Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Sha'irullah]

I myself believe there is probably truth in every religion but all religions are not from God. In fact this is almost provable. Two mutually exclusive claims to absolute truth can't possibly both be true. The Bible says Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that NOONE proceeds to the father but through him, as well as saying Jesus is the only name by which men may be saved. Islam suggests some type of ambiguous (to me anyway) works and repentance formula for salvation. The Bible may be right, the Quran may be right, or both may be wrong. What can't possibly be true is that both are right. What Baha'i does that drives me nuts is to presuppose they are both true and then do whatever necessary to make it so. I believe that an all powerful benevolent God can and would communicate a single pure revelation, I find it inconceivable that he would hide pieces of truth in many mounds of mutually exclusive mountains of garbage.

That is very similar to the Bible. No meaningful contention here. Do you have a simple and clear method of getting there? I know it is said even Muhammad did not know. I have always found that strange.

Sorry I can't quote every verse in the Quran but I do remember it although not the entirety of the verse. I will write them down later .
But the Quran mentions numerous conditions to enter Jannah as oppose to the Bibles one. A man who lives his life performing righteous deeds will enter. Jews and Christians will enter for follow most of the original words of the prophets or if they perform righteous deeds(opinions differ). Those who keep Tahwid which means keeping god as one being and assigning no idols or partners unto him. God fearing people who know their lord is great will enter.
Being a Muslim does not give you a free ticket to Jannah and if that Muslim lived a deplorable life he to will enter hell for a period of time. The Quran also mentions that the inhabitants of hell will be set free to enter the gardens of heaven after a period of time when a new heaven and earth are rebuilt 14:48.
So a person of any faith can enter heaven as long as they abide by any of what I previously mentioned. The purpose for mentioning Christians and Jews in the Quran is simply to show that religion does not matter because god has sent messenger to all people in their own language to teach monotheism.
Most of my references can be found...10:52, 25:15, 39:42, 41:28,40:11,67:2,16:21, 22:66,

I would find this to be a liability and inconsistent with God's purpose. I would think he can communicate in a way that allows transmission and understanding in all languages. By the way do you agree the Quran is written in pure Arabic and is a perfect reflection of tablets in heaven?

As I mentioned before. The Quran clearly states Allah has sent messengers to all of mankind and even to Jinn int heir own language.
Surah Ibrahim(Abraham) ayat 4 "And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."
The Arabic of the Quran is canonical so it is always preserved. There is no requirement to pray in Arabic as most Muslims do and as long as the message is monotheism and does not contradict Quran. There have been Hindu reformist teaching similar messages, non Trinitarian Christians and plenty more who have all taught similar messages to the Quran.

 

[CG Didymus]

We could be made to choose the right path by default and we would all be the happier for it. The claim that God cannot do this because it would infringe on free will is simply a ploy to escape this perennial problem of evil.

This "right path" thing is interesting. Supposedly, God did make a big sign that said, "This way. This is the only way. Follow my son's footsteps on the path and you'll be okay. All other paths will lead you astray and to disaster." Who in their right mind would choose the wrong path? Obviously, it's not that simple. There are thousands of religious signs saying, "This way up." We've all tried some of them and they didn't work out so well. Even the best of Christian paths have potholes in them.

One pothole is allowing children to die and suffer. I understand why a thinking person would re-evaluate taking the Christian path and try a different "godless" road. The "God" road still has pain and suffering. It doesn't seem that good.

 

[WyattDerp]

Supposedly, God did make a big sign that said, "This way. This is the only way. Follow my son's footsteps on the path and you'll be okay.

Nobody. That's where the bit about God leading people astray because he is oh so wise and does what he wills comes in.

It's sick enough to pull wings out of flies. To pull wings out of flies and at the same time shout insults at them, that they're getting what was coming to them, that is beyond sick. Yet this is what the texts portray if you approach them with the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty.

 

[1robin]

Nobody. That's where the bit about God leading people astray because he is oh so wise and does what he wills comes in.

It's sick enough to pull wings out of flies. To pull wings out of flies and at the same time shout insults at them, that they're getting what was coming to them, that is beyond sick. Yet this is what the texts portray if you approach them with the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty.

