• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Again another put down suggesting I do not know basic words. When you are losing the debate it is always best to slander you opponent. Why do you answer the post of someone who is as stupid as I am.


SLANDER.jpg
How on earth can that be considered a put down?

Have you ever read one of your OWN posts? You are constantly just outright challenging my and other poster's intelligence, but then turn around and whine about something like this? How is this a putdown?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Right, so it has gone from "Are you seriously accusing me of plagiarism?" To "It's because you clearly meant to imply it." From an accusation to an implications.



Oh please! Stop being so puerile.


I did not say that you plagiarized anything I was saying that you could have, not that you did. I based that opinion on the fact that your an athiest, no accountability to anyone.
Enough of this ridiculous and inflammatory game. Put up or shut up.



As an atheist, or a theist, or a pantheism or an agnostic or a whatever, I am like everyone else on this planet - accountable to every other person I share the planet with.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression but I am talking about adaptive behaviour and, of course, environmental conditioning. For example, potty training is now a universal practice in civilised environments. It transcends continents and cultures. Parents use adaptive conditioning to teach their children to conform to the standards expected in our society; Spend enough time living with pigs and you will start to squeal. Our genes evolve.

Teaching kids to potty train (the way that a lot of parents do), is an example of operant conditioning where an association is drawn between a behavior and its consequences through the use of reward and/or punishment. We do things like this to help our children fit in as productive members of society. This is psychology, not genetics.

So why did you say that Alcoholism is down to genetics? You said: "Anyhoo, alcoholism is genetic. The link you gave reinforces that fact that myself and another poster had previously pointed out. So as it turns out, I do know what I'm talking about. You're the person trying to say alcoholism isn't genetic. That would make you wrong. Sorry." I see no mention of the environment or other factors in your statement. I see you trying to gloat at the potential of someone being wrong but that is an atheist thing.
I didn’t just say that, and you know it.

I also said a whole bunch of other stuff that you keep ignoring. Twice now, I’ve quoted all that other stuff I said, clarified it, and expanded upon it and you’re still saying this. Please explain what it is that I have not made clear.

Sorry, are you saying that gays have genetic predispositions? That it is the result of a mutation?

No.

This didn’t work when I explained in my own words, so I’ll try Wiki:

“A genetic predisposition is a genetic characteristic which influences the possible phenotypic development of an individual organism within a species or population under the influence of environmental conditions.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition

I’m saying everyone has genetic predispositions that exist beyond our own control. Does a person’s genetic predisposition have something to do with their sexual orientation? I’d have to say yes.

You cannot say for a surety that we have not chosen the path we tread.By doing so you say that our lives began at birth and that our life's energy had a beginning, when we know that energy can neither be created or destroyed. That goes against a basic natural law of the universe. I don't know for sure what we were before we came here but I do know for sure that we existed in one form or another. As William Wordsworth once wrote

We can’t say anything for sure. It’s pretty obvious though, that there are factors that are involved in our decision making abilities that are beyond our control.

No, I am sure that you don't feel the light of Christ. I fear that even if you did you would ascribe it to something rational and easy to comprehend. The light of Christ is our conscience that tells when something is right or wrong.

Well if Christ were real, and attempting to show me his light, he would/should know exactly what it would require to convince me to believe in him. So I’m not too worried about missing anything.

I hope you don’t think that people who don’t believe in the Biblical god are incapable of determining right from wrong.

I can say that. I am set apart from every other living organism on our planet. I have cognitive awareness that far exceeds and basic awareness of any animal that lives and breaths. My ability to reason is far greater than any animal and my perception of God is not a concept that animals possess.

Well sure, anybody can say anything they want, but it doesn’t make it true. You can’t possibly know that your cognitive awareness far exceeds that of any animal that lives and breathes or that your ability to reason is far greater than any animal. There is no way to verify such a claim.

