Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[Ingledsva]

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.

This argument fails as we HAVE a universe, earth, people, and elements, on one side, which we can study and debate, - and absolutely nothing on the other side - but your belief!

*

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

I bet he hates coconuts.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.



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.



(Sigh)

The fact you can't perceive God doesn't presuppose others don't perceive God and His Prophets as truth. The challenge is for anyone to try and accomplish similar. Governments spend $billions in wooing their electorates all over the world yet an unknown man without wealth, fame or power influences billions for thousands of years. If only politicians could bottle that influence but all the money in the world can't buy it for them. Something worth pondering. If that's not God writing in the sky for all generations to see what is?

 

[loverofhumanity]

This argument fails as we HAVE a universe, earth, people, and elements, on one side, which we can study and debate, - and absolutely nothing on the other side - but your belief!

*

The very existence of the universe and man, a creation, presupposes a creator. Can you imagine anything that didn't have a maker? Everything in your house had a maker or designer even what you wear or eat is composed or designed. Study the genetics and DNA of anything and wonder. How did DNA and genetics all get there, by itself? The process of evolution, what caused it? Why did it evolve into human life? If it was 'random' it didn't have to develop the human species. It was directed to evolve into humanity by a director. Everything has a cause except the first cause - God.

 

[Serenity7855]

Direct themselves? Complimentary purposes? Gravity doesn't have a purpose.

So, if gravity has no purpose what keeps your feet firmly placed on terra firma. Gravity has a cause and an effect. The effect is easily distinguished as a purpose, that is to provide a suitable environment for human beings to be tried and tested in the flesh. That you cannot perceive that is where the evil effects of Satan in our society has caused you to lack the capacity to comprehend the things of the spirit.

Calling them intelligent is like calling a tree a genius.

I think that there is genius within trees. Photosynthesis is but one of them. I would say that there is intelligence behind providing a means for us to breath on this planet by providing a unlimited source of life giving oxygen released from trees. That must have been the act of a genius. That an electron encircles a nucleus consisting of a proton and nuetron at varying enery levels shows a degree of intelligence. You cannot see that because you live in a black and white world created by science that is influenced by Satan. A cause and effect world with no purpose or reason for existing.

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.

Why can't there? The big question that one must ask is what caused the change from a singularity into a universe in the blink of an eye. There are no known natural laws that can explain rapid expansion. It was, therefore, a supernatural event that must have been caused by a supernatural entity of some sort, equal to producing such a phenomenon. Secondly, Quantum physics is not affected by time. It is thought to have existed before the big bang. Indeed the theory is that it has always existed, as God has always existed. But again, you cannot see things of the spirit with Carnal eyes.

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.

If He did that then He might as well have accepted the plan put forward by Satan because it would obliterate our free agency to act independent of God and destroy our entire reason for being. But you are not expected to know that as you are not privi to the influence of deity.

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.

Quite right, and you cannot be blamed for that, however, you can be blamed for knowing that there are billions of people who do know the intentions of Jesus, so you are aware of that fact, yet you have not tried to do the same, even out of curiousity, I can say that because you are obviously not a Christian, or even have any respect for their right to believe in whatever they like. I know that because you intentionally called the centre of many peoples existence "IT" for no other reason but to offend Christians. The typical ethics of an atheist.

(Sigh)

 

[Serenity7855]

This argument fails as we HAVE a universe, earth, people, and elements, on one side, which we can study and debate, - and absolutely nothing on the other side - but your belief!

*

Well, not quite his belief is it? There are 2.2 billion other people, just like him, and an equal amount that believe in a similar connected God. It is the non-believer that is very much in the minority.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So, if gravity has no purpose what keeps your feet firmly placed on terra firma. Gravity has a cause and an effect.

