments except drivel that there's no God. Well prove it. Prove there's no God. How come there are a large variety of fruits and vegetables on earth? And they 'just happen' to be fit for human consumption. Everything seems to be set up for human existence and it all came about just accidentally? The universe and all the atoms in it are so well ordered, structured and organised according to scientific principles that it is impossible that they just got here by themselves and without any creator.

Dear "loverofhumanity", you surpass yourself with this wonderfully frank and honest post. Well done. You have made a rather miserable evening into a very uplifting one. I absolutely love your candor. It is the kind of post that I was just accused of, by "9-10ths Penguin" and "SkepticThinker," of posting that was proportedly a bad arguments that was irrational, indicating that I am stupid. I to said that Abiogenesis is a definite act of God. Almost the same as your comment that ex nihilo is, in fact, an exactitude. Nothing comes from nothing. Things which don’t exist can’'t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause.” Intelegence has always existed, it did not just spring into existence ex nihilo. This also bolsters my theory that none believers are not intellectually astute enough to see God in our world and the Universe because their minds are clouded with the rhetoric of the day. Science has camoflaged the evidence by excluding it and they do not have the capacity to see what they have done, hence the belief that it just happened by accident, as science refuses to include the obvious, supernatural, GOD!! By asking them to prove there is no God you are asking them to prove "abiogenesis," without a creator, is a fact and not a theory, they cannot. They have not really got close because they cannot replicate the environment that existed on earth. They have tried for 50 years but to no avail and billions of dollors wasted. They will never succeed because they are looking in the wrong place. They should be looking at biogenesis, life from life. I could have solved it for them. It was God. The same thing applies to "fine tuning, rapid expansion, or the big bang." Just ask a Christian and we will stop you wasting all that time, money and effort in proving that it is anything but God, As soon as science accepts the existences of a superior being the sooner we will save money on wasted research that can never prove that the source is anything but God. Lovely post my friend, I really enjoyed reading it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Dear "loverofhumanity", you surpass yourself with this wonderfully frank and honest post. Well done. You have made a rather miserable evening into a very uplifting one. I absolutely love your candor. It is the kind of post that I was just accused of, by "9-10ths Penguin" and "SkepticThinker," of posting that was proportedly a bad arguments that was irrational, indicating that I am stupid. I to said that Abiogenesis is a definite act of God. Almost the same as your comment that ex nihilo is, in fact, an exactitude. Nothing comes from nothing. Things which don’t exist can’'t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause.” Intelegence has always existed, it did not just spring into existence ex nihilo. This also bolsters my theory that none believers are not intellectually astute enough to see God in our world and the Universe because their minds are clouded with the rhetoric of the day. Science has camoflaged the evidence by excluding it and they do not have the capacity to see what they have done, hence the belief that it just happened by accident, as science refuses to include the obvious, supernatural, GOD!! By asking them to prove there is no God you are asking them to prove "abiogenesis," without a creator, is a fact and not a theory, they cannot. They have not really got close because they cannot replicate the environment that existed on earth. They have tried for 50 years but to no avail and billions of dollors wasted. They will never succeed because they are looking in the wrong place. They should be looking at biogenesis, life from life. I could have solved it for them. It was God. The same thing applies to "fine tuning, rapid expansion, or the big bang." Just ask a Christian and we will stop you wasting all that time, money and effort in proving that it is anything but God, As soon as science accepts the existences of a superior being the sooner we will save money on wasted research that can never prove that the source is anything but God. Lovely post my friend, I really enjoyed reading it.