I love it when atheists say that we are all made of the same DNA. It confirms that events that took place at the creation, when God created every living organism from the dust of the earth, as Adam was. The very same material that was used to create animals was used to create Adam. Of course we all have the same type of DNA, we were all created from the same elements. So, by saying that "especially given that they are made up of DNA as well" tells the reader that you agree with the principles surrounding the creation. Well done!

That’s great that you believe that, but I don’t.

The similarity in our DNA is strong evidence for the theory of evolution – which certainly doesn’t rule out any kind of creator god(s), but I just don’t see the need for one.

I think that there is much evidence that we have substantial knowledge as to what organisms think and feel, just by observation.

Can you tell what a dolphin is thinking? How about an ape? How about another human being?

The only similarity between apes and humans is physical. Intellectually they are nothing like us, you may draw comparisons between yourself and apes, however, the majority of us don't.

That’s just not true. I implore you to go out and learn all you can about our primate cousins. By the sounds of it, you will be astonished.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Teaching kids to potty train (the way that a lot of parents do), is an example of operant conditioning where an association is drawn between a behavior and its consequences through the use of reward and/or punishment. We do things like this to help our children fit in as productive members of society. This is psychology, not genetics.

I am not going to argue with you because it seems that what ever I say you disagree with as a matter of course. I read this in a paper written by a professor of genetics. I figured that he is right considering who he is, however, you are no doubt more qualified then he is. I am talking about adaptive behaviour when a child adapts to using a potty instead of soiling himself. That is adapting so my description was right and did not require any challenge.

I didn’t just say that, and you know it.

This is what you said and this is what I read. "You said: "Anyhoo, alcoholism is genetic. The link you gave reinforces that fact that myself and another poster had previously pointed out. So as it turns out, I do know what I'm talking about. You're the person trying to say alcoholism isn't genetic. That would make you wrong. Sorry."

I also said a whole bunch of other stuff that you keep ignoring. Twice now, I’ve quoted all that other stuff I said, clarified it, and expanded upon it and you’re still saying this. Please explain what it is that I have not made clear.

You are judging me without justification. I have not ignored what you have said, I had not read it, therefore, I only read your claim that alcoholism is down to genetics. You wrote it in a way that who ever just joined the debate would wonder what planet you lived on. It was grossly negligent and inconsistent.

Well it sure did sound like it

This didn’t work when I explained in my own words, so I’ll try Wiki:

“A genetic predisposition is a genetic characteristic which influences the possible phenotypic development of an individual organism within a species or population under the influence of environmental conditions.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition

It didn't work because you were teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs again.

I’m saying everyone has genetic predispositions that exist beyond our own control. Does a person’s genetic predisposition have something to do with their sexual orientation? I’d have to say yes.

I know what you are saying, however, you are wrong. You are trying to make a fact out of an ambiguity. We can all say "No" regardless of our genes. They may cause the urge but we lift the blanket and get in. If you say that we cannot control our base desires, then lets be honest, a trip to a psychologist is essential. Everything we do is by our choice, to blame it on our genes is a first degree cop out. That is why I said that dead to rights killers say that the are deterministic, blaming anyone or anything for their actions..

We can’t say anything for sure. It’s pretty obvious though, that there are factors that are involved in our decision making abilities that are beyond our control.

Then you see something that I don't. We are all in full control of our faculties, only when you lose that control can you claim "I didn't have a choice". There is no compromise on this. I am sixty years old and in that time I have fully accepted that I am totally responsible for every choice I have ever made, whether it be wrong or right, and have never willingly succumbed to the enticing of the Devel, or or any other influence, that would cause me to do something that I did not want to. Drinking another pint before going home, which leads to another and another is not the beers choice, it is mine. I accept accountability for that. That the choice was a wrong one does not detract from the fact that I made it, nobody made me do it. No one has ever made me do anything. I drank the second beer because that it what I wanted to do at the time.

Well if Christ were real, and attempting to show me his light, he would/should know exactly what it would require to convince me to believe in him. So I’m not too worried about missing anything.