Was that supposed to be some analogy of a theology? Which one?

 

[CG Didymus]

Nobody. That's where the bit about God leading people astray because he is oh so wise and does what he wills comes in.

It's sick enough to pull wings out of flies. To pull wings out of flies and at the same time shout insults at them, that they're getting what was coming to them, that is beyond sick. Yet this is what the texts portray if you approach them with the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty.

You know the sickest thing for me is that God made sex and then tells us not to think about it.

 

[WyattDerp]

Was that supposed to be some analogy of a theology? Which one?

It's not supposed to, it is, and it applied both to Christianity and Islam, at the very least. The Quran says it so literally there is no interpretation needed or even possible, and the Christianity has the little tidbit about nobody coming to Jesus 'cept the father pull them, and naturally those who don't come to Jesus get punished for the same things that are forgiven for those who were pulled. You know, the stuff about the free gift you don't get until you know you're getting it. Like some twisted mailman playing 20 questions instead of simply giving you a gift. "I cannot possibly give you this unless you believe it's actually yours" -- when in reality only the person making the gift needs to believe it.

 

[Copernicus]

I never said morality came from god and I quite clearly said it did not in almost all of my posts. I said very clearly the morals of an atheist will differ greatly then with the morals of a religious individual(especially if a fundamentalist). In all honesty morals do not exist and never will. The only true morals are the actions we take to keep peace amongst each other.

Sorry if I don't get the meaning from your words that you intend, Sterling. I honestly don't know what to make of your claim that morals do not exist followed by a statement about what "true morals" are. I know that you think you are making sense, but I'm not receiving the sense that you are trying to convey.

Everybody has the free will to murder, rape, steal and lie to anybody they please. I have just proven your words invalid in every aspect. Free will is the ability to choice an action and go beyond making the choice and actually do it physically. That is free will and that is something leads to violence.

We have a very different understanding of what is meant by "free will." One can only choose from a selection of available choices. If one tries to commit an act of violence and fails, that is not a failure of free will. It is a failure of the intended consequence of one's freely chosen action. If you forcibly prevent someone from committing murder, you are not violating their free will. You are restraining their intended actions.

If god restrains people from performing an action then free will is limited. You have the ability to do something and god and his infinite power can make your body stop in its very tracks. Obviously your free will to do an action has been limited. Free will is the ability to actually do the things that you choose. You don't know the difference between choice and freewill obviously. Freewill is the ability to DO(verb) as you please. I can choose to do anything I desire in my head, but without freewill I cannot actually perform that action based upon my choice.

No, you cannot, and I'll try to explain why one more time. You are assuming that that an act of will is only free if it succeeds in an intended goal. If you wish to jump a mile in the air, the fact that you cannot do that is not a limitation of your free will, even if you believe that you can do it. You can still choose to jump, but you cannot choose your ability to jump to be different from what it is. In other words, free will is limited to a choice among available actions. If your God had intended you to be able to jump a mile in the air, he would have created you with the ability to do that.

God knows our future, but we don't. So how can we progress to do anything including know and learn about god? Also from what you are saying you keep making it sound as if I somehhow believe hell is eternal. I never said such a thing.

It isn't an issue with me how long hell lasts in your perspective. I am not going to try to explain to you how free will can exist from God's perspective, but I do consider free will to be logically incompatible with omniscience. Obviously, we are free to choose from the options available to us, but we aren't omniscient. If we were, then we would not have any choice but to do what we already knew we would do.

You make god limited by the actions of a human dictator. When I say dictator I am implying he can be above any other dictator simply because he can control freewill. A dictator can limit a number of actions by his people but he cannot physically control them like puppets......unless he was telepathic but that is a whole other story

I never made any claims with respect to God and dictators. You were the one to raise the analogy. I have only discussed it in that context. Whether or not God can manipulate us like puppets, I never suggested that he would do that by preventing suffering. You are the one who keeps making the claim that suffering is necessary in order for there to be free will, so God cannot remove suffering without compromising free will (which AFAICT cannot even exist from God's perspective). I cannot make that connection, and I still have no idea how you arrive at it. You must be making some assumptions that I am unaware of.

