Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

Then you are a believer in non-belief, or, you do not believe that God exists, that is what you believe. It is your belief.

I do not believe that the god you worship exists. I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me of that god’s existence. That does not mean there isn’t any evidence that would convince me of that. I also do not believe in fairies, though presented sufficient evidence in favour of their existence, I would then have to believe in fairies.


You say you “know” this god exists. You are making a knowledge claim and an assertion. I am not making any knowledge claim nor am I making an assertion.

Well that s not true, you have argued with me that a God does not exist. I know that I have never tried to preach my faith to you, I have merely defended your claims. Your claims are based on your beliefs that God does not exist. To say that you are not making any claims is grossly disingenuous.

I have argued with you that I haven’t seen any reason to believe that such a god exists.


You have preached your faith on a number of occasions, but I won’t hold that against you. You have a right to believe in the god you believe in.


I’ve made many claims in these threads with you. I don’t usually make positive claims or assertions about the non-existence of god(s). I usually say that I have not been presented with the extraordinary evidence that would be required to meet the extraordinary claim of the existence of god(s).

Your attempts to segregate yourself from the standard atheist is not very successful.

Could you address what I said now?

Yes, even at the expense of being wrong.

I don’t make arguments that I think are inaccurate.

Really?

Some do, some don’t. Atheists are all different.

So you are opposing Christianity. In order for you to do that you must have evidence to support your "Claim." Your evidence is based on your belief, therefore, you believe that the idealism surrounding Christianity is wrong.


It is ok, I realise that your track record suggests that you don't concede to anything, even when you are undeniably wrong. I am just playing with what is blatantly true and obvious that you say is wrong.

Not exactly. I oppose many of the ideas and beliefs found in ancient holy books that some people think are divinely inspired in nature. When I do so, I give my reasons. If I make a particular claim about something, I also give my reasoning for doing so. The problem is, a lot of the time you don’t address my claims and instead attack my atheism or assume I am just try to insult you, rather than engaging in discussion about the various claims being made.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but you are excessively disputatious with your victimisation and incessant prejudicial goading and taunting of Christians, and me in particular. I expect your negativity, as do many other posters here.

Grab a mirror. You are projecting again.

Also, I don't taunt Christians.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wonder no more. I do not see the evidence simply because there has been no viable evidence submitted here in response to my claim.

The evidence was placed in the very post you were responding to. You weren’t asked to just blindly believe what one person had to say on the subject, as you had stated.

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

Then I gave you a big long list of links discussing the role of oxytocin in love and bonding behaviors and you completely ignored them.

So that’s what I mean when I say you don’t see evidence that is literally placed right on front of your face. It’s quite frustrating.

Well that is not true. That is exactly what was expected of me otherwise she would not have been mentioned her.

Why? It has no connection to my question, it is a straw man that has been built to discredit a completely different argument. The question that asked was a non-scientific question posed to someone who had not shown an interest in science. In intervention of science was not required to understand the analogy. The conflict between science and Scripture comes when science steps outside the realm of that which is observable and reproducible and speculates on origins, values, emotions and destinies. Science then becomes a religious viewpoint

There is no strawman. You asked for someone to demonstrate their love for another person. They provided you with explanations as to how such emotions are created and regulated in the brain via hormones and neurotransmitter activity thus suggesting that love (and other emotions) is measurable and demonstrable.

If somebody wanted to present further evidence that they loved their mother, they could point out that they go out of their way to make her happy and take care of her and hug her when she is upset or happy. They could talk about how they put their own life on hold to be by her side as she lay dying because she wanted her only child by her side at the end of her life. They could go on and on in this way. Then it would be up to you to determine whether this person really loved their mother or not.

I don’t know why you think that poster has not shown an interest in science. I find the opposite to be the case.

You, once again, have not comprehendeded a basic statement of mine.You do that a lot, is it intentional?

Maybe you’re not being as clear as you think. Notice how I placed a question mark at the end of my sentence? That means I’m asking a question for clarification purposes.

That is what I took away from this statement that you made:

It is only newly found love/lust that produces a significant increase in euphoric chemicals, however, only for a short period, until the relationship becomes stable. In a long term relationship with your mother there is rarely any increase of chemicals that are related to the happiness of love and I assume that there is no increase caused by lust. Though these chemicals can cause you to be overwhelmingly happy, they are only released when you actually fall in love, or lust after that person, that means that love is not induced by Serotonin and dopamine, but the chemical increase is the result of falling in love. Love itself is spiritual in nature.

Lust and love are two very distinct and different emotions. One is based on love of the body and the other is love for the person. I also did not say that love felt between mother and child is not detectable in the brain because it is spiritual? You will have to explain what you mean by that.

See your statement quoted above.

