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

[1robin]

Black holes can be inferred by observing their gravitational interactions with their surroundings. MIT scientists are currently working with something called an Event Horizon Telescope where they’re trying to observe the event horizon of a black hole directly. They didn’t just pull this stuff out of thin air and expect us all to just believe it.

I didn't say they invented it. I used YOUR standards to show their absurdity. Jesus 2000 years ago said just as the wind can't be seen except by it's effects said the spirit can be seen by it's effects. I use consistent standards. I believe things I can't see can be true even if inconvenient. Why don't you?

Ask these guys about atoms:
The First Image Ever of a Hydrogen Atom's Orbital Structure
A Snapshot of the Inside of an Atom | Science/AAAS | News
Where is the faith?

Some aspects of atoms have been observed in a way but you will never see a picture of an atom in all it's claimed aspects. My point was not that they do not exist but that they existed long before anyone saw one or even considered them. The same is true of God. Again my standards are consistent.

So you just say “god doesn’t need to begin to exist” and you think you’ve solved it. Basically, you’ve just made it up, because you don’t actually know that.

No people long before the first scientific or philosophic question was asked recorded this. They were not responding to these questions yet answered them perfectly. When I say what God is in a debate I mean the concept of God under discussion. Think of it that way. I believe he exists on faith, I take what is true of a concept by fact. That is the concept and we are evaluating (or should be) whether that fits what is known and it does perfectly. I did not invent it I found it existing that way for at least the last 5000 years.

Why is it bizarre? You guys want to go on about specified complexity without having to acknowledge how complex your god has to be. And when we point it out, you just make something else up to make your argument jibe, like “god exists outside of time and space” without ever having to demonstrate it. I need evidence to believe something. I’m not comfortable with answers that don’t actually answer anything.

I post a lot but applying plurality to me is a bit much. I do not object to these concepts but your are using rules that govern the natural to bind the non-natural and that is a waste of time. BTW most philosophers claim a disembodied mind is an extraordinarily simplistic concept. Its self not what it creates. I have no idea how to ***** its complexity.

Somebody else invented god to solve the problem.

You falsely suggest I claim as fact what I do not know and then do it your self. You weren't there you do not know what they did. What they did not do is know the parameters they needed to fake to make their description of God still solve untold dilemmas and paradoxes even 5000 years later.

God has been used to “explain” so many things that have been misunderstood by ourselves, that is, until science was able to come up with demonstrable naturalistic answers to such questions.

Let's say you actually know what you can't know even if true. Let's pretend they invented God to answer questions about why hurricanes arise or why they are scared of the mountains or what shape the world is. Why would what they constructed meet every lack natural explanations have left unanswered over the next 5000 years. A child's creation will not explain origins, meaning, and morality why did theirs do so perfectly? There is a whole lot more information about God in the OT than you may realize. If contrived it would easily be shown up with the questions the Greeks asked. Yet here in the space age it is actually growing in acceptance. Pretty good for some bronze age idiots trying to fake an explanation why we die. Also why would they have invented a Hell they were headed for and a morality that was very inconvenient and recorded all their failures (which do not come any more embarrassing than betrayal of God himself). The God of the gaps arguments are not even used that often anymore.

There is actually some evidence for multiverses; whether they exist or not remains to be seen, and it’s not me positing their existence, it is people who study cosmology for a living.

We can only see what is in our universe. If it is in our universe how is it another universe. I have read every claim of evidence for them I have been given and they are atrocious. Even being absurdly generous they do not add up to much of anything.

Notice how I keep saying we have to just say “I don’t know” at this point in time? And for some reason you think that means I’m exercising some kind of faith?

I have no problem with that but you have claimed to know quite a lot of things you can't for someone suggesting this. I do not know and you do not know but based on the best evidence we have God is a very very likely being and the Bible an accurate record of revelation. However no absolute certainty may be had and IMO that is by design. Faith precludes proof and faith is a valued commodity by God for whatever reason.