Christ is real, you just choose not to find out for yourself. Christ does not impose himself upon you. He knocks on a door with no handle. It has to be you who lets Him in. Christ cannot intervene and what kind of test would it be if you know all the answers.

I hope you don’t think that people who don’t believe in the Biblical god are incapable of determining right from wrong.

It is my opinion that they have no deterrent. The have no rules and regulations, morals and principles, that the have a need to follow. If they sin then there is no consequences to their actions. So, although I cannot tar all atheists with the same brush I am a realist and can see easy prey for satan to influences into paths of unrighteousness. Although morality is objective when you have no need to keep then than the first thing to go is morals

Well sure, anybody can say anything they want, but it doesn’t make it true. You can’t possibly know that your cognitive awareness far exceeds that of any animal that lives and breathes or that your ability to reason is far greater than any animal. There is no way to verify such a claim.
Do you know, I can say that. One of the senses that feeds our cognitive awareness is our eyes. Through my eyes I see an animal with limited intelligence. Not with none but limited. They will easily open a door if you give them a banana, but he will never be able to solve a quadratic equation or have an intelligent conversations. They have not changed that much since we started to observe them. None of them drive a car to work or watches a rugby match with his mates. I love animals. I have two shih tzus that I adore who are both very intelligent but to potty train them would be a waste of my time.

That’s great that you believe that, but I don’t.

That is your prerogative.

The similarity in our DNA is strong evidence for the theory of evolution – which certainly doesn’t rule out any kind of creator god(s), but I just don’t see the need for one.

Don't see it, or don't want to see it. I became a Christian because I was challenged to try it, and if I did so with real intent have faith in Christ and a belief in His mission that I would receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Initially I tried half heartedly, however, I gave my word that I would try so I must honour my word. I would treat it as though it were a scientific experiment and give it equal attention. I have been a Christian for some 40 years now, because I rose to the challenged and received the testimony of the Holy Ghost, as promised. You have to want it bad enough to succeed anything else will result is a failure.

Can you tell what a dolphin is thinking? How about an ape? How about another human being?

I believe that animals think in concepts rather then words so to discern concepts is not impossible. I know when my dogs are hungry, when they want a drink or go for a walk. Their wagging tails tells me that they are happy, and their affection towards me tells me that they love me. The communicate to us by barks and moans in a way that we comprehend them. I have an interest in dolphins and those who look after them will tell you that do know what the are feeling rather then what they are thinking.

That’s just not true. I implore you to go out and learn all you can about our primate cousins. By the sounds of it, you will be astonished.

Well, I believe differently. They are not without intelligence and they have a limited degree of cognitive awareness, however, they will never understand what a black hole is. We are leaps and bound ahead of them. We have progressed in Intelligence over the last thousand years yet they have only marginally progressed. We are of a different breed to them[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
God can't intervene or even reveal Itself without undermining our free will and thus spoiling the test. It's God's own Prime Directive.

Which is why God never reveals Himself, but gives you signs of His existence. Those with knowledge will use their free will to accept or reject those signs. No one will see God until death.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Which is why God never reveals Himself, but gives you signs of His existence.

Giving signs is revealing Itself. God, if It exists, went to a lot of trouble to design the universe so that there is absolutely no indication that It exists or doesn't exist. The point is to totally remove any possible influence on the use of our moral free will. But let's say God did decide to reveal Itself. It certainly wouldn't do so to just a chosen few; given their ability, with their free will, to abuse that revelation. And it's hard enough to know who's lying when you know them personally and they're standing right in front of you lying to your face--much less those (self?)-chosen few mythical figures from the ancient past. We can't even deal with physical evidence from the past without everyday and scholarly bias and misinterpretation, much less spiritual evidence for which we are totally dependent on the word of another (hearsay) from long ago.
 

RRex

Active Member
Premium Member
Why Does It Seem That God Never Intervenes In Human Suffering?

He/She/It is hands off. Made the universe and sat back to watch and laugh at us.