First love , IMO, is a function of the spirit to which the body responds by the release of happy hormones. If one had a kit in their car to test your blood one might be able to conclude, by the levels of hormones, that one reason could be as a result of falling in love , however, it could also be that you have just won the lottery or found out that you have an all clear for cancer. This is all irrelevant as I asked an adult if she could prove that she loves her mother, or visa versa, not what hormones are doing in the womb or during in fancy, and certainly not for those who have just found love. You seem to be kicking the ball at an overly stretched goal mouth getting them all in, but you cannot get the "game ball", that represents truth, into the back of the net. One thing that is a scientific given is that my example was entirely sound, as most of us are aware that, like you cannot prove God existence, you also could not proven your love for your mother, so if the animals do it then why not humans. Or, if we accept that love exists without evidence then why not God?

Can you define and demonstrate the existence of “spirit?”

We’ve talked about oxytocin before on another thread, and I quoted some material on it again, here. Do you acknowledge the existence of oxytocin, aka the “love” hormone?

You have quoted Wiki before, however, your searching of the Internet is a waste of your time as it is not relevant to this argument.

I didn’t quote Wiki at all in this post. Maybe you could respond to the content instead of attempting to avoid it altogether.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is compelling to one, is oft times hear-say to another,

Yep.


What compelling evidence do you find that leads you to believe in the god you worship, rather than Allah, Vishnu or Thor? Because there are a ton of people who currently believe in the existence of Allah and Vishnu and there used to be a bunch of people who believed in the existence of Thor and/or thousands of other gods that nobody today has even heard of.

It all depends on how much you want to believe in my God and how much you have tried to discredit Him, and those who believe in Him, which is going to impede any attempt to have another commitment go this time, as you will have to lower your pride and eat your words. Everyone is capable of answering that knock on the door that Jesus gives to everyone. You either want to know who is there or you don't. Maybe you just don't? Maybe you do not have room to invite Him in?

How much one wants to believe in something is irrelevant to the truth of the thing. I find, if you want to believe something, you probably will, despite the evidence, or lack thereof.


I care about what is true. I want to believe things that are true, regardless about what I want to believe.


What was that you were saying about how you don’t preach on these threads?

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am tarring you with the atheist brush.

So you do believe that God exists then. If you do not think that believers are liars, intentional or unintentional, then you must believe that they are telling the truth.

Yes, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that believers in god(s) are liars or mentally challenged people. They could just be mistaken, misled, or wrong. Human beings are commonly mistaken, misled or just plain wrong. Of course, maybe you’re projecting here because you believe that atheists are liars and/or mentally deranged people.


Thanks for attempting to categorize, demonize and tar me. At least you admit it.

It is not unusuals for a dedicated atheist to accuse a Christian of being mentally deranged for believing in someone who they believe doesn't exist.

You were wrong in this case. So maybe you should take my earlier advice about not painting atheists with such a broad brush. I certainly don’t think you represent all Christians.

No, I just said "So you also believe that you lack in belief in that God." No word play just and explanation of what you believe is true and not true. You don't believe in God, that is your belief.

I don’t believe that I lack a belief in god. I simply lack a belief in god.

If there was the same numbers involved in those pretty unlikely representations of deity than I would take a closer look, as I did with Christianity, to determine the validity of these claimed entities, however, none of your examples meet with that criteria.

The same numbers are involved.

No, we can exercise faith, as we all do, everyday. Our lives are full of events that we endure without any knowledge of the outcome of our actions. Indeed, we are in the realms of supposition far more than we are in a world of evidentiary reasoning and facts. Like you said "we don’t rely on evidence in order to verify the existence of things" we don't, much of what we believe the world to be never requires evidence. The next time that you lose your way and have to ask for directions will you ask the person helping you for evidence that what they are telling you is true, because sometimes, intentionally or unintentionally, it is wrong. By the way, do you thoroughly check your change at a supermarket,

We’re talking about belief in the existence of a thing. We do know that when we make a choice, there will definitely be some consequence to the action, if even we can’t say for sure what that consequence is. But that’s different than a belief in unseeable, unmeasurable, undemonstrable things, in my opinion.


Much of what we believe about the world has been acquired through our life experiences, which amount to evidences, in my opinion. In that way, it doesn’t take faith to believe that the sun will rise in the morning and fall in the evening, for example. We know from our experience of every day that we’ve lived on this planet that that is very likely to happen. These are events that are measurable, seeable and demonstrable.


I will check my change at a supermarket if I have been to that particular cashier several times and noticed that she often short changes me. I will check my order at a drive thru window if I have been given the wrong order before. I will not eat a food that made me sick the last time I ate it. If a person giving me directions gives me reason to believe he is not giving me the correct directions, then I will not believe him. I don’t ask my grandmother for directions because I know she doesn’t know how to get anywhere.

Not really a question that you should be asking when claiming that you are intellectually astute.

I don’t think I expressed such a claim anywhere. Are you going for the hypocrite award with your attempt at an insult here?