 

[adi2d]

It would not matter because the laws that govern life only apply to the natural not the supernatural. I have made claims about abiogenesis many times. Why all of a sudden for the first time every non-theist is trying to insist what is true of biology must bind a being that potentially created the very laws themselves escapes me. I thought I had seen them all by now. I do not think God can be meaningfully described by our descriptions of what constitutes life. I think it as meaningless to try and define God by what we have attempted to describe organic systems by as it is for us to use the morality we do not even live up to or desire to declare him evil. It is just a waste of time. Whatever God is there is not a single reason to suggest the laws of biology have any effect on him. They govern your materialistic world not my far larger world view.

I have never claimed God was affected by biology or anything else. You were the one making the claim that life only comes from life. Your world view doesn't so maybe you should quit making that claim.

 

[McBell]

I have not the slightest idea what your talking about.

That is merely one of my points.
You have no idea what is being discussed and yet here you are presenting sermons about what you have to have me believe/accept/ect. in order for you to avoid the contradiction presented by Rapture Era.

There is nothing personally flattering in my whole post. Are you ok?

Says the great sarcastic commentator whose argumentation was so futile I had to ignore it and still do unless I am very bored. Making personal commentary to denounce personal commentary is self destructive.

Nice try, but for all your whining about personal attacks...

So much for your alleged higher ground.

That is the argument as it has existed in scholarship for many years. I never said it was your argument. It is one you should wish to resolve however.

And it is STILL not the "argument" that was being discussed when you butted in with your sermons...

Yeah I am the conceded one surviving on personal remarks. I do not see a relevant claim here at all so I am going to have to reinstate my prior policy and ignore it. Maybe some emoticons can comfort you.

You credibility would have been better served if you had kept your mouth shut...

 

[1robin]

I have never claimed God was affected by biology or anything else. You were the one making the claim that life only comes from life. Your world view doesn't so maybe you should quit making that claim.

No I am not. Biologists make that claim about biology. I just drew attention to it. It has no relevance concerning God's existence as he is not biological life nor would be bound by the natural even if he was. As a concept nothing about abiogenesis has any effect on him. However for those who state the natural is all there is you are stuck with something that for now the natural can't resolve. It is not my law nor my problem. It is only a problem for those who claim the naturalism all there is. What I called attention is perfectly appropriate for a debate in this context and frequently is in debate at the highest levels. You may not like it because it is inconvenient but neither insisting it has any power to bind God or it shouldn't be used is valid.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You may suggest until your heart is content. It will not do anything to lessen the reasons or evidence that such a thing does exist. As I have said the concept existed prior to the question so it is not a contrived explanation invented to meet that need. We had the idea of a disembodied mind before we had the question to invent it to satisfy.

What evidence is there for the existence of disembodied minds? And further, what evidence do we have that indicates that a mind can exist independent from a brain? I ask this because all the evidence I know of points to minds being functions of brains.

The concept existed prior to the question? What question?

No I have two competing explanations for events that pre-existed any questions the events put forward. Natural does not satisfy them even theoretically and the other pre-existing concept meets them perfectly. We have our life span to resolve issues. It would do no one any good alive today to wait until all the evidence is in because we will be dead. Just as anyone who waits until all the evidence is in to determine if their romantic interest is the right one will never be married so to those who wait until God comes back or we die will be saved, especially since if there is no God we in our omniscience will probably kill ourselves off before too much longer. I must decide based on what we reliably know.

There’s nothing wrong with “I don’t know” if we don’t actually know. I’d love for everything to be figured out in my lifetime, but that’s an unrealistic expectation. So if I die before we get all the answers, so be it. I’m not going to make things up just to satisfy my need to know – because it wouldn’t be satisfied that way.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I waited until all the evidence was in before deciding I wanted to spend my life with someone. We can use demonstrable evidence to determine how much someone actually cares for us. I mean, if someone says they love you and then starts smacking you around or telling you you’re worthless, I think it’s pretty safe to say they don’t actually love you and this isn’t someone you want to be spending your life with. On the other hand, if a person tells you they love you, brings you flowers, rubs your back after a long day, sticks with you through tough times, etc., I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that they care about you.

You’re touching on a bit on Pascal’s wager territory here, which in my opinion is garbage. Maybe you’ve been praying to the wrong god this whole time and the Muslims are right. Then you’re in big trouble. Nobody really knows what happens to us when we die. Pretending to know the answer doesn’t help anyone.