You start with the conclusion you want, and then strain mightily to justify it, even if that requires full blown rationalization. (SIGH! The last resort of the deliberately obstinate personality, and often the first, is to attempt to deceive through slight-fo-hand with the lexicon. *reaches for dictionary*):

pur·pose
ˈpərpəs/
noun
noun: purpose; plural noun: purposes
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

We know the laws of nature exist at lest within the universe, and have varying degrees of understanding of how they operate. But we can only speculate as to any reason for their existence or even if there is one at all.

The effect is easily distinguished as a purpose, that is to provide a suitable environment for human beings to be tried and tested in the flesh. That you cannot perceive that is where the evil effects of Satan in our society has caused you to lack the capacity to comprehend the things of the spirit.

A superb example of said speculation within speculation within speculation--as I said, a conclusion irrationally straining for a proof. I don't know whether you're deceiving yourself or not.

Why can't there? The big question that one must ask is what caused the change from a singularity into a universe in the blink of an eye.

Without time, "before" and "first" have no meaning. We're learning that time does not operate in the quantum environment with which our 4-D universe is associated. It's why two paired particles can communicate across the universe in no time at all. And the Big Bang was a change from something completely unknown to a singularity. And in that timeless blink of an eye that took 10 to the minus 43 seconds (the Planck Epoch), 10 to the minus infinity seconds may have transpired--and continue to transpire for all those same sized spacetime gaps that define and limit the fabric of our universe.

There are no known natural laws that can explain rapid expansion.

Not only is the universe expanding, that expansion, we've just recently discovered, is accelerating, and being driven by (?the insertion of?) dark matter. To better understand how the quantum environment interacts with our universe, we're going to have to learn more about how that quantum ether-world accesses the "back door" to the quantum computer which is our universe.

It was, therefore, a supernatural event that must have been caused by a supernatural entity of some sort, equal to producing such a phenomenon.

We don't know anything at all about the cause or what existed "before" the BB, natural or supernatural. Your assumption is totally unfounded speculation.

Secondly, Quantum physics is not affected by time. It is thought to have existed before the big bang. Indeed the theory is that it has always existed, as God has always existed. But again, you cannot see things of the spirit with Carnal eyes.

Again, "always" existed has no meaning without time. Timeless is a better word, and I tend to think of God as timeless, but always with the qualification of "if" God exists.

If He did that then He might as well have accepted the plan put forward by Satan because it would obliterate our free agency to act independent of God and destroy our entire reason for being. But you are not expected to know that as you are not privi to the influence of deity.

If we define Satan as a symbol for our temptation to do evil, and understand that "free agency to act independently of God" is simply our free will, then yeah, exactly what I've been saying. Your only problem is you have Satan arguing for God to reveal Itself universally, in defense of God revealing Itself through corruptible, fallible human prophets. You just can't get away from arguing for rationalizations of blind faith. It's the Achilles Heel of an interactive God theology.

Quite right, and you cannot be blamed for that, however, you can be blamed for knowing that there are billions of people who do know the intentions of Jesus, so you are aware of that fact, yet you have not tried to do the same, even out of curiousity, I can say that because you are obviously not a Christian

Those people entrust their souls to a man whose intentions they couldn't perceive if he was standing right in front of them, much less someone dead and gone 2000 years ago. And I was raised Christian, my parents were mainstream, my brother and his family are evangelicals. My departure from Christianity was in fact precisely due to my curiosity. There were too many questions for which the answer was, have faith, God works in mysterious ways, God helps those who help themselves and all the other irrational platitudes.

or even have any respect for their right to believe in whatever they like. I know that because you intentionally called the centre of many peoples existence "IT" for no other reason but to offend Christians. The typical ethics of an atheist.(Sigh)

No, I can't and won't respect Christian revealed beliefs. They're an irrational rejection of our (God (?) given) powers to think rationally. But I do respect everyone's right to think and believe what they want as long as it's on their own dime. I know most religious people equate atheism with agnosticism, but that's wrong. Agnosticism is merely acknowledging an inability to declare something to be a certainty. But I harbor a hope that there is a God.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Why can't there? The big question that one must ask is what caused the change from a singularity into a universe in the blink of an eye. There are no known natural laws that can explain rapid expansion. It was, therefore, a supernatural event that must have been caused by a supernatural entity of some sort, equal to producing such a phenomenon.