Just ask yourself what likelihood is there that fairies, alien abductions, Zeus, Thor, Osiris, Allah, ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster, the mothman, and the chupacabra exist. Do they all have 2.2 billion followers as Christians do? Do they have a plan of redemption? It is not hard to dismiss fantasies. That is why Christianity has remain steadfast and resilient to attack by the heathen.

Ask yourself why it’s more likely that the very specific god you believe in exists, and not any of the other gods millions of people have believed in throughout the course of human kind, or any other thing I listed that plenty of people believe(d) in. I think that question is more to the point.


Whether or not any of those things have a plan of redemption has nothing to do with anything. So what? That doesn’t speak to the truth of a thing.

I still have to apply faith in her words. We are very close but we are not the same person, and we are getting older, so our memory is not as it was. Maybe she has confused today and yesterday, when it was raining, and she has unintentionally mis-informed me. If there is any familiarity evidence to be had then it is not on a par with the scientific evidence you refer to.

Based on prior knowledge of her from the millions of interactions you have with her on a daily basis (i.e. evidence). If you know she is prone to forgetfulness, you might put less faith in her ability to remember where things are, right?

Again we come to probabilities. Is it likely to rain chocolate chip cookies or puppy dogs. We would have streets full of melted chocolate and dead puppies. It would be an obvious joke or intentional lie. But like my lack in a need for evidence to corroborate my wife's claim about the rain, so the need for evidence on the likelihood of God existing is unnecessary as It is more likely than not.

Ah, so you have reason to believe it doesn’t rain chocolate chips or puppy dogs. That reason is based on your experience with past weather phenomena (i.e. evidence). You could be wrong, but it’s not likely that it’s raining chocolate chips and you know your wife is lying or has lost her mind.


Why is the existence of your god far more likely than not? You see, when someone tells me that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent god that is watching us and wants us to strictly adhere to commands and rituals written in an ancient book that has been interpreted, re-interpreted and copied by humans, and that they know exactly what this god wants (even though millions of people who also believe in the same god can’t agree as to what exactly this god wants), I think of that as quite an extraordinary claim. Especially in light of a bunch of other people making other god claims and citing their own ancient holy books (and some not so ancient) as authority.

I cannot add anything further then, "When I heard, on the news, that Princess Diana had died in a car crash I did not jump on a plane to France and demand to see her body as evidence. None of us did. Did you want to? When ever we are told anything we always determine for ourselves if it is likely or unlikely to be true by examining the circumstances." I do not require any further evidence to confirm her death. I was making a point that evidence is not always necessary. Whether it was a put up job or not is a completely different question.

You didn’t have to hop on a plane anywhere since the wreckage of her car was plastered all over the place. That with the fact that all the news organizations were reporting the same thing; her family made a statement about her death; there was video footage of her children crying; the Queen made a public statement, etc. Those are all evidence. You obviously were given enough reasons to justify a belief that she was actually killed in a car crash.


Princess Diana being killed in a car crash isn’t a very extraordinary claim. People die in car crashes all the time.

I am sure that you are aware that evolution is a theory. Darwin said there would be change of KIND over many years, however, there has never been any evidence that it has happened. Indeed, because of the time required fr one kind to change into another it cannot be tested using the scientific method. We have absolutely no evidence to show that one kind changes into another kind. The whole theory is based on conjecture, suppositions and circumstantial evidence, yet our children are taught that evolution is a fact, a potential lie. Science treats it as if it is a proven fact yet there is no evidence to verify it, but they expect us to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Hang on, that rings a bell. Christianity is not a proven fact, there is no single piece of evidence to corroborate Gods existence. It is all based on conjecture, supposition and circumstantial evidence. Exactly the same as evolution, however, religion has been ostracized and removed from our schools, those who believe are treated with scepticism and there is a law to prevent any public religious display. In fact christianity recieves the polar opposite treatment to science under the same criteria. Why do you think that is. Why is it alright for science to treat an idea as a fact but 2.2 billion people are wrong when they do exactly the same? Sound very ominous to me.

Do you see how you ignored answering the question there and instead tried to push the conversation off on a tangent about the very much demonstrable, testable and measurable theory of evolution? Evolution is both a fact and a theory, like gravity is. Children are taught that is the most accurate description for the diversity of life on earth that we have, because it is. The evidence in its favour is overwhelming. Unlike the evidence for god(s).


Perhaps you could directly address my point now. How can I as an unbeliever seeking the truth, determine from listening to billions of people talk about the particular god they believe in, decipher which is the true god, if any?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is only one God. I worship the same God as everyone else worships.

You don’t worship the same god everybody else worships. You all believe different things about god(s) that everybody else on the planet believes. I bet we’d be hard-pressed to find two people who believe the exact same things about any god(s).

My mind is open to the existence of aliens. I think it arrogant to think that in a universe, as vast as it is, that we are the only life that exists. Again, there is a good probability that there are aliens and that they do visit this earth, for some reason, however, I would not bet on it.