There are many things claimed to have been experienced or that have occurred (millions of them) that have no even potentiality for a natural explanation. If it were any other subject even the most rigid scientists would claim it was demonstrated evidence of the supernatural as they do anyway even without it for other things.

Really? Like what?

You know, there’s a million dollar prize at stake for anyone who can produce tangible evidence for the supernatural. And guess what? No one has ever claimed it. So I’d have to disagree with you that even the most rigid scientists would claim that claims of the supernatural have been demonstrated.

That is unless you can show all those millions of things are false.

We’d have to examine them all individually to determine this. Are we talking about Jesus appearing on a piece of toast? Are we talking about weeping statues? Are we talking about people levitating? What are we talking about here?
I’m sorry, but people have experiences they can’t personally explain. So what? Does that mean there’s no possible naturalistic explanation for it, or does it mean that the person experiencing it just hasn’t looked for a naturalistic explanation for it, or simply isn’t aware of one that might exist? Do we have to assume that everyone who says they were abducted by aliens were actually abducted by aliens just because they say so?

And what if we have no eyewitness accounts of yeti? Does someone still get to believe in yeti, and attribute characteristics to the yeti whose existence hasn’t even been demonstrated?

Sure they could. We do so concerning dinosaurs and birds, multiverses, and even yeti's already. Maybe unconvincing but since we have seen God in human form also irrelevant.

Sure they could, but they would only be deluding themselves.
We have evidence for dinosaurs and birds obtained by studying fossils and their surroundings, and yes, even multiverses. There is no evidence for yeti, save for some guys dressed up in suits taking pictures of each other. So how could someone honestly go about applying characteristics to something which has never even been demonstrated to exist?

When have you seen god in human form?

Again equating things that are not even remotely equal is a meaningless exercise. Yeti's as far as I know do not have the most scrutinized book in human history written (containing mountains of evidence) about the most influential being in human history as evidence. I answered these objections previously.

They’re equal claims to me. We’re talking about the existence of something versus the non-existence of something. The same standards apply to yetis, gods, fairies, and aliens.

What mountains of evidence are there in the Bible? A Muslim will tell you there are mountains of evidence for their god. A Hindu will tell you there are mountains of evidence for their gods. All of which appear to derive from personal experience. They all have ancient holy books that they revere as much as you do yours. So who am I to believe?

But not Christ. Christ is the most textually attested figure of any kind in ancient history. Even what we have about Alexander is thought to not be accurate. He famously threw one famous account in the sea. Yet he is as real as anything to most folks and most of what he did, but then again he is not inconvenient.

There is more evidence for Caesar and Alexander than there is for Christ. There are contemporary accounts for Caesar and Alexander, but not so much for Jesus. Not to mention that the accounts for Jesus contained within the Bible are quite extraordinary, and would require extraordinary evidence. Why are there no extra-Biblical accounts of thousands of zombies rising from the grave and walking the streets? You’d think someone else might’ve mentioned such an extraordinary occurrence.

Now that I agree with. However this becomes less a factor when the numbers that believe are in the billions and believe because of a direct experience with what they claim exists. I believe cognitive dissonance the most powerful force in human history. No matter what the truth most of us are wrong.

Entire societies of people believed that Zeus, Odin, Ra, Anu and a whole host of other gods actually existed and exerted their influence on human affairs. Does that make them right?

I see so some things people have claimed were true you think were not and so nothing ever claimed can be true. Strange philosophy. I did not make any argument from popularity in my previous post, I did make a comment concerning it in this one. However popularity, authority, and many other supposed fallacies are allowed in science, law, and history but why not in theology I wonder. Back when I denied evolution in totality I had 6 atheists who claimed I should believe it solely because of who and how many scientists claimed it was true. Inconsistent.

Who said nothing ever claimed can be true? I’m saying I need demonstrable evidence to accept something is true, otherwise I’d have to believe in everything anybody ever claimed to have existed UNTIL evidence against it was presented. That’s not how anybody determines reality (save for maybe the mentally ill).


Science, law and history are determined not by popularity, but by consensus of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say they invented it. I used YOUR standards to show their absurdity. Jesus 2000 years ago said just as the wind can't be seen except by it's effects said the spirit can be seen by it's effects. I use consistent standards. I believe things I can't see can be true even if inconvenient. Why don't you?