But what makes you think that it was 'a' supernatural entity, rather than more than one supernatural entity? And if one or more supernatural entities, why necessarily (a) 'good' one(s) that we should serve/worship?

 

[Serenity7855]

You start with the conclusion you want, and then strain mightily to justify it, even if that requires full blown rationalization. (SIGH! The last resort of the deliberately obstinate personality, and often the first, is to attempt to deceive through slight-fo-hand with the lexicon. *reaches for dictionary*):

You speak as though I am one who is given to entertain the same sort of skulduggery and iniquities as the immoral atheists does. You obviously have no concept as to the code of practice that Christians, such as I, subscribe to.

I started off refuting your claim that "Gravity doesn't have a purpose." I actually concluded by demonstrating your ill-mannered and unnecessary hostility that was provocatively levied against conscientious and innocent Christians. A characteristic that seems to be indicative of the aggressive and course atheist who lacks civility, as though they have no moral accountability. It seems to be common place among those who are failed Christian who always seem to leave the faith kicking and screaming about just how wrong we have it all. The rarely leave quietly.

pur·pose
ˈpərpəs/
noun
noun: purpose; plural noun: purposes
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

If you look just a few lines down from that Google definition you will see the synonyms of the word purpose, "cause" is one of them. Gravity was caused to exist, or, in other words, it has a purpose for its existence. The purpose was created by design, in order to stop us from floating all over the place or growing unimaginable tall and leaking blood from every pore, among other things.

We know the laws of nature exist at lest within the universe, and have varying degrees of understanding of how they operate. But we can only speculate as to any reason for their existence or even if there is one at all.

When you say "We" know the laws of nature exist, I presume you speak of the science community as a whole, only whenever anyone speaks in support of scientific dogma they always pridefully include themselves as a part of that sacred fraternity by saying "We," as though by them belonging to a group of like minded individuals gives them some sort of authority over truth. If that were true then perhaps I should say "we" when speaking on behalf of Christianity, gleaning authority by numbers.

You obviously only speak for yourself and the 1.1 billion non-believers in our world today. It is a classic case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are oblivious to the reasoning for our existence. Non-believers are blinker visioned by the so called wisdom of men that is held above the wisdom of God. Christians do not speculate like the unbeliever does. We know the answer. Any unqualified and uneducated Christians knows more about the cause and effect of gravity then any professor. God created it for a purpose. We just have to ask God, the eternal father, as the scriptures existence us: "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."Because of the stubborn pride of mankind they have handicapped themselves by not including God in their theorising and scientific investigations. Oh, they have made great progress in making life easier to live, however, how much more could we know about our world if we did not exclude God in our postulations. So much time. And costs could be saved by avoiding unnecessary areas of research in things we don't need to know, like Abiogenesis as we know what our origins are.

A superb example of said speculation within speculation within speculation--as I said, a conclusion irrationally straining for a proof. I don't know whether you're deceiving yourself or not.

It is you, and those of the same ilk as you, who speculate. I have no need to speculate. The truth of all thing can be obtained by simply drawing on the powers of heaven.

Without time, "before" and "first" have no meaning. We're learning that time does not operate in the quantum environment with which our 4-D universe is associated.

And there is the "We're" again. Your are playing on Symantecs and anecdotal ambiguities.

Good, you are repeating my very words, so you are obviously listening to me.

It's why two paired particles can communicate across the universe in no time at all.

That is called quantum entanglement, or supernatural as it cannot be explained using natural laws. .

And the Big Bang was a change from something completely unknown to a singularity.