Whether aliens exist is somewhere in the universe is a separate question from whether they’ve visited earth and abducted human beings, in my opinion.


Do you think that all the people that claim to have been abducted by aliens are telling the truth or flat out lying? Or perhaps they’re just mistaken.

That you do not recognise that it is a reality is disconcerting.

I think it’s a disconcerting thought that there are people in the world who believe in things without compelling evidence. That would mean they don’t actually care about the truth of a thing.

That God exists

I don’t believe that god(s) exists because I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to convince me that god(s) exist. I said that already.

I don't beleieve that to be the case

This answer doesn’t make any sense.

I asked you to point out what claim(s) you think I am making rather than just trying to tell me what I believe.

No!

Then why give me one?

It is my belief that the label of "atheist" is for those who do not believe in God.

Well now you know more about it. And straight from the mouth of an atheist.

[

An "Atheist" is a non-believer, non-theist, disbeliever, unbeliever, heretic,sceptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic, infidel, irreligious person, heathen, pagan, freethinker, libertine, nihilist

What does that have to do with what I said?

Which was, “Whatever beliefs individual atheists may have about anything are not shared by all atheists. It’s just the nonbelief in god(s) that we all share.”

You are arguing with a dictionary, which proves my next point.

You can’t shift the burden of proof.

And here in lies the problem. You do not accept being wrong on anything. You do not even concede to reality, you just move the goal post or construct a straw man to knock down in place of my argument. You will not agree with anyone unless they give in rather than enter the world of huge posts.

If you can demonstrate that I’m wrong, I would have to accept that I’m wrong.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think that masochism demonstrates love.

BTW: you think that Jesus is dead? That's news to me.

I don't believe it is masochism.

I believe Jesus is alive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe it is masochism.

Then sadism, maybe? Either way, someone is getting something out of the arrangement. Or maybe it's just pointless.

I believe Jesus is alive.

If Jesus didn't die, then how has he expressed a willingness to die?

 

[Serenity7855]

You don’t worship the same god everybody else worships.

In your opinion, right? Only it sounds like you are assuming authority over the God that I believe that I worship.

You all believe different things about god(s) that everybody else on the planet believes.

Yes we do, however, God is a constant, it is us who portrays Him under different guises and characters.

I bet we’d be hard-pressed to find two people who believe the exact same things about any god(s).

That is an irrelevance, it is how we live our lives and the moral principles we all strive to follow, as believers, that matters. We all aspire to love one another, and all that entails.

Your eyes are only partially open. You see what you want to see and you criticize with blatant bias. Your perspective has been tainted by the evil designs of the scientific method, that has become your God, and without you even noticing it. Satan does not drag people into his hell kicking and screaming, no, he leads them carefully and with great subtlety into his residence..

Whether aliens exist is somewhere in the universe is a separate question from whether they’ve visited earth and abducted human beings, in my opinion.

And by what evidence is your opinion based on.

Do you think that all the people that claim to have been abducted by aliens are telling the truth or flat out lying? Or perhaps they’re just mistaken.

I have no idea, however, my mind is open, as I said.

I think it’s a disconcerting thought that there are people in the world who believe in things without compelling evidence. That would mean they don’t actually care about the truth of a thing.

Your judgment of those people is based on your own beliefs, which does not include deity. You obviously do not see that you are one of those people, just not with the reality of God and His creations.

I don’t believe that god(s) exists because I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to convince me that god(s) exist. I said that already.

Then your criteria for belief is flawed and governed by your worldly interpretation of what constitutes evidence, either way, it portrays bigotry and shallow mindedness by only using mankinds ideas of evidence.

I asked you to point out what claim(s) you think I am making rather than just trying to tell me what I believe.

If you believe that I am trying to tell you what you should believe then you have no concept of free will. Only you can make that choice and only you will be held accountable for your choices. I cannot tell you to do anything.

Well now you know more about it. And straight from the mouth of an atheist.

Yes, by looking it up in the dictionary my belief has been confirmed. An a-theist is the opposite of theist, which I have explained.

What does that have to do with what I said?

If you have to ask then telling you would be pointless.

Which was, “Whatever beliefs individual atheists may have about anything are not shared by all atheists. It’s just the nonbelief in god(s) that we all share.”

I was demonstrating that you erred in your claim about atheists being diverse in there beliefs when atheists are just the opposite of theists, and nothing more.

You can’t shift the burden of proof.

I haven't

If you can demonstrate that I’m wrong, I would have to accept that I’m wrong.

You would think!

 

[Serenity7855]

Grab a mirror. You are projecting again.

I grabbed the mirror, I saw you.

Also, I don't taunt Christians.

If you believe that then you are deluding yourself

 

[Serenity7855]

Yep.

What compelling evidence do you find that leads you to believe in the god you worship, rather than Allah, Vishnu or Thor?