You imply over and over that physicists just make things up, as a way to avoid inserting your god into the equation.
I don’t believe in things I can’t see can be true because I have no reason to think they are true. I can feel the wind, I can measure the wind, and I can demonstrate its effects on its surroundings. How do we do that with “spirit?”

Some aspects of atoms have been observed in a way but you will never see a picture of an atom in all it's claimed aspects. My point was not that they do not exist but that they existed long before anyone saw one or even considered them. The same is true of God. Again my standards are consistent.

You imagine the same to be true of god, you mean.
I guess, using this reasoning, I have to believe in ghosts, fairies, Santa Claus, etc. because hey, they might exist!

No people long before the first scientific or philosophic question was asked recorded this. They were not responding to these questions yet answered them perfectly. When I say what God is in a debate I mean the concept of God under discussion. Think of it that way. I believe he exists on faith, I take what is true of a concept by fact. That is the concept and we are evaluating (or should be) whether that fits what is known and it does perfectly. I did not invent it I found it existing that way for at least the last 5000 years.

You don’t think ancient peoples were asking the same philosophical questions that we are? Come on.
What questions do you think they answered perfectly?

I post a lot but applying plurality to me is a bit much. I do not object to these concepts but your are using rules that govern the natural to bind the non-natural and that is a waste of time. BTW most philosophers claim a disembodied mind is an extraordinarily simplistic concept. Its self not what it creates. I have no idea how to ***** its complexity.

I’m using your own rule to examine your claims. Funny how you throw it out the window when you want to jam your god into the picture.
Philosophers can claim all kinds of things. I’m interested in demonstrable evidence.

You falsely suggest I claim as fact what I do not know and then do it your self. You weren't there you do not know what they did. What they did not do is know the parameters they needed to fake to make their description of God still solve untold dilemmas and paradoxes even 5000 years later.

Hmm, okay. So how many gods have been purported to have existed throughout human history? It’s somewhere in the thousands, at least. Why do you think that is?
And what untold paradoxes and dilemmas were solved by people living 5000 years ago?

Let's say you actually know what you can't know even if true. Let's pretend they invented God to answer questions about why hurricanes arise or why they are scared of the mountains or what shape the world is.

We know this is true. Unless you believe Thor creates lightning bolts during thunderstorms.

Why would what they constructed meet every lack natural explanations have left unanswered over the next 5000 years. A child's creation will not explain origins, meaning, and morality why did theirs do so perfectly?

Simple. It didn’t.

There is a whole lot more information about God in the OT than you may realize. If contrived it would easily be shown up with the questions the Greeks asked. Yet here in the space age it is actually growing in acceptance. Pretty good for some bronze age idiots trying to fake an explanation why we die.

I don’t think they “faked it.” I think they actually believed it because they lacked better explanations.

Also why would they have invented a Hell they were headed for and a morality that was very inconvenient and recorded all their failures (which do not come any more embarrassing than betrayal of God himself). The God of the gaps arguments are not even used that often anymore.

Well, it’s like Hitchens used to say, hell is for everyone else!
What was inconvenient about their morality? Slavery was acceptable. Genocide was acceptable. Killing everyone who was disobedient in any way was apparently acceptable.
God of the gaps is still used constantly, as far as I can see. Every time an “I don’t know” pops up somewhere, somebody is inserting god into the equation.

We can only see what is in our universe. If it is in our universe how is it another universe. I have read every claim of evidence for them I have been given and they are atrocious. Even being absurdly generous they do not add up to much of anything.

How about this:
Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist

I have no problem with that but you have claimed to know quite a lot of things you can't for someone suggesting this.

I have? Like what?

I do not know and you do not know but based on the best evidence we have God is a very very likely being and the Bible an accurate record of revelation. However no absolute certainty may be had and IMO that is by design. Faith precludes proof and faith is a valued commodity by God for whatever reason.

I don’t agree, obviously. To me, the Bible is just a collection of carefully chosen books. All the people that worship other gods described in other holy books don’t agree with you either.
I guess I don’t think of faith as a virtue. At least, not the kind of faith you’re talking about. And the fact that your religion apparently relies on faith over works makes it something I can’t get on board with (plus a whole bunch of other reasons, I’ve alluded to many, many times).