I have a strong feeling you are not reading my posts at all Copernicus because a lot of these ideas you claim I am saying are ideals I am openly against. Please read carefully to prevent confusion.

I am sorry to leave you with that impression, Sterling. Perhaps we are talking past each other because we are both misunderstanding what the other is trying to say.

 

[Hitchey]

I am a Baptist and would have kept my big mouth shut. BTW it seems that the context is that of a women that was going to hell by Christian standards. How was that determination arrived at?

Hi Robin,
Another member, CG Didymus, related the recent loss to cancer of friend; a woman with two young children. She was a practising Buddhist. He speculated that it would not be much comfort to the woman's children if an insensitive person told them that their mother had gone to Hell for not practicing Christianity. It was simply another instance where speaking of God to provide comfort would not have been the best move.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Getting out of sequence, I wanted to add a very powerful one that if true I would think alone would settle everything. There are over 2000 prophecies in the Bible that are claimed to have been fulfilled in detail. I have defended a few of the most challenged and even I was astounded how accurate they are. Tyre’s destruction is amazing in detail. There is no parallel in human history. I keep meaning to become completely familiar with all of them but have not done so yet. Over 350 predict aspect of Christ’s life alone. However, there are two of many thousands of arguments so take your best shot.

Tyre's destruction? What? Tyre still exists.

 

[Hitchey]

I think you asked me for some evidence or argumentation for God existence. If so I need to first state it is only practical for me to post a very small fraction of the total.

If you are anything like me – and I think you are – you could write a book on the subject.

I make no claim that any line of evidence is proof nor even the sum total. I do maintain the evidence for God is more than enough to justify faith. It also vastly exceeds evidence for "allowed" theories in science like multiverses and dark matter.

I don't think the verdict is in on multiverses and dark matter – not quite yet.

Since there is no obvious place to start from let's try the beginning.

I digress slightly: where do you stand on the Genesis creation story?

The current dominant theory in Cosmology is illustrated by the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. It of course having theological implications, is challenged but as of today it is by far the most accepted theory.

The theological implications of the theory are challenged by Vilenkin. Guth has written on more than one occasion that the universe does not require God.

It explains that our universe began to exist and is of course finite. Philosophy dictates that everything "that begins to exist" must have a sufficient cause.

Of course you are seeking dispensation for God himself? It was Bertrand Russell who famously wrote, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." (Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian, p. 15). He explains that he accepted the First Cause argument until age 18 when he read John Stuart Mills autobiography. I was 10 when I first began to question, and though I had not heard of the argument from the First Cause it struck me that God must have had a beginning, but I could not contemplate a sentient Being making himself.

Nature and natural law is out because they did not exist prior to the universe and are causally impotent anyway.

Not according to the scientists. Guth argues that he can theorize the universe coming from nothing. Lawrence Krauss states that nothing is, in itself, inherently unstable, and in his 2012 book, A Universe from Nothing, explains how to get a universe from nothing. You would like to write natural law out so that God might be squeezed in, but you are doing so against the best judgement of the physicists.

Unless you have some idea how God created the universe, and you don't, then you really only have the work of the scientists to provide details. What you are really doing is using the existence of the universe to postulate God's existence, just as the author of Job postulated warehouses of snow and hail in Heaven to account for the presence of snow and hail reaching the ground (Job 38:22). It's a risky argument.

Philosophy dictates that only two candidates are possible given what we know. Abstract concepts and a disembodied mind. Abstract concepts are out because they are non-causal, which leaves only one candidate. This is well and good but it gets better. Philosophy also dictates that this cause must have certain characteristics. In this case non material, independent of time, and so on. They give an exact description of this cause and it is identical to what ignorant men gave 4000 years ago for God. If they were lying they would have not known what to invent so that it would fly today. Convergent confirmation is a very powerful type of argument.

Perhaps a separate post on this would be good. I am not familiar with what you are talking about.