I was raised in a western society where Christianity is the most common religion. My parents were Catholic and Church of England. They taught us the principles of the Christian faith. I could have been a Muslim or a Hindu if I had of been born in the right place and I would still be living a morally principled existence, just worshipping another version of the same God that I worship now. I would not be worshipping Thor or fairies. That is silliness that atheists use to give an extreme appearance on religion, many of which are copy cat sheep followers, mimicking other atheists.

Because there are a ton of people who currently believe in the existence of Allah and Vishnu and there used to be a bunch of people who believed in the existence of Thor and/or thousands of other gods that nobody today has even heard of.

These straw men you mention, called Allah, Vishnu and Thor, do they have the same following as Christianity does and the same objective? Where is the connection between them and Christianity, which, I believe, is the point being contested and not some unrepresentative straw man. Just because I believe in God does not make a belief in the cookie monster tenable. It is a rediculous conclusion to come to. I fail to see their relevance in your retort. Your straw man is so weak that it has fallen over without needing to be knocked down. The argument that you replace my argument with just is not a tenable comparison . There is no comparison between them and my beliefs so to use them as an analogy is fallacious illogical and therefore meaningless. I am sure that although this is yet another case of you using straw men to win an argument you will deny that it does not even resemble the logical fallacy of using Straw Men, that is : "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition". I have told you about this many times now, so why are you ignoring it?

How much one wants to believe in something is irrelevant to the truth of the thing. I find, if you want to believe something, you probably will, despite the evidence, or lack thereof.

As you well know, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, the figure prints of God can be seen everywhere, there is plenty of evidence if you look with eyes that are completely opened and not half shut critical eye.
.

I care about what is true. I want to believe things that are true, regardless about what I want to believe.

Nah, i usually can decipher comments like this but I cannot make head nor tales of this.

What was that you were saying about how you don’t preach on these threads?

Do you know what it means to preach.

Yes, you are putting words in my mouth.

I originally said "So you are a nonbeliever than. You don't believe that the God, that I know exists, actually exists. You actually believe that he does not exists and that I, and all others who make the same claim as me, are in fact liars or mentally challenged.

The statement is based on logical reasoning. If you do not believe that God exists then the alternative can only be that anyone who says that He does exist is in fact speaking a falsehood, according to your beliefs it is not a truth. They are lying, whether you think it is intentional or the result of a mental illness, it is not the actual truth in your mind. You are, therefore, calling them liars. The words origins are from your mouth, they are not placed there by anybody else.[/QUOTE]

I never said that believers in god(s) are liars or mentally challenged people. They could just be mistaken, misled, or wrong. Human beings are commonly mistaken, misled or just plain wrong. Of course, maybe you’re projecting here because you believe that atheists are liars and/or mentally deranged people.

Yes, inadvertantly, that is exactly what you said. Believers think contrary to you. You believe that you are right so they must be wrong. You are telling the truth and they are lying. That is what you said. Human beings are none to be wrong or mistaken, however, 2.2 billion mistaken individuals, really?

Thanks for attempting to categorize, demonize and tar me. At least you admit it.

So, do you believe that when I categorize you as an atheist, because you are an atheist, you think that the category of atheists is in someway demonic? If that is what you believe that I am doing then you are wrong in your appraisal of me. I am a Christian. I know the consequences of such immoral iniquity. I admit to tarring you with the atheist brush, not to demonising you. You have misrepresented me, again.

You were wrong in this case. So maybe you should take my earlier advice about not painting atheists with such a broad brush. I certainly don’t think you represent all Christians.

No, I was not wrong in my opinion in this case. In my experience with forum atheists, such as yourself, I am 100% correct. It is not unusuals for a dedicated atheist to accuse a Christian of being mentally deranged for believing in someone who they believe doesn't exist.

That I believe in God is very much representative of all converted Christians. That I strive to adhere to the principles and commandments, given to us by God, is also very representative of Christianity. That I believe that murder is a sin, as is adultery, sexual perversion, dishonoring your parents, judging, stealing, envying, etc etc is exemplification of Christianity. I would say that I am representative of a converted Christian, however, I believe you confuse me with psuedo Christians who add to the Bible, preach false doctrine and alter doctrine to fit in with mans false interpretations, of which there are many examples.

 

[Serenity7855]

Continued

I don’t believe that I lack a belief in god. I simply lack a belief in god.

If you do not believe in God that is what you believe so you must lack belief, otherwise, like me, you would not lack belief. So, you simply believe that you have a lack of belief. This is a very good example of how you persistently refusing to concede when you are wrong, even when you are blatantly wrong and to continue to give us a master class on "smoke screening" and "goal post moving".

The same numbers are involved.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate your rather outlandish affirmation that there is equal likelihood that fairies, alien abductions, Zeus, Thor, Osiris, Allah, ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster, the mothman, and the chupacabra all have similar numbers of followers as Christians do?

We’re talking about belief in the existence of a thing.