 

[1robin]

Dang it, I have enough time for sound bites and you want essays. I will get to this as soon as I can get enough time. Your nothing if not prolific. If you and Agnsitic75 got together you might create a worm hole or something from just the friction of the keyboard alone.

 

[CG Didymus]

Pretending for a minute that a God who promises to resolve things in the end is more harsh that things that are never explained, have no purpose, and are never resolved without him. Is the level of harshness the arbiter of all truth? Is truth that is not liked or convenient no longer true?

Exodus chapter 32, in verse 27 God told the sons of Levi to kill every man his brother and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor? And that's not harsh? All they did is worship and dance around a golden calf. Is he that jealous? And did it make the people more obedient? This is part of God's "perfect" plan? Punishing the Hebrews and giving them laws, that some Christians say are impossible to follow, that is part of his "progressive" revelation?

Why didn't Jesus come down and teach Adam and Eve about God's plan for salvation right from the start? Instead, God "repents" that he created man and floods the whole world? He obliterates Sodom and Gomorrah? He allows other nations to take his people captive? And, he allows corrupted angels to exist? To trick us into believing false religions and then sends us and them to hell? That's harsh. But, if you say that is what he had to do to get to Jesus and that whole saved by grace thing, then sure, I'm cool with that. That's pretty kind and loving, but really, why the rest of it?

 

[McBell]

Is truth that is not liked or convenient no longer true?

That seems to be your favoured tactic.

 

[Meow Mix]

God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them,

If the argument here is that "Normally we consider causing someone to die deliberately (or through willful inaction/negligence) to be evil; but when God does it, it's not evil because God has a reason for doing so which we cannot know which justifies it," then this line of argumentation is a fallacy known as "special pleading."

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

This is another fallacy known as an argument against adverse consequences. Whether or not something is less or more appealing has no indication for its truth.

Aside from that, the "evil" in your premise is that you propose there is a conscious being deliberately causing suffering (e.g., death) -- which is what is usually understood as being malevolent -- whereas in a premise without afterlives or personal gods, the universe (while possibly apathetic) is at least not malevolent.

 

[Krill The Unwashed]

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. --Isaiah 45:7

The biblical God is the creator/author of both "good" and "evil" as he states himself. God allows evil because he makes evil.

 

[ZenMonkey]

The biblical God is the creator/author of both "good" and "evil" as he states himself. God allows evil because he makes evil.

"Create" in this passage likely means to "cut down". It would read like this using this definition of the term: "I form the light, and cut down darkness: I make peace, and cut down evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

[Krill The Unwashed]

"Create" in this passage likely means to "cut down". It would read like this using this definition of the term: "I form the light, and cut down darkness: I make peace, and cut down evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Sure.

The word "create" used by Isaiah there is the same Hebrew one used in Genesis:

The word "create" (01254) is the same word used in Genesis 1:1 (ESV):
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Nearly all the other uses of the word refer back to the moment of creation. Many of the other uses convey the idea of doing something entirely new as in Jeremiah 31:22. There are a handful of uses that follow totally separate meanings such as "choose", "cut down", "dispatch", "done", and "make fat". But as far as I can see, none of them besides this passage talk about creating something undesirable.

[...]

Link to source.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Sure.

The word "create" used by Isaiah there is the same Hebrew one used in Genesis:

O.k.


If the term means to "create" and if God is truly responsible for evil, then I'm curious what this would imply. What does evil mean in relation to the passage? We consider all sorts of things to be bad and/or "evil", but this does not mean these "bad" things can't work for our good somehow. I guess it comes down to what we perceive to be evil, eh?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

O.k.


If the term means to "create" and if God is truly responsible for evil, then I'm curious what this would imply. What does evil mean in relation to the passage? We consider all sorts of things to be bad and/or "evil", but this does not mean these "bad" things can't work for our good somehow. I guess it comes down to what we perceive to be evil, eh?

Evil I think is used to welcome any harm that comes to an individual/group. Especially when it came to things like Marudors, conquering nations, disease.

 

[1robin]

The biblical God is the creator/author of both "good" and "evil" as he states himself. God allows evil because he makes evil.