Serenity thank you! It's as obvious that there's a God as there is the sun in the sky but to those whose vision is clouded by false imaginings all they see are the clouds. Every atom in existence attests to its maker. Just study an ant or a tiny seed or an atom and the organisation and structure are simply unbelievable,And we had no part in it!! An ENTITY outside creation brought creation and man into being as man did not create himself.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"A Scientific Proof of the existence of God" by William S Hatcher - This is a brief scientific proof that God exists. If one follows proper scientific processes of investigation it is impossible to deny God. Adherence to proper scientific investigation cannot lead to any other conclusion. This document sets it out very profoundly.

https://bahai-studies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5.4-Hatcher.pdf

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"A Scientific Proof of the existence of God" by William S Hatcher - This is a brief scientific proof that God exists. If one follows proper scientific processes of investigation it is impossible to deny God. Adherence to proper scientific investigation cannot lead to any other conclusion. This document sets it out very profoundly.

https://bahai-studies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5.4-Hatcher.pdf

"For the remainder of this discussion, let us accept as established the existence of an unseen force that is the cause of the process of evolution and thus of the human being, the end product of this process."

As I thought, he makes an assumption and that turns out to be the proof. Just because there are unseen forces in the universe, that doesn't mean that any of them are guided. As he says himself, evolution is a process. It being designed isn't any more likely that it being random, particularly given the incredible amount of time involved. Besides that, to assume that we are the pinnacle of evolution in a universe with 10 trillion galaxies in just the part of the universe we can observe, shows his fatal willingness to accept whatever it takes to provide the result he wants.

I wanted to make a snide comment about sending me on a wild goose chase, but then I reminded myself that pursuing the Truth is never a waste of time. So, thanks for the exercise.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Two points. Random intelligent unseen forces without acknowledging a first cause is a contradiction for how can all these forces direct themselves towards certain complimentary purposes? The only way we know that we are the pinnacle of creation is when this force speaks or communicates to us at our level through the Prophets and Messengers. It is at that time He, God, tells us these things. That's why we must also read the Holy Books to find truth and purpose of our existence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Two points. Random intelligent unseen forces without acknowledging a first cause is a contradiction for how can all these forces direct themselves towards certain complimentary purposes?

Direct themselves? Complimentary purposes? Gravity doesn't have a purpose. Calling them intelligent is like calling a tree a genius. Gravity gravitates and trees grow--same as algae. And while the universe apparently had a cause, time came into being in that same event (the Big Bang) as well. Without time, there can't be a first or before.

The only way we know that we are the pinnacle of creation is when this force speaks or communicates to us at our level through the Prophets and Messengers.

If God wanted us to know something, it would write it on the sky, for all to see, uneditable, undeletable, in everybody's language, free from corruption by the prophets that almost certainly make it up anyway. I won't entrust my soul to a man whose intentions I can't perceive if he was standing right in front of me much less being dead and gone 2000 years ago.

It is at that time He, God, tells us these things. That's why we must also read the Holy Books to find truth and purpose of our existence.

(Sigh)

 

[Demonslayer]

How come there are a large variety of fruits and vegetables on earth? And they 'just happen' to be fit for human consumption.

LOL. It's also amazing there are so many holes the exact shape and size to fit all these puddles.

 

[viole]

"A Scientific Proof of the existence of God" by William S Hatcher - This is a brief scientific proof that God exists. If one follows proper scientific processes of investigation it is impossible to deny God. Adherence to proper scientific investigation cannot lead to any other conclusion. This document sets it out very profoundly.

https://bahai-studies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5.4-Hatcher.pdf

Is the article for real or is it just a parody of creationism? It is difficult to say the difference, from what I can read.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

LOL. It's also amazing there are so many holes the exact shape and size to fit all these puddles.

Yes, but it also should be pointed out that there are an amazing amount of fruits and vegetables that are inedible or even toxic. And then look at all the animals that prey on or are inimical towards humans--and others don't even taste good.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes, but it also should be pointed out that there are an amazing amount of fruits and vegetables that are inedible or even toxic.

Sure I think we agree here. Loverofhumanity's comment about the fruit was akin to Ray Comfort's famous banana argument. "look at this banana! How perfectly God made it so it fits the curve of our hand! How God put a little handle on top of it to make it easy for us to peel it back! Amazing how God color coded the banana so that it's green when it's not ripe, yellow when it's ripe, and brown when it's over ripe!"

Um, Ray, ever seen a pineapple?