"God" is a b*****d, which is probably why Satan disagreed with Him/Her/It.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
He/She/It is hands off. Made the universe and sat back to watch and laugh at us.

"God" is a b*****d, which is probably why Satan disagreed with Him/Her/It.

If God exists, I'm sure It is watching to see what we do with our free will: some are good, some are bad, and some are ugly, wasting their lives yelling catcalls from their couches on the sidelines.
 

RRex

Active Member
Premium Member
If God exists, I'm sure It is watching to see what we do with our free will: some are good, some are bad, and some are ugly, wasting their lives yelling catcalls from their couches on the sidelines.
There is no free will.

If you've ever been psychotic you'd understand that.

Don't take it personally. I have . It's an eye-opening experience.
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
Giving signs is revealing Itself. God, if It exists, went to a lot of trouble to design the universe so that there is absolutely no indication that It exists or doesn't exist. The point is to totally remove any possible influence on the use of our moral free will. But let's say God did decide to reveal Itself. It certainly wouldn't do so to just a chosen few; given their ability, with their free will, to abuse that revelation. And it's hard enough to know who's lying when you know them personally and they're standing right in front of you lying to your face--much less those (self?)-chosen few mythical figures from the ancient past. We can't even deal with physical evidence from the past without everyday and scholarly bias and misinterpretation, much less spiritual evidence for which we are totally dependent on the word of another (hearsay) from long ago.

No, giving signs is NOT the same as revealing yourself.

When you are driving on the road and see a sign that says, "Nearest town - 5 miles." Once you see the sign, are you in the town? No.

Signs does not mean God has fully revealed Himself. God designed the universe in a way, with rational creatures, who have the ability to accept or reject the signs given to them. They won't know for certainty it is from God, but the more signs God reveals, the more certain they will become. You have to throw away your arrogance and ask for His signs to be revealed unto you. That is all you need. All this philosophical argumentation is useless.
 

Undefined Middle

New Member
Hello. I'm a bit new here but the question did interest me, so I will voice my opinion. As it always is, you do not have to agree with me, and if you do not, I mean no offense by my own opinions. Now, on to my take on the answer.

As what is called a "Pantheist", I am sure there are not many of us here, as we don't really collectively do things like go to Churches or Mosques, or other things. Anyways, as a Pantheist, I believe that pretty much, everything is collectively God, from atoms to galaxies, instead of the usual idea of a being other than the rest of the universe.

Now, to answer the question, I feel that God does not really interfere with problems and daily lives because we all don't interfere with problems. I am not 100% Pantheist, and many times use other religions and things to make my own sort of spirituality. I believe that God would help out more if we helped out more, due to an almost collective mindset of Humans. If millions upon millions of people helped the homeless or started caring about the environment, I feel as though a sort of God figure would seem to have helped. I think this also affects many of the things that go on already, like climate change and things. Because it is getting worse because of a lot of us and our ways, I feel the collective God makes it worse, due to our mentality, which makes these problems worse than they were when only some people caused these problems.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
There is no free will.

If you've ever been psychotic you'd understand that.

Don't take it personally. I have . It's an eye-opening experience.

I am sure, but I'm also sure that we can control our psychosis through will, though it's hard. It all comes under the heading of "life ain't fair". I have personal experience with that.

No, giving signs is NOT the same as revealing yourself.

When you are driving on the road and see a sign that says, "Nearest town - 5 miles." Once you see the sign, are you in the town? No.

Pleez! Human signs for humans isn't the same as divine signs for humans. Neither is parental supervision the same as divine observation. The parent must reveal himself their will. God must not because we must exercise exercise the free will God has given us. Parents cannot, especially early on when they must guard against the child playing in traffic etc.
Signs does not mean God has fully revealed Himself.

ANY sign is a revelation. There's no such thing as partially revealed. What is a partial revelation?

God designed the universe in a way, with rational creatures, who have the ability to accept or reject the signs given to them.