Getting out of sequence, I wanted to add a very powerful one that if true I would think alone would settle everything. There are over 2000 prophecies in the Bible that are claimed to have been fulfilled in detail. I have defended a few of the most challenged and even I was astounded how accurate they are. Tyre’s destruction is amazing in detail. There is no parallel in human history. I keep meaning to become completely familiar with all of them but have not done so yet. Over 350 predict aspect of Christ’s life alone. However, there are two of many thousands of arguments so take your best shot.

I am not familiar with the story of Tyre's destruction (will have to look it up), nor have I looked closely at prophecy in general, but my understanding – from what I've seen – is that it has a poor track record. I am especially sceptical that any prophecy refers to Christ.

It sounds like you’ve already formed posts on this. It might take me quite awhile to get up to speed.

I apologize for the length of the post.

 

[cottage]

Well you sure made a summary easy and you did seem to grasp what I was clumsily driving at. I wanted to illustrate the issue is with the validity of faith not with the provision of that faith if true. As with almost every other issue here in the last few days it is a matter of ontology versus epistemology. [/font][/color]

I think you asked me for some evidence or argumentation for God existence. If so I need to first state it is only practical for me to post a very small fraction of the total. I make no claim that any line of evidence is proof nor even the sum total. I do maintain the evidence for God is more than enough to justify faith. It also vastly exceeds evidence for "allowed" theories in science like multiverses and dark matter. Since there is no obvious place to start from let's try the beginning. The current dominant theory in Cosmology is illustrated by the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. It of course having theological implications, is challenged but as of today it is by far the most accepted theory. It explains that our universe began to exist and is of course finite. Philosophy dictates that everything "that begins to exist" must have a sufficient cause. Nature and natural law is out because they did not exist prior to the universe and are causally impotent anyway. Philosophy dictates that only two candidates are possible given what we know. Abstract concepts and a disembodied mind. Abstract concepts are out because they are non-causal, which leaves only one candidate. This is well and good but it gets better. Philosophy also dictates that this cause must have certain characteristics. In this case non material, independent of time, and so on. They give an exact description of this cause and it is identical to what ignorant men gave 4000 years ago for God. If they were lying they would have not known what to invent so that it would fly today. Convergent confirmation is a very powerful type of argument.

I hope you don't mind me chipping in here?

Philosophy doesn’t ‘dictate’, but either analyses statements to see if they are in error in the Anglo American tradition, or proposes speculative metaphysical or existential systems in the more continental style. I believe it is fair to say they are examples of how to think rather than presuming to tell us what to think?

Actually it is experience, that is to say observation from past instances, that informs us that every thing that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. The classic Cosmological or Kalam Argument is inferential and takes it upon itself to state that what is true of this world is true in all worlds, to include God, which must of course imply a contradiction. (In this sense I’m not speaking of yet to be discovered planets but the modal principle of what is possible or necessary). In order to argue that something external to the world is the cause of the world clearly requires the concept of cause and effect, a feature of this contingent world, to be necessary; and yet it isn’t since the principle can be denied without contradiction! And self-evidently causation cannot be both contingent and necessary. There is no argument that I’m aware of to show that the eternity of the world is a demonstrably false proposition. For if nothing in the world can be shown as necessary then we’re not at liberty to apply the concept of causation other than to this, the actual world. It can be argued, therefore, that the world is uncaused and has in some form always existed.

 

[Hitchey]

This "right path" thing is interesting. Supposedly, God did make a big sign that said, "This way. This is the only way. Follow my son's footsteps on the path and you'll be okay. All other paths will lead you astray and to disaster." Who in their right mind would choose the wrong path? Obviously, it's not that simple.

Obviously. Yet, many think it is that simple (I've been banned from their sites ). They label anyone who sees it their way as Christian and anyone who doesn't as a false Christian: there is only one Christianity and it is theirs; everyone else is on Satan's path.

There are thousands of religious signs saying, "This way up." We've all tried some of them and they didn't work out so well. Even the best of Christian paths have potholes in them.

Yes, been there, tried that.

One pothole is allowing children to die and suffer.