No, you are talking about the existence of thing, I am talking about the existence of God. You introduced these elaborate fictitious straw men in an attempt to use them to win the point. They are all irrelevant to the point here and have no relative comparison to the argument.

We do know that when we make a choice, there will definitely be some consequence to the action, if even we can’t say for sure what that consequence is. But that’s different than a belief in unseeable, unmeasurable, undemonstrable things, in my opinion.

It is in not knowing the consequence, for which I speak. We all exercise faith that requires no evidence. Hebrews 11:11 says that "Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it." Just like knowing that God is real without even seeing Him. Like I do not know whether I will rise in the morning but I am as certain as I can be that I will and I will base my entire day on that unevidenced fact, I have never seen God but I am as certain as I can be that He exists and will base my entire life on that unevidenced fact. No measurements are require with either situation.

Much of what we believe about the world has been acquired through our life experiences, which amount to evidences, in my opinion.

You are contradicting yourself. That is not evidence that is anecdotal rhetoric.

In that way, it doesn’t take faith to believe that the sun will rise in the morning and fall in the evening, for example. We know from our experience of every day that we’ve lived on this planet that that is very likely to happen. These are events that are measurable, seeable and demonstrable.

No, there is no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though that is what has been happening for billions of years. Tomorrow is another totally unique period of time in which anything could happen. However, as certain as you are that the sun will rise tomorrow, without any tangible evidence, just your past memories, I am equally as certain that God exists, even though I have no tangible evidence. So, in that light, I would agree that the sun will rise tomorrow even though there is no proof, as I do that God is real, without proof.

I will check my change at a supermarket if I have been to that particular cashier several times and noticed that she often short changes me. I will check my order at a drive thru window if I have been given the wrong order before. I will not eat a food that made me sick the last time I ate it. If a person giving me directions gives me reason to believe he is not giving me the correct directions, then I will not believe him. I don’t ask my grandmother for directions because I know she doesn’t know how to get anywhere.

What likelihood is there that you will ask the same person twice for directions. There is no possibility that he is going to lie to you and if he did how would you know, you are lost. You are acting on faith. You have no evidence that the directions he gives you are correct, but you will act on them anyway, but you will not concede to it or except the truth of it.

I don’t think I expressed such a claim anywhere. Are you going for the hypocrite award with your attempt at an insult here?

Words are not always necessary to portray characteristics. Your deportment gave that away many moons ago. No attempt at an insult was intended by me. That is a demonstrable projection.

Ask yourself why it’s more likely that the very specific god you believe in exists, and not any of the other gods millions of people have believed in throughout the course of human kind, or any other thing I listed that plenty of people believe(d) in. I think that question is more to the point.

I don’t think I expressed such a claim anywhere, therefore, I can offer no defence.

Whether or not any of those things have a plan of redemption has nothing to do with anything. So what? That doesn’t speak to the truth of a thing.

As you know, in science everything is predicated on cause and effect. If God is infinitely more knowledgeable then science, do you believe that He would place us here for no good reason. That He would cause our suffering and death for nothing. Even if you don't believe in God you must be aware that Christians are not fools, so they would not commit their lives to God for nothing. There has to be a reason for our existence. A reward in heaven. Redemption, salvation and eternal life is our reward, it is the effect of the cause for our being here.

If you knew the plan of Salvation you would know that it does speak the truth of all things and records the results in the Holy Bible. God was so infinitely omniscient that He incorporated a code within the Torah of the same Holy Bible that can only be deciphered by using a computer that would not exist until the last days.

Why is the existence of your god far more likely than not?

Because of the extraordinary probabilities for why things are as they are. The anthropic principle for example, or my favorite miracle, rapid expansion. Science has made that clear that it has no idea how that happened and will probably never know. All the know is that it happened.

You see, when someone tells me that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent god that is watching us and wants us to strictly adhere to commands

No, God wants us to want to strictly adhere to his commandments because He knows that by doing so will ensure our safe return. If we have to be instructed then we might as well have listened to Satan's plan. If we are to return to our Father in heaven it must be by our own merits and not by being compelled.

and rituals written in an ancient book that has been interpreted,

I only know of one such ritual, baptism. Anything else has been added by man.

re-interpreted and copied by humans, and that they know exactly what this god wants

That is a misconception that has been maliciously spread by atheists. The Authorised King James Bible The KJV is unquestionably the most widely printed and distributed Bible in human history. It was "appointed to be read in churches." Given the support and endorsement of King James I, this version of the Bible was virtually destined for success and wide dissemination. It has been a classic and a standard for some three centuries now. It is as close to the original transcripts as any bible in existence and has been in circulation since 1611 with only minor changes. It was an inspired translation. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

(even though millions of people who also believe in the same god can’t agree as to what exactly this god wants),

And millions that do.

I think of that as quite an extraordinary claim. Especially in light of a bunch of other people making other god claims and citing their own ancient holy books (and some not so ancient) as authority.