This thread has several explanations of this concept. The almost universal conclusion of the accepted commentators is that evil here means the evil of punishment and judgment and does not mean evil as we do today. It would include Hell and what misery sin produces. God creates the right use of something like sex, food, and chemicals. He did not produce our using good things in bad ways, we did. He might produce the retribution of their misuse in some ways. That verse does not mean God created mass murder for example as we use the term today. You can easily search for those previous posts where I and others went into some detail.

 

[1robin]

Exodus chapter 32, in verse 27 God told the sons of Levi to kill every man his brother and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor? And that's not harsh? All they did is worship and dance around a golden calf. Is he that jealous? And did it make the people more obedient? This is part of God's "perfect" plan? Punishing the Hebrews and giving them laws, that some Christians say are impossible to follow, that is part of his "progressive" revelation?

I never said God was not harsh. I do not see how a God of justice could help but seem harsh to those who provoke him continuously. I said no matter how harsh the solution is the lack of a solution is far harsher. It is the most absurd cut off your nose to spite you face example possible. As far as the calf goes, he had just done miracle after miracle in setting them free, they had done nothing but conspire and doubt and sin. The first time Moses turned his back they are undoing everything God had done. When he looked at them he saw hundreds of generations and prophets including the Messiah he had promised through Abraham to bring through his descendants. The impact those people made by their virtue and faith would determine how well the message of God's revelation was accepted. He saw the roots of what if left unchecked would have ruined what he had promised. He had forgiven and forgiven and forgiven up to this point but had finally had but he did not rush in and kill everyone (though he was justified to do so). He through Moses made them choose sides. They chose their fate. He rooted out the evil instead of letting it infect the good. I take it you would have left evil in tact to ruin the little good God could find in this world. Sin gets punished at times directly by a just God. You must prove he did not have morally justifiable reasons to act as he did to make this case.

Why didn't Jesus come down and teach Adam and Eve about God's plan for salvation right from the start? Instead, God "repents" that he created man and floods the whole world? He obliterates Sodom and Gomorrah? He allows other nations to take his people captive? And, he allows corrupted angels to exist? To trick us into believing false religions and then sends us and them to hell? That's harsh. But, if you say that is what he had to do to get to Jesus and that whole saved by grace thing, then sure, I'm cool with that. That's pretty kind and loving, but really, why the rest of it?

All these arguments are the same. It is far far worse than a bunch of death row inmates sitting around telling each other how the warden screwed them. Just as in any jail everyone pretends they are innocent, it takes careful planning and much evidence to get a few of them to see that it is their crime that is the issue not any fault of God's. Jesus came as the Bible said at the perfect time. I will give a few ways that may be meant. He arrived when a huge and efficient empire could quickly disperse the message. When Israel cup of iniquity was full. Many times God waits for centuries or decades trying to get cultures to repent but must finally act. There are many other reasons that can easily be found if you actually want any. I have spent far too much time on this issue. I also completely deny your capacity to know what God should have done. It is just a meaningless exercise, worse than a rock telling Newton how calculus should be done. If you actually want an answer and are not simply making complaints in question form see Craig's the problem of evil. It is a legendary resource on this issue. Just as we hate pretty much every Earthly authority who ever held us accountable and were wrong you are wrong about God IMO. Man hates being told what to do and especially being held accountable for our mistakes.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Because generally something harsh is not in regards with something benevolent. When you say harsh you are referring to something that is in excess. There's punishment and then there is harsh punishments. Adding harsh implies that the punishment does not fit the crime.

Given the pure omnipotent power of God coupled with Omniscience, Gods ability to punish would not be limited the way people assume. It would stand that God would be able to create methods of punishment that specifically fit the crimes/wrong doings of those that are against it.

Coupled with Benevolence, it would also mean that Gods ability to punish would not necessarily be limited to eternity or annihlation which is eternal either or even pure reconcillation. To put God into any of those categories is to limit God in my humble opinion.

 

[1robin]

What evidence is there for the existence of disembodied minds? And further, what evidence do we have that indicates that a mind can exist independent from a brain? I ask this because all the evidence I know of points to minds being functions of brains.

I have not read most of this, it is only to indicate many studies exist and methods utilized.
Mind brain debate
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force
There are countless books on NDE's when all brain function had ceased. One I remember was a lady who had here brain drained of all blood and was completely dead yet know things she had no access to, it is quite famous. Forget her name but the library and internet are full of these events.