I think this path leads us to the problem of evil – a route that has led some on to the road called atheism.

I understand why a thinking person would re-evaluate taking the Christian path and try a different "godless" road. The "God" road still has pain and suffering. It doesn't seem that good.

By "godless" do you mean atheistic? If so I question whether atheists choose their path because it has less pain and suffering. I don’t think that’s the case.

 

[1robin]

Hi Robin,
Another member, CG Didymus, related the recent loss to cancer of friend; a woman with two young children. She was a practising Buddhist. He speculated that it would not be much comfort to the woman's children if an insensitive person told them that their mother had gone to Hell for not practicing Christianity. It was simply another instance where speaking of God to provide comfort would not have been the best move.

Ok, and I agree that the application is problematic.

 

[Hitchey]

I hope you don't mind me chipping in here?

I welcome your input.


Philosophy is not my strong suit, though I do have an number of courses under my belt, and I have great respect for those who have mastered it. I still find that the language is something I have to struggle with. I once read, and re-read, and read again, Hume's thoughts on the failure of analogies, from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. When finally I grasped his meaning the power of the argument swept me away. All of this is to say that I feel compelled in my ignorance to jump to your conclusion -- it is something I can understand.

It can be argued, therefore, that the world is uncaused and has in some form always existed.

Though we might argue this it still remains likely that the world emerged from interactions of a large galactic cloud of gasses, dust, and larger debris, and that it does seem in all likelihood there was once a time in which the world did not exist.

 

[CG Didymus]

They label anyone who sees it their way as Christian and anyone who doesn't as a false Christian: there is only one Christianity and it is theirs; everyone else is on Satan's path.

I think this path leads us to the problem of evil – a route that has led some on to the road called atheism.

By "godless" do you mean atheistic? If so I question whether atheists choose their path because it has less pain and suffering. I don’t think that’s the case.

Most of us have been there, tried that. I've had many a sincere person tell me of the love of their God. I tried their religion. They all had similar elements--a belief system, a charismatic founder and charismatic leaders. The teachings made enough sense to get people to follow it. But, how much difference was there between one of them being called a cult and another one being called mainstream God revealed truth?

For some people all religions appear to be superstitious, a crutch, a delusion. To the believer I can see how it brings comfort and explanations for their deepest questions. When they suffer pain, they can find comfort in that God knows best. He has a plan. All will be well in the end. However, since many Christians believe they are the only ones right, that means that all the other "Christians" and those of all other religions are delusional. Religion is tricking their followers into thinking all is well. It is a crutch. It is a false-hope. But, what about those that think they have the "right" religion? What if they are wrong also?

I appreciate those that have enough integrity to question religious beliefs systems. I didn't mean that an atheist is trying to avoid pain, although, they avoid the pain of the mental turmoil caused by trying to follow a religion. But, the point was that pain and suffering is part of the natural world and religion doesn't and can't stop it. So what good is it, and what is it really trying to do?

 

[1robin]

It's not supposed to, it is, and it applied both to Christianity and Islam, at the very least. The Quran says it so literally there is no interpretation needed or even possible, and the Christianity has the little tidbit about nobody coming to Jesus 'cept the father pull them, and naturally those who don't come to Jesus get punished for the same things that are forgiven for those who were pulled. You know, the stuff about the free gift you don't get until you know you're getting it. Like some twisted mailman playing 20 questions instead of simply giving you a gift. "I cannot possibly give you this unless you believe it's actually yours" -- when in reality only the person making the gift needs to believe it.

It is truly remarkable how preference colors everything we see. I used to think God did not exist and hated him if he did. I saw in verses exactly what you do, what I chose to. Now that I have experienced God I see them through the opposite filter. Both of us can't be right. I agree the Quran is troublesome on many levels. It appears identical to what a 6th century Arabian would make up if trying to create a religion all on his own. I do not believe it is from God. I believe you seriously misinterpret the Bible as I am familiar with the verse you refer to and I see something completely different. I see a verse that is stating that salvation is a work that requires God's participation. I do not see some random lottery of who he is willing to save and others he neglects. For one thing a skeptic always takes things in isolation and that is invalid. Other verses say that God does not wish any to perish but have life and life more abundantly. You should not do what Jefferson did, cut the Bible up with scissors until you get whatever you are after. I would post the hundreds of other verses for context but I am running short on time currently.