I do not see your concern. Christianity is about the individuals relationship with their God. Just as other religions are with their version of the same God. Contrary to being extraordinary I would say that it is very ordinary. It is what we do.

Do you see how you ignored answering the question there and instead tried to push the conversation off on a tangent about the very much demonstrable, testable and measurable theory of evolution? Evolution is both a fact and a theory, like gravity is. Children are taught that is the most accurate description for the diversity of life on earth that we have, because it is. The evidence in its favour is overwhelming. Unlike the evidence for god(s).

No, I do not see that I intentionally ignored answering a question. Your judgement of me and my intentions are incorrect., however, I can understand why you do judge me thus, projection.

Perhaps you could show me this demonstrable, testable and measurable evidence of the "theory" of evolution, as Darwin defined it, that is, the change of kind, the transition of one species completely into another, only, I do not know of a single event in which one species transformed into another. I have no problems with evolution/adaption occurring within the species own taxon groups but there is no evidence that shows a species changing over time into another separate and distinct species. I can show you adaption within a taxon group but none that transcends it.

Darwin also told us that this happens over millions of years so we cannot even use the scientific method to test it or measure it, as you have claimed. Yet we teach our children that this is actually what happened when we just don't know that for sure, which is what we should be teaching. There is as much evidence for the "theory" of evolution as there is for the existence of God, absolutely none. Yet we treat one as as fact and the other as a fairy tale. However, if you think you can show me a transition from one species into another species than you can easily prove me wrong. Please try.

A species, or kind, is an organism that is capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. Both a short beck humming bird and a long beck humming bird do not interbreed, however, they can, so the change in beck length is an adaption not a transition. They still remain humming birds. Like most supporters of evolution, atheists think that it is a fact, and will not even consider the opposing arguments, but what they believe in is adaption and not evolution. It's one of sciences cons by claiming that an adjustment to a changing environment is evolution, it is not..

Perhaps you could directly address my point now. How can I as an unbeliever seeking the truth, determine from listening to billions of people talk about the particular god they believe in, decipher which is the true god, if any?

That is simple, you cannot. You can only receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost when his spirit communes with your spirit. No one else can give it to you, however, 2.2 billion people all following the same belief has to count for something. It has to make you ask why and to cause you to question it?

Besides, it is nothing to do with finding the one and only true God, it is about finding your true self, a spirit son or daughter of God. It is then about accountability and repentance. It matters not who your God is. It matters who you are and whether you can lead a Christ centred life that will demonstrate your worthiness and, therefore, your eligibility to live with God again. We are here to be tried and tested in the flesh to determine whether we will choose the right or go the way of the Devil by circuming to the false teachings of mankind.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Of course God intervenes in human suffering. Just a while ago, a vice president of Focus on the Family stated that he prays to God to help him get convienent street parking places for his car, thus saving him from the suffering of having to walk an extra block or so to his destination. Of course, according to the UN. several hundred people starve to death worldwide during the time he saves by getting a parking place close to his destination.

Because this man said he asked God for a parking space instead of saying he asked God to feed the hungry, you 'assume' he 'never' prays for anything else? Should feeding the hungry be the 'only' thing he ever asks for?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The very moment that God intervenes is the moment that we cease to exists as we do. If He intervenes then He automatically takes away the most important ingredient in our existence, "Faith in God".

What is the purpose of having "faith in God" if it's not that He will intervene?

Our faith will turn into knowledge ruining the central core reason of why we are here, to be tried and tested according to our faith in God.

Are you saying that knowledge is a 'BAD' thing?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say God uses sickness or disease to "test" us.

 

[Serenity7855]

What is the purpose of having "faith in God" if it's not that He will intervene?

I am not sure what you are asking. I do not know what you mean by this "if it's not that He will intervene?

Are you saying that knowledge is a 'BAD' thing?

Do you really think that is what I am saying?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say God uses sickness or disease to "test" us.

Disease and sickness are the opposites of well being and health. Without them there would not be well being or good health, how could we know what good health is unless we can understand and experienced poor health. Where in is our test in the flesh. God could alleviate all disease an sickness, after all, He is omnipotent and omniscient, however, He chooses not to. He allows it when he could stop it. Why would He do that. Because mortal life offers God's children the experiences needed to progress to perfection and realize the glories of eternal life. Progression comes by being tested to demonstrate one's commitment to keep God's commandments. God could have prevented the Devil from testing Job, yet He allowed it to happen by not intervening to prevent it. (An example in the bible that contradicts your claim that God has never used disease or sickness to test us.) By not preventing it He used it to do just that. Job's sufferings came in two waves and in two types: 1) first he suffered material loss and the emotional pain that accompanies said loss (including grief for the loss of his children); 2) next, he was stricken with a debilitating physical illness. There needs to be opposition in all things in order for use to be tried and tested.