Either way, accept or reject, they're evidence for God

They won't know for certainty it is from God, but the more signs God reveals, the more certain they will become. You have to throw away your arrogance and ask for His signs to be revealed unto you. That is all you need. All this philosophical argumentation is useless.

If so, then free will doesn't exist and this "test" is a divine sham. All committed (faith driven) advocates for revelation, of any kind, argue against free will. Even Washington and Thomas Paine believed in divine providence. But even that denies free will. The sensless death of even the most innocent child is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. Why do you think free will has been such a hot button topic in philosophy? Without it, there's no purpose for the universe. To protect it, God cannot ever, EVER, interact in the universe.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Hello. I'm a bit new here but the question did interest me, so I will voice my opinion. As it always is, you do not have to agree with me, and if you do not, I mean no offense by my own opinions. Now, on to my take on the answer.

Hello.

Anyways, as a Pantheist, I believe that pretty much, everything is collectively God, from atoms to galaxies, instead of the usual idea of a being other than the rest of the universe.

As a human, does it make any difference whether God is pantheistic or pandeistic. or even panendeistic?

Now, to answer the question, I feel that God does not really interfere with problems and daily lives because we all don't interfere with problems. I am not 100% Pantheist, and many times use other religions and things to make my own sort of spirituality.

That could be a problem, unless you don't believe we have free will, in which case any purpose we might have is nonexistent.

I believe that God would help out more if we helped out more, due to an almost collective mindset of Humans. If millions upon millions of people helped the homeless or started caring about the environment, I feel as though a sort of God figure would seem to have helped.

Uh oh, so God is on the side of liberals? And don't take that to mean I'm anti-homeless or anti-environment, not at all. Only it isn't that simple.

I think this also affects many of the things that go on already, like climate change and things.

OK, now I'm beginning to wonder if you're a political operative, or very young.

Because it is getting worse because of a lot of us and our ways, I feel the collective God makes it worse, due to our mentality, which makes these problems worse than they were when only some people caused these problems.

What's getting worse? "Collective God"????[/QUOTE]
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
I am sure, but I'm also sure that we can control our psychosis through will, though it's hard. It all comes under the heading of "life ain't fair". I have personal experience with that.



Pleez! Human signs for humans isn't the same as divine signs for humans. Neither is parental supervision the same as divine observation. The parent must reveal himself their will. God must not because we must exercise exercise the free will God has given us. Parents cannot, especially early on when they must guard against the child playing in traffic etc.


ANY sign is a revelation. There's no such thing as partially revealed. What is a partial revelation?



Either way, accept or reject, they're evidence for God



If so, then free will doesn't exist and this "test" is a divine sham. All committed (faith driven) advocates for revelation, of any kind, argue against free will. Even Washington and Thomas Paine believed in divine providence. But even that denies free will. The sensless death of even the most innocent child is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. Why do you think free will has been such a hot button topic in philosophy? Without it, there's no purpose for the universe. To protect it, God cannot ever, EVER, interact in the universe.

Pleez! Human signs for humans isn't the same as divine signs for humans. Neither is parental supervision the same as divine observation. The parent must reveal himself their will. God must not because we must exercise exercise the free will God has given us. Parents cannot, especially early on when they must guard against the child playing in traffic etc.

I still don't think you understand. Here is one example of God's signs. You pray to God to give you some food since you have no money at all to afford food, and you are starving. Soon, a knock comes on your door and a man has a tray of food and gives it to you for no reason, and walks away. This is a strong sign that God accepted your prayers, HOWEVER, there is nothing stopping you from believing that this was just a coincidence. So therefore, this sign does not make God reveal Himself fully, but it makes it that He reveals Himself enough where your free will comes into play, and you can either accept that this was God's doing, or you can be arrogant and reject that altogether and think it was a coincidence.

I cannot stress this enough, you will never fully experience God until your death.

ANY sign is a revelation. There's no such thing as partially revealed. What is a partial revelation?