 

[1robin]

Tyre's destruction? What? Tyre still exists.

I have had to defend these verse quite a bit recently and have learned much about this prophecy. I have learned that there are three primary things used to dismiss it for convenience. If prophecies are not dismissed then that makes God so probable that anything must be used to do so. Only one of the three methods is semi valid. The other two are based on ignorance of the prophecy.

1. That (as you claim) Tyre should not be there. Explained below.
2. That the prophecy does not allow for Alexander (he and they confusion).
These are the two claims based in ignorance.
3. That it is possible the prophecy was written after the attack of Nebuchadnezzar.
This one is certainly possible however it is not possible that it was written after Alexander’s predictions. there is also no evidence it was written later than the first attack. It is possible, the evidence that it was written earlier could be stronger but all the evidence available puts it earlier. So this one is a partial and ineffective claim but possible.

As for your claim (#1) above. God was mad at the Phoenician’s not the geographical coordinates. He had no motive to render the place forever void of buildings. The prophecy is very specific. In every verse where he talks about wiping out the city and that it would not be built again he uses "you" or "this". He is referring to the fact that the Phoenician’s would never again rebuild Tyre. That is who he was mad at, not the stones or the land at the spot. This is not part of the prophecy, but in fact Phoenicia began a decline that ended them as a distinct culture from this attack. There is current no Phoenicia of any kind anywhere. He said over and over that "you", "it" and "this" city will not be rebuilt and it wasn't. Some other culture at a later date did build another city in that area but that city was never rebuilt. The Bible is meant to be read with common sense, the allowance for language use (like apocalyptic, romantic, poetic etc.), and in the context of the whole. It is not meant to be dissected and arbitrary meanings determined in order to serve an arbitrary purpose. There are literals, allegory, metaphor, and parable. In other words context and application must be included. I have noticed critics never ever do this. I can go through this prophecy line for line if you wish. It is one of my favorites and hauntingly accurate and I have done much research on it.

 

[cottage]

I welcome your input.


Philosophy is not my strong suit, though I do have an number of courses under my belt, and I have great respect for those who have mastered it. I still find that the language is something I have to struggle with. I once read, and re-read, and read again, Hume's thoughts on the failure of analogies, from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. When finally I grasped his meaning the power of the argument swept me away. All of this is to say that I feel compelled in my ignorance to jump to your conclusion -- it is something I can understand.


Though we might argue this it still remains likely that the world emerged from interactions of a large galactic cloud of gasses, dust, and larger debris, and that it does seem in all likelihood there was once a time in which the world did not exist.

Yes indeed! Once again, we can hypothesize from this actual (and thus logically possible) world to think of it as once not existing without self-contradiction, and from which it follows there would have been no laws of logic to be affirmed or contradicted. Possible worlds exist, or might exist, and where there are possible worlds there will be logic entailing that possibility, since ‘possibility’ is a logical predicate; but if it is said ‘No possible worlds then no logic,’ then only by an argument of pure sophistry could we to denounce it as false. And if it is possible that there was once nothing at all then contingency and necessity will only have meaning within the world, and in that case the world is not in wont of a reason for its existence. Now, it may be asked, since we must accept that the world actually exists does that not entail that it must have sprung into existence from nothing? The question can only be asked because of what we understand as the phenomenon of cause and effect, a phenomenon that is without logical necessity. So there is no logical impediment in conceiving of a thing existing where before there was nothing.

 

[1robin]

If you are anything like me – and I think you are – you could write a book on the subject.

Maybe, but without seventeen titles and letters before my name no one will read it.

I don't think the verdict is in on multiverses and dark matter – not quite yet.

I was not talking about their being true or false. I was simply pointing out that theories with little or no evidence positing things that can't be detected are fine for science even though science is always claimed to be about fact, however religion must either prove (and then it would be denied) it's true or it cannot even be considered even though it is a faith based system. Double standards are ugly things.