No, you are wrong on that one. How are you able to make suppositions on something that cannot be known. You cannot speculate that the singularity was ever anything other than what it is, and nobody know what it was either. Science has named the state of existence, immediately before the Big Bang, as the singularity. A point at which the standard cosmological argument could regress no further. The truth is that nobody knows exactly what the singularity is and nobody has attempted to speculate what existed before the singularity as it was the singularity, as far as is known. Something caused the singularity to change its state of existence and create a universe within milliseconds. If it was not acted upon by an external force it would have remained in the state of existence that it was in. It is my belief that God is the cause of that change.

And in that timeless blink of an eye that took 10 to the minus 43 seconds (the Planck Epoch), 10 to the minus infinity seconds may have transpired--and continue to transpire for all those same sized spacetime gaps that define and limit the fabric of our universe.

That is completely anecdotal, Now that is speculation within speculations.

Not only is the universe expanding, that expansion, we've just recently discovered, is accelerating, and being driven by (?the insertion of?) dark matter. To better understand how the quantum environment interacts with our universe, we're going to have to learn more about how that quantum ether-world accesses the "back door" to the quantum computer which is our universe.

Why are you trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Are you trying to flex your academic muscles to impress? Quantum physics is mesmerizing even to those who study it. I am blown away by it's capabilities that I feel has some Devine affiliation with God.

Albert Einstein hypothesised that the universe was expanding in 1915 and Edwin Hubble confirmed it in 1929. Hardly recently.

We don't know anything at all about the cause or what existed "before" the BB, natural or supernatural. Your assumption is totally unfounded speculation.

And the "We" is used again.

How do you come to the conclusion that I am speculating as to the state of existence before the singularity. I said "The big question that one must ask is what caused the change from a singularity into a universe in the blink of an eye. There are no known natural laws that can explain rapid expansion." I know what the state of existence was before the singularity, it was the singularity. That is all that is known.

Again, "always" existed has no meaning without time. Timeless is a better word, and I tend to think of God as timeless, but always with the qualification of "if" God exists.

This is a debate not a English lesson in high school. You either understood what my point was or you do not comprehend it, which means that it would have been better to say nothing then to be pernickety over trivialities.

If we define Satan as a symbol for our temptation to do evil, and understand that "free agency to act independently of God" is simply our free will, then yeah, exactly what I've been saying. Your only problem is you have Satan arguing for God to reveal Itself universally, in defense of God revealing Itself through corruptible, fallible human prophets. You just can't get away from arguing for rationalizations of blind faith. It's the Achilles Heel of an interactive God theology.

I will answer that with the contempt it deserves by not giving any retort.

Those people entrust their souls to a man whose intentions they couldn't perceive if he was standing right in front of them, much less someone dead and gone 2000 years ago. And I was raised Christian, my parents were mainstream, my brother and his family are evangelicals. My departure from Christianity was in fact precisely due to my curiosity. There were too many questions for which the answer was, have faith, God works in mysterious ways, God helps those who help themselves and all the other irrational platitudes.

You were communing with the wrong source and getting answers intended to draw you away from God, and it obviously worked. You will never realise the worth of your soul in the plan of salvation because you took off the full armour of God allowing the advisary into your life. Your departure from Christianity sounds very much like you dropped your guard and allowed Satan in. You think that you have found the truth but you have actually lost it.

No, I can't and won't respect Christian revealed beliefs. They're an irrational rejection of our (God (?) given) powers to think rationally.

That is what the world and mankind have convinced you to believe. There is nothing more rational the the perfect plan of redemption. Everything else is pure diatribe.

But I do respect everyone's right to think and believe what they want as long as it's on their own dime.

So why are you here insulting those who didn't throw the towel in?

But I harbor a hope that there is a God.

And that is how it will remain until you open the door to Christ

 

[Serenity7855]

But what makes you think that it was 'a' supernatural entity, rather than more than one supernatural entity? And if one or more supernatural entities, why necessarily (a) 'good' one(s) that we should serve/worship?