The concept existed prior to the question? What question?

What characteristics would whatever created the universe have by necessity? Plus about a thousand just like that one that the Biblical description matches identically.

There’s nothing wrong with “I don’t know” if we don’t actually know. I’d love for everything to be figured out in my lifetime, but that’s an unrealistic expectation. So if I die before we get all the answers, so be it. I’m not going to make things up just to satisfy my need to know – because it wouldn’t be satisfied that way.

That is not what people of faith do. They make a reasoned decision based on what ever evidence is known at the time they live.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I waited until all the evidence was in before deciding I wanted to spend my life with someone.

No you did not. No one has or ever could.

We can use demonstrable evidence to determine how much someone actually cares for us. I mean, if someone says they love you and then starts smacking you around or telling you you’re worthless, I think it’s pretty safe to say they don’t actually love you and this isn’t someone you want to be spending your life with.

Many people care about us yet we do not marry them all. I find it interesting that the greatest test to determine the love another being has for us is self sacrifice. God provided the ultimate example of this. You will never know if their faking it or not.

You’re touching on a bit on Pascal’s wager territory here, which in my opinion is garbage. Maybe you’ve been praying to the wrong god this whole time and the Muslims are right. Then you’re in big trouble. Nobody really knows what happens to us when we die. Pretending to know the answer doesn’t help anyone.

I followed the Biblical plan of salvation and met Christ spiritually. That could not happen unless Islam is wrong and Christianity is right. I can only say that once that experience is experienced there is no doubt of what it was. I know you will not agree because you can't but I am the one that had it.

Really? Like what?

Prophecy, ESP, out of body experiences, knowledge without access, the universe, many constants, religious spiritual experiences, miracles, tell you what look into the testing criteria for modern Catholic spiritual warfare investigations.

You know, there’s a million dollar prize at stake for anyone who can produce tangible evidence for the supernatural. And guess what? No one has ever claimed it. So I’d have to disagree with you that even the most rigid scientists would claim that claims of the supernatural have been demonstrated.

The Catholics are very very skeptical and reluctant to grant miracle status or saint status to anything or anyone. (liability reasons etc.....) They are usually more skeptical than secular people involved with the issues yet they have approved many genuine supernatural events. Start there.

We’d have to examine them all individually to determine this.

That is what must be done to claim any knowledge on the subject.

Are we talking about Jesus appearing on a piece of toast? Are we talking about weeping statues? Are we talking about people levitating? What are we talking about here?

Like I said search modern Catholic investigations into the demonic, miraculous or sainthood or NDEs.

I’m sorry, but people have experiences they can’t personally explain. So what? Does that mean there’s no possible naturalistic explanation for it, or does it mean that the person experiencing it just hasn’t looked for a naturalistic explanation for it, or simply isn’t aware of one that might exist? Do we have to assume that everyone who says they were abducted by aliens were actually abducted by aliens just because they say so?

I tell you what we don't do is assume they all have mundane explanations without sufficient evidence to know that is the case.

And what if we have no eyewitness accounts of yeti? Does someone still get to believe in yeti, and attribute characteristics to the yeti whose existence hasn’t even been demonstrated? Sure they could, but they would only be deluding themselves.
We have evidence for dinosaurs and birds obtained by studying fossils and their surroundings, and yes, even multiverses.

The chance someone is deluding themselves corresponds to how much evidence there is. They may not be deluding themselves but the chances are astronomically higher the Yeti people are than the 1/3 of the Earth that believes in Christ. I reject over 90% of claims to the miraculous but have also experienced it and find even within the 8% that is left far more events than could ever be denied.

When have you seen god in human form?

That was the editorial we not me. Though many claim to have seen Christ including a Hindu priest in the top of a Ziggurat off the coast of India. You ought to see his before and after pictures. Witch doctor to straight laced Christian in a day. I have reliably accounts of God in human form and that combined with my experiences and a million other lines of evidence is far more than enough to justify faith. I wish you spent more time on the issues than trying to technically win a word fight.

They’re equal claims to me. We’re talking about the existence of something versus the non-existence of something. The same standards apply to yetis, gods, fairies, and aliens.