Revelation is not the same thing as God revealing Himself. Revelation is a secret of the universe which God sends down to a person or many people. God revealing Himself is a different idea altogether. There is no such thing as partial revelation, you came up with that idea by twisting my words. Revelation is a secret granted to someone by God, it can't be partial.

But God revealing Himself, this idea is always a partial thing, because no human in this life can ever see God. The only thing we see are His signs, so this is God revealing Himself partially. We will never witness God firsthand in this life, only until we die, we will meet our Maker.

Either way, accept or reject, they're evidence for God

And evidence does not mean absolute proof. Evidence is a piece of information that leads to a possible conclusion. It's not something set in stone. God's signs are always evidences, not 100% proof. There is always room for doubt in God's signs, and the reason for that room of doubt is why we are given free will. We are supposed to use our HEADS to distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence. If God always made His signs be fully absolute without any room for doubt, then there really is no point of our free will, or even our existence. God purposely adds small rooms of doubt in the signs, hence why many people, such as the Pharaoh during Moses' time, rejected all 8 signs that were given to him, but finally accepted the 9th sign of the flood for the proof of God's existence, but by that time, it was too late, since he drowned.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I still don't think you understand.

You say divine signs aren't revelation, and I'm the one who doesn't understand.

Here is one example of God's signs. You pray to God to give you some food since you have no money at all to afford food, and you are starving. Soon, a knock comes on your door and a man has a tray of food and gives it to you for no reason, and walks away. This is a strong sign that God accepted your prayers, HOWEVER, there is nothing stopping you from believing that this was just a coincidence. So therefore, this sign does not make God reveal Himself fully, but it makes it that He reveals Himself enough where your free will comes into play, and you can either accept that this was God's doing, or you can be arrogant and reject that altogether and think it was a coincidence.

Coincidence is not a sign, even though revealed religionists choose to believe that all the time. You pray that your sick child is made well, and when it happens, it isn't the medical treatment and love he received, it was your prayer. Or when you come out of a car accident unharmed, or at least you live, it was God watching over you. You're working too hard to rationalize you're blind faith when God hasn't done a thing--and never has.

I cannot stress this enough, you will never fully experience God until your death.

That may indeed well be true, but neither of us will know that until the time comes, or we'll know nothing at all.

(Divine) revelation is not the same thing as a (divine) God revealing Himself.

You can put words on the screen that form a direct contradiction, yet then deny it--looks to me like the best evidence possible that God, if It exists, is committed to your free will.
 

RRex

Active Member
Premium Member
I am sure, but I'm also sure that we can control our psychosis through will, though it's hard. It all comes under the heading of "life ain't fair". I have personal experience with that.

Pleez! Human signs for humans isn't the same as divine signs for humans. Neither is parental supervision the same as divine observation. The parent must reveal himself their will. God must not because we must exercise exercise the free will God has given us. Parents cannot, especially early on when they must guard against the child playing in traffic etc.

ANY sign is a revelation. There's no such thing as partially revealed. What is a partial revelation?

Either way, accept or reject, they're evidence for God

If so, then free will doesn't exist and this "test" is a divine sham. All committed (faith driven) advocates for revelation, of any kind, argue against free will. Even Washington and Thomas Paine believed in divine providence. But even that denies free will. The sensless death of even the most innocent child is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. Why do you think free will has been such a hot button topic in philosophy? Without it, there's no purpose for the universe. To protect it, God cannot ever, EVER, interact in the universe.
It isn't possible to control psychosis. You can blunt it with meds but it's a chemical imbalance that has to work its way out if your system.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
It isn't possible to control psychosis. You can blunt it with meds but it's a chemical imbalance that has to work its way out if your system.

That's debatable. In any case there are a lot of behaviors that are thrown into the dung heap labeled psychosis: ADD, pedophilia and most serial murderers. If I was a pedophile who couldn't avoid the behavior, I'd off myself instead.
 
Top