If it is not a natural event then it must be a supernatural event. Supernatural is defined as an "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" The Big Bang is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

As for it being more than one superior entity, it fits in with my belief for it to be just one, however, there is no reasoning that can suggest that it is not more than one.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You speak as though I am one who is given to entertain the same sort of skulduggery and iniquities as the immoral atheists does.

Christians, Muslims etc. can be as immoral or moral as atheist. Your claim for divine revelation of your code of morality is rejected.

You obviously have no concept as to the code of practice that Christians, such as I, subscribe to.

Just because you subscribe to it doesn't mean you uphold it or that it's correct in the first place, which it isn't, at least not partially.

I started off refuting your claim that "Gravity doesn't have a purpose." I actually concluded by demonstrating your ill-mannered and unnecessary hostility that was provocatively levied against conscientious and innocent Christians.

Conscientious, maybe, but innocent, no way. We're all expected to take responsibility for our own faith, not hand it off. And yes, deliberate obstinance is more fallacious to me than any outright lie.

A characteristic that seems to be indicative of the aggressive and course atheist who lacks civility, as though they have no moral accountability.

The odds that there's something more reprehensible going on is all too great to ignore. It's not that they aren't morally accountable, it's that they have no idea what morality is in the first place.

I can't speak for others (a stand you might consider), but I definitely have moral accountability. I just don't honor the authority of self-appointed liaisons with God claiming divine revelation or inspiration...or being God.

It seems to be common place among those who are failed Christian who always seem to leave the faith kicking and screaming about just how wrong we have it all. The rarely leave quietly.

Often yes, especially the ones who fall back on an angry atheism. I, for one, did go quietly. After I recovered from the trauma, I just stopped praying, and started over from the beginning, spiritually. It took me several decades to come to terms with the fact that God, if It exists, was serious about this free will, laissez-faire bidness.

No, you are wrong on that one.

Ahhohohoho, well, I'm only wrong on that one? I think you just made a Freudian Slip. And I'm definitely not wrong on that one either.

That is called quantum entanglement, or supernatural as it cannot be explained using natural laws. .

Quantum entanglement = supernatural, because it can't be explained......completely.....yet. Is fire "supernatural" because cavemen couldn't explain it? Rude or not, I think we're done here.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

As for it being more than one superior entity, it fits in with my belief for it to be just one, however, there is no reasoning that can suggest that it is not more than one.

Okay, so how can you be sure that this entity is one that we should serve/worship? What if it is not the True God?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Okay, so how can you be sure that this entity is one that we should serve/worship? What if it is not the True God?

It stands to reason that for all intents and purposes, an omnipotent God at least came into existence simultaneously with the universe, or created it. It also stands to reason that there can only be one omnipotent God, otherwise omnipotence would no longer be omnipotent. And If God is less than omnipotent, then there's a power vacuum that must necessarily be filled--as we can presume that it was, the instant it was about to become a vacuum.

Yes.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It stands to reason that a, for all intents and purposes, an omnipotent God at least came into existence simultaneously with the universe, or created it. It also stands to reason that there can only be one omnipotent God, otherwise omnipotence would no longer be omnipotent.

Yes.

Where did you get an omnipotent God from?
I was responding to the post 'It was, therefore, a supernatural event that must have been caused by a supernatural entity of some sort, equal to producing such a phenomenon.' Nothing about omnipotence there.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Where did you get an omnipotent God from?

I was responding to the post 'It was, therefore, a supernatural event that must have been caused by a supernatural entity of some sort, equal to producing such a phenomenon.' Nothing about omnipotence there.

Sorry to interrupt, carry on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, if gravity has no purpose what keeps your feet firmly placed on terra firma. Gravity has a cause and an effect. The effect is easily distinguished as a purpose, that is to provide a suitable environment for human beings to be tried and tested in the flesh. That you cannot perceive that is where the evil effects of Satan in our society has caused you to lack the capacity to comprehend the things of the spirit.