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Disease's is an opposite to well being as sickness is to good health. Both are for our benefit, so must exist as a part of being tested in the flesh. We need to know sadness in order to appreciate happiness. That is how we are tested in the flesh.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Disease's is an opposite to well being as sickness is to good health. Both are for our benefit, so must exist as a part of being tested in the flesh. We need to know sadness in order to appreciate happiness. That is how we are tested in the flesh.

How is cancer to somebody's benefit?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I am not sure what you are asking. I do not know what you mean by this "if it's not that He will intervene?

What does "faith in God" mean to you?

Are you saying that knowledge is a 'BAD' thing?

Do you really think that is what I am saying?

You said, "Our faith will turn into knowledge "RUINING" the central core reason of why we are here, to be tried and tested according to our faith in God.

So yes, I really think that is what you're saying!

Disease and sickness are the opposites of well being and health. Without them there would not be well being or good health

That statement makes no sense at all, except maybe to you. Without sickness and disease, there would "only be" well being and good health!

how could we know what good health is unless we can understand and experienced poor health.

Really? So, someone who lives their whole life without sickness or disease (aside from the average cold) doesn't really know what good health is?

Because mortal life offers God's children the experiences needed to progress to perfection and realize the glories of eternal life.

I don't know what god you believe in, but the God I believe in lives in heaven where there is no sickness and disease, so there is no need for us to experience it here to get ready for eternal life.

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

That makes no sense at all to me, just babbling.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We're here on this earth to learn so there would be no point in God intervening in our affairs. The perspective people don't see is that we live on after this life so leaving us to fend for ourselves and all the suffering it creates needs to be seen in the context that whether we are killed from war or cancer we live on but take with us what we learn. Things like spiritual knowledge and virtues which we are told are the currency in the next world are acquired in this world. Those who fail to acquire virtues here make their next existence more difficult.

When we were in the womb of the mother people could object why we bothered to grow limbs as we didn't need them in the womb but we did need them after we were born into this world. The same with spiritual qualities and virtues. People today question why we should develop these things as we only need money & material things here but in the next world we will need those spiritual things and money won't be of use anymore.

God doesn't intervene so we may learn spirituality and from our mistakes if necessary so we are better equipped for our next level of existence in another world.

 

[Serenity7855]

What does "faith in God" mean to you?

Everything

You said, "Our faith will turn into knowledge "RUINING" the central core reason of why we are here, to be tried and tested according to our faith in God.

Whether intentionally or not, you misunderstood what I have said. You seem to think that the word "knowledge" portrays some kind of certainty when that is not true. Knowledge, as defined in the dictionary, is familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning, It is a familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report of human nature. It is the fact or state of knowing the perceptions of truth. It is anecdotal and a self belief. What I think is true is not necessarily true for you. What it is not, is evidence, which is the context in which you use it. What you refer to here is not what I have said. You are speaking of sure fired evidence that leaves no doubt, whereas, I speak of knowledge, the perception of truth held by the individual .

So yes, I really think that is what you're saying!

Then you have not adequately reasoned it out objectively, you have reasoned it our subjectively and with the bias of your disdain for me.

That statement makes no sense at all, except maybe to you.

To you, yes I am sure. It requires a great deal of deep thought and an ability to conceptualise.

Without sickness and disease, there would "only be" well being and good health!

How would you know that it is well being and good health without knowing its opposite. How would you recognise truth without recognising what a lie is. It is just a pointless state of being that you portray. It is imperative to have alternatives on which to exercise our agency, to be able to make a choice we must have an opposition to choose from, otherwise, we would have no choices to make so the whole concept of being tried and tested would be a non-sequitur. It would be a totally meaningless plan.

Really? So, someone who lives their whole life without sickness or disease (aside from the average cold) doesn't really know what good health is?

There are just over 7 billion occupants of this planet, many of which are suffering on a daily basis. I am not starving, however, I sympathise with their plight because I can imagine their pain. I could not do that unless it existed. Of course that person would know that he is happy as he has fillet steak for dinner when those who suffer get nothing. Come on, I shouldn't have to explain that on here. It is called empathy.

I don't know what god you believe in, but the God I believe in lives in heaven where there is no sickness and disease, so there is no need for us to experience it here to get ready for eternal life.

Then why are you here, on this earth. What is the purpose of your existence if not to be tried and tested as the rest of christianity believe. By the time that we hopefully reach heaven there will be no need for any further pain or suffering. The trial of our faith will be over. Did you not know that? Do you know why we are here as it sounds like you do not.

That makes no sense at all to me, just babbling.

You accuse me and judge me as babbling, yet your naivety as to the purpose of life is frightfully astounding. You have no purpose of life, no reason for having to suffer mortality. I do not know what God you worship, however, my God would never put us into such a dire situation without hope.

 

[Serenity7855]

How is cancer to somebody's benefit?

You need to speak with a cancer patient to get your answer. I am sure that there is many emotional benefits

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You need to speak with a cancer patient to get your answer. I am sure that there is many emotional benefits

You clearly have no idea.