Religious debate

[Fez Hammersticks]

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. Immortality? There are two kinds. - Einstein

 

[e_blazer]

Against all better judgment on my part, I'm going to jump into this with a couple of comments:

I guess in this case I prefer the Occam's Razor method. But as I said before, once you make a claim, you then have the burden of proof.

It seems to me that both theists and atheists run afoul of an inherent inability to prove their views regarding whether there is or is not a god as a causative agent in the origin of the universe and life. Science is a wonderful tool for analyzing nature, but it has limits as to what it can and cannot test. Simply intoning "Big Bang" and "Evolution" gets nowhere in this debate. Most, but not all, Christians believe that God began the universe with a big bang and that he used the process of evolution as a part of his plan of creation.

In our early days, we didn't have high standards for proof. Just to add, the epicurus paradoxes/