I think that there is genius within trees. Photosynthesis is but one of them. I would say that there is intelligence behind providing a means for us to breath on this planet by providing a unlimited source of life giving oxygen released from trees. That must have been the act of a genius. That an electron encircles a nucleus consisting of a proton and nuetron at varying enery levels shows a degree of intelligence. You cannot see that because you live in a black and white world created by science that is influenced by Satan. A cause and effect world with no purpose or reason for existing.

Why can't there? The big question that one must ask is what caused the change from a singularity into a universe in the blink of an eye. There are no known natural laws that can explain rapid expansion. It was, therefore, a supernatural event that must have been caused by a supernatural entity of some sort, equal to producing such a phenomenon. Secondly, Quantum physics is not affected by time. It is thought to have existed before the big bang. Indeed the theory is that it has always existed, as God has always existed. But again, you cannot see things of the spirit with Carnal eyes.



If He did that then He might as well have accepted the plan put forward by Satan because it would obliterate our free agency to act independent of God and destroy our entire reason for being. But you are not expected to know that as you are not privi to the influence of deity.



Quite right, and you cannot be blamed for that, however, you can be blamed for knowing that there are billions of people who do know the intentions of Jesus, so you are aware of that fact, yet you have not tried to do the same, even out of curiousity, I can say that because you are obviously not a Christian, or even have any respect for their right to believe in whatever they like. I know that because you intentionally called the centre of many peoples existence "IT" for no other reason but to offend Christians. The typical ethics of an atheist.

(Sigh)

How so? Satan was supposedly certain of god's existence and still managed to exert his own free will and act independently of that god.

 

[Serenity7855]

Okay, so how can you be sure that this entity is one that we should serve/worship? What if it is not the True God?

Hang on a minute. I think you misunderstand me and my motives here. I am not here to evangelise and bring the sinners unto Christ. I cannot do that. I am not a judge in Israel. Only you can do that, but I think you already have found your God. I am expecting nobody to follow my lead. I am here because I enjoy the stimulation that comes with the challenge of debate and that usually brings critiques that test my theological intellect. I also learn much from those I debate with. Just this morning I was able to increased my own vocabulary from the rebuttal of a poster here. The words is "laissez-faire", that is, leaving things to take their own course, without interfering. I usually use words like "He is a non-interventionary God" but now I can use a more befitting word.

So, if I have mislead you into thinking that I am trying to convert you, or anyone else, to Christianity then I apologize for misleading you. I am most definitely not. I can't give you what I have. I do not expect you to serve/worship my God either, or even believe that He exists, although i believe them to be the same.

I am putting forth my beliefs and opinions for you, and anyone else, to critique. In other circumstances I could be worshipping next to you, and feeling honored to do so, however, my life has lead me to who I am today, a Christian who strive to live a Christ centred lifestyle by striving to adhere to the commandments of God. To be honest, I see no real difference in morality between your belief system and mine, indeed, those who are of the Islamic faith are probably more determined to live a righteous lifestyle than Christians are, and I mean that.

 

[Serenity7855]

Christians, Muslims etc. can be as immoral or moral as atheist. Your claim for divine revelation of your code of morality is rejected.

Christians choose to live a lifestyle that makes it more unlikely for them to be immoral and they are of the mindset that they will be held accountable for their sins after this life. Atheist have no deterrents or reason to cause them to choose the right, or even believe that right exists.

Just because you subscribe to it doesn't mean you uphold it or that it's correct in the first place, which it isn't, at least not partially.

There is a greater probability for an atheist to commit acts of immorality than a devout Christian, such as I, who knows there will be a consequence to his actions. They have no yard stick to measure their actions, use as Christians do. They have an open hall pass.