I digress slightly: where do you stand on the Genesis creation story?

I believe it is a roughly accurate description of the Big Bang. I do not think it was intended to be literal but symbolic in many cases.

The theological implications of the theory are challenged by Vilenkin. Guth has written on more than one occasion that the universe does not require God.

Currently there is no other reasonable candidate. I use the theorem not to prove God but show the universe had a beginning and is finite. Once I get to that point those guys are out of their fields and I have no use for them. The philosophers and theologians take over. What a cosmologist says about God is no more meaningful than what a celebrity says about politics (or anything for that matter). Natural law ends at the Big Bang, scientists are done at that point. My point was scientists get us to T=0 and the philosophers show us that it is reasonable to believe a creator with certain properties is necessary of some kind. Theologians show those properties are an exact match for God. If God in this case was a natural force it would have long ago been adopted by science.

Of course you are seeking dispensation for God himself? It was Bertrand Russell who famously wrote, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." (Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian, p. 15). He explains that he accepted the First Cause argument until age 18 when he read John Stuart Mills autobiography. I was 10 when I first began to question, and though I had not heard of the argument from the First Cause it struck me that God must have had a beginning, but I could not contemplate a sentient Being making himself.

I like Russell but that argument has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought by scholars and it is meaningless. God is an uncaused first cause. This concept is very interesting. If we have X (the universe or anything) then we can not possibly have an infinite regression of causation. If we did we would never get X. The fact we have a universe means it's chain of causation must end at some point with an uncaused first cause. Occam’s razor demands no more steps than God. BTW only things that begin to exist need a cause and infinite causal regression requests would undermine every fact in every field of study that exists. God didn't come into being. Even if all that was false it still is unnecessary to prove where a cause came from to know it is the best explanation. If I must explain the explanation then where does that stop, even if that was needed or valid? If I see a computer I know a person designed it without knowing where the person came from.

Not according to the scientists. Guth argues that he can theorize the universe coming from nothing. Lawrence Krauss states that nothing is, in itself, inherently unstable, and in his 2012 book, A Universe from Nothing, explains how to get a universe from nothing. You would like to write natural law out so that God might be squeezed in, but you are doing so against the best judgment of the physicists.

I can theorize the lucky charms leprechaun made the universe. This is where these scientists really loose me. I do not care how smart a person is or how many degrees they have, nothing produces nothing. It is hard to think a PhD is wrong but I think these guys think themselves into imbecility at some point. My boss is a PhD, and he can do stuff I would not even attempt, yet almost daily I will see a simple solution or method to do something he has complicated up until it is like using quantum mechanics to put tab A in slot B. Before T=0 a scientists is guessing the same as any of us. I work in a DOD lab, part of my job is to take new subcontractor produced instruments like rubidium oscillators and syncro resolvers and incorporate them into an existing f-15 test station. So far we have received six types, all six failed on their first test. 4 are still being figured out by teams of science folks. If we get six out of six common instruments wrong, what are the chances science knows anything specific about what took place 14 billion years ago? Science has received an almost omniscient status in modern times that it does not merit. Much of the “science in this context requires more faith given less evidence than the Bible does. Decisions about science fact are even at times determined based on theological preference. Quotes available if needed. I have 190 sem hours in science and a math degree, I lost my mesmerization with science while in school but once considered it all-knowing. That was years before I became born again.

Unless you have some idea how God created the universe, and you don't, then you really only have the work of the scientists to provide details. What you are really doing is using the existence of the universe to postulate God's existence, just as the author of Job postulated warehouses of snow and hail in Heaven to account for the presence of snow and hail reaching the ground (Job 38:22). It's a risky argument.

I have no need to know how. Neither one of us knows how Apollo 5 was built (and my father worked on it) yet it was built. Either God made the universe or not, my knowing how is independent of that and quite a separate issue. Job is an allegory and would not look to it for literal scientific descriptors.

Perhaps a separate post on this would be good. I am not familiar with what you are talking about.

That I will leave up to you.