There is no aspect between the two that is equal.

What mountains of evidence are there in the Bible? A Muslim will tell you there are mountains of evidence for their god. A Hindu will tell you there are mountains of evidence for their gods. All of which appear to derive from personal experience. They all have ancient holy books that they revere as much as you do yours. So who am I to believe?

Then we have to personally investigate the claims. Just a few examples.

1. Bible - 2500 detailed prophecies Quran - at best one pathetic example.
2. Bible - exploded while being persecuted Quran - languished while being mildly persecuted and exploded when they began persecuting.
3. Bible - hundreds of miracles Quran - maybe 2 or 3 that can be shown false. Muhammad refused to do any when asked. Said he was only a messenger.
4. Bible has over 40 authors and written over 1800 years. Quran - 1 very suspicious author written over 30 years or so.

It just keeps getting worse.

There is more evidence for Caesar and Alexander than there is for Christ. There are contemporary accounts for Caesar and Alexander, but not so much for Jesus. Not to mention that the accounts for Jesus contained within the Bible are quite extraordinary, and would require extraordinary evidence. Why are there no extra-Biblical accounts of thousands of zombies rising from the grave and walking the streets? You’d think someone else might’ve mentioned such an extraordinary occurrence.

The by far greatest book on Caesar is the Gallic wars. It was written by him for self promotional reasons and the oldest copy is 900 years after the original and there is only a few. The Bible has 5700 very early copies. Alexander grew so tired of inaccurate accounts (oldest copies hundreds of years later in existence and few of them) he threw one in the sea and threaten another's life. Yet we teach both those men as factual. Jesus is more textual attested by far (I mean far) than any character in ancient history.

Entire societies of people believed that Zeus, Odin, Ra, Anu and a whole host of other gods actually existed and exerted their influence on human affairs. Does that make them right?

What does this have to do with anything? They are not equivalent to Christianity in any way other than being theological concepts.

Who said nothing ever claimed can be true? I’m saying I need demonstrable evidence to accept something is true, otherwise I’d have to believe in everything anybody ever claimed to have existed UNTIL evidence against it was presented. That’s not how anybody determines reality (save for maybe the mentally ill).

I only suggest the same standards be used. You think multiverses are legitimate concepts but claim the infinitely more evidenced Bible is not. Why? I think you view is more accurately stated that you demand proof be given before and theological issue is even considered but any other concept may be valid just on the basis it is not impossible.

Science, law and history are determined not by popularity, but by consensus of evidence.

No they are not in totality. At least anymore so than theology. Every issue beyond "I think and am" is part faith and part evidence. I am exhausted, get to the rest later.

 

[1robin]

Because generally something harsh is not in regards with something benevolent. When you say harsh you are referring to something that is in excess. There's punishment and then there is harsh punishments. Adding harsh implies that the punishment does not fit the crime.

I have no idea what the technical definition of Harsh is but in general use it is relative and many times used to indicate only that something done to us or another does not line up with what we would have chosen which is irrelevant. I was comparing the level of harshness between two things anyway not necessarily defining the term. No matter what else may by true no solution is far more harsh than even one we would not have chosen if it fixes that problem.

Given the pure omnipotent power of God coupled with Omniscience, Gods ability to punish would not be limited the way people assume. It would stand that God would be able to create methods of punishment that specifically fit the crimes/wrong doings of those that are against it.

This is one of the most understood issue by non-theists IMO. Please review Craig's book on the problem of evil. The subject has exhausted me. God could have wiped us out at any point in time and would have still been benevolent, just, and omnipotent.

Coupled with Benevolence, it would also mean that Gods ability to punish would not necessarily be limited to eternity or annihlation which is eternal either or even pure reconcillation. To put God into any of those categories is to limit God in my humble opinion.

It is not very useful to claim what God could or could not do. It very speculative. However it is meaningful to examine what he did do. He said to fear the one that can destroy the soul in Hell. He said he was omnipresent yet Hell was separation from him, he said Hell would be thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed. All these add up to a Hell of annihilation. This is not however one of the doctrines I hold strongly. There is just too little information on it. There is far less than that to allow speculations on abstract concepts.

I recommend Craig's book. It is a legendary resource from a great scholar. Or maybe Aquinas as well.