The odds that there's something more reprehensible going on is all too great to ignore. It's not that they aren't morally accountable, it's that they have no idea what morality is in the first place.

Therein lies the biggest obstacle with atheists, and a good reason to be wary of them and their intentions because what we see as blatantly wrong they see as perfectly, acceptable. They have no example, as we do, so why would they believe that perverse sexual practices is an immortality. They simply don't.

I can't speak for others (a stand you might consider), but I definitely have moral accountability. I just don't honor the authority of self-appointed liaisons with God claiming divine revelation or inspiration...or being God.

If you claim moral accountability then who do you feel accountable to? Do you believe that you will have to account for calling God "IT" and in the process offending other posters without rhyme or reason. We are all just expressing our own opinions here. None of us expect it to be unnecessarily ridiculed and mocked like throwing pearls before swines.

Often yes, especially the ones who fall back on an angry atheism. I, for one, did go quietly. After I recovered from the trauma, I just stopped praying, and started over from the beginning, spiritually. It took me several decades to come to terms with the fact that God, if It exists, was serious about this free will, laissez-faire bidness.

With all due respects, you had to have been doing something wrong. If you were following the exact teachings of God then you would be a stalwart Christian today. It never fails.

Oh! Bye the way, Thank you for passing on the word "laissez-faire". I have never heard it before but I am sure that I will be using it in the future as part of my vocabulary.

Ahhohohoho, well, I'm only wrong on that one? I think you just made a Freudian Slip. And I'm definitely not wrong on that one either.

I do not understand to what you refer to. You said that something happened that brought the singularity into existence. That is nonsensical as a result of it's impossibility, nobody can consider or speculate the state of existence prior to the Big Bag. Where would they begin to postulate such an unknown quantity?

Quantum entanglement = supernatural, because it can't be explained......completely.....yet.

Well, that is exactly what the word "supernatural" is defined as. "A manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". That describes the events proceding from the Big Bang

Is fire "supernatural" because cavemen couldn't explain it?

I will avoid reminding you that you are using "fire" to build a straw man to knock down. Fire was, at the time, supernatural, and still is quite a miraculous phenomenon that your everyday person does not fully comprehend.

Rude or not, I think we're done here.

That is of course, your prerogative. All you have to do is to refrain from responding to this post.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Hang on a minute. You misunderstand me and my motives here. I am not here to evangelise and bring the sinners unto Christ. I cannot do that. Only you can do that, but I think you already have. I am expecting nobody to follow my lead. I am here because I enjoy the stimulation that comes with the challenge of debate and that usually brings critiques that test my theological intellect. I also learn much from those I debate with. Just this morning I was able to increased my own vocabulary from the rebuttal of a poster here. The words is "laissez-faire", that is, leaving things to take their own course, without interfering. I usually use words like "He is a non-interventionary God" but now I can use a more befitting word.

So, if I have mislead you into thinking that I am trying to convert you to Christianity then I apologize for misleading you. I am most definitely not. I can't. I do not expect you to serve/worship my God either, or even believe that He exists.

I am putting forth my beliefs and opinions for you to critique. In other circumstances I would be worshipping next to you, and feel honored to do so, however my life has lead me to who I am today, a Christian who strive to live a Christ centred lifestyle by striving to adhere to the commandments of God. To be honest, I see no real difference in morality between your belief system and mine, indeed, those who are of the Islamic faith are probably more determined to live a righteous lifestyle than Christians are, and I mean that.

Oh, I didn't think you were trying to convert me to Christianity, don't worry And even if you were, I'm fine with that (as long as you don't compel me). Rather, I was challenging your beliefs. Let me rephrase my question. How can you be sure that this entity is one that you should serve/worship? What if it is not the True God?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How so? Satan was supposedly certain of god's existence and still managed to exert his own free will and act independently of that god.

Satan is a fictional character (same as the gods of all revealed religions), and as such couldn't exert free will on an anthill.