I am not familiar with the story of Tyre's destruction (will have to look it up), nor have I looked closely at prophecy in general, but my understanding – from what I've seen – is that it has a poor track record. I am especially skeptical that any prophecy refers to Christ.

I have only defended less than 50 but of course they were supposed to be the weakest 50. Approx. 40 were slam dunk accurate, 9 were accurate with details that were challengeable, only 1 was no good. Not because it was wrong but by the time it was written the event had occurred so it isn't technically a prophecy. Claiming a dozen prophecies in some obscure mysticism book, or some vague guesses by Nostradamus, some half accurate Cayce predictions are wrong is one thing. Claiming a meaningful amount of over 2000 of the most accurate prophecy’s ever given in the most studied book in human history are wrong is a tall order. I have long thought that this issue is the one that could settle the issue of God's existence the best.

It sounds like you’ve already formed posts on this. It might take me quite a while to get up to speed.

I have probably written 40 posts on this. There is even a Tyre thread here. It is very complex.

I apologize for the length of the post.

I once made a post so long that I had to break it up into 4. This is the most profound issue in human history. It deserves the best scholarship available and length is no impediment. However many times civility is even too much to expect. Remain as respectful as you are and no post is too long, it is that rare.

 

[1robin]

I hope you don't mind me chipping in here?

Not at all however I do not know what chipping means.

Philosophy doesn’t ‘dictate’, but either analyses statements to see if they are in error in the Anglo American tradition, or proposes speculative metaphysical or existential systems in the more continental style. I believe it is fair to say they are examples of how to think rather than presuming to tell us what to think?

I disagree though it may be more accurate to say philosophic principles outline how things function. The principle of cause and effect for instance has no known exceptions, not even in the quantum. In fact there are a set of logical laws that have no exceptions know. It is math for truth.

Actually it is experience, that is to say observation from past instances that informs us that everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. The classic Cosmological or Kalam Argument is inferential and takes it upon itself to state that what is true of this world is true in all worlds, to include God, which must of course imply a contradiction.

Not exactly. The principle involved here is cause and effect and the efficiency of causation. Only things that begin to exist must have causes. God as a concept did not begin to exist. It is true to say we do not know it to be fact that causation applies outside nature but there is no reason to think it doesn't. The other field that covers outside nature issues is theology and we find the same philosophy in the Bible.

(In this sense I’m not speaking of yet to be discovered planets but the modal principle of what is possible or necessary). In order to argue that something external to the world is the cause of the world clearly requires the concept of cause and effect, a feature of this contingent world, to be necessary; and yet it isn’t since the principle can be denied without contradiction!

If denied it is denied in spite of what we know and not based on any evidence. Cause and effect is not a product of natural law, it is an independent concept. For example abstract concepts like numbers or morality are not determined by natural law.

And self-evidently causation cannot be both contingent and necessary.

God is not both. He is defined as necessary. In fact there is an argument (ontological I believe) for God that demonstrates that if God is possible then he exists because he is a necessary being. I have never liked that argument but some very respected scholars suggest it is fact.

There is no argument that I’m aware of to show that the eternity of the world is a demonstrably false proposition.

There are many if by world you mean natural universe. A natural infinite is not known to even be possible. If time goes back into the past infinitely then how did we cross an infinite number of seconds to get to now? How could we cross an infinite number of past events to get to this one? Since reliable cosmology shows the universe is expanding at an increasing rate then if infinite it should be maximally dispersed. In fact it should have reached maximum entropy an infinity ago. It is only by science fiction these issues are said to be overcome. A natural infinity is a logical impossibility. There are others as well.

For if nothing in the world can be shown as necessary then we’re not at liberty to apply the concept of causation other than to this, the actual world.

The concept of God is always defined as a modal necessity.

It can be argued, therefore, that the world is uncaused and has in some form always existed.

Not by using reliable logic and science. These claims lie in faith based fantasy, dressed in scientific garments. It also goes against the prevalent cosmology. The dominant cosmological models posit a finite universe that began approx. 14 billion years ago and there is no observable fact capable of overturning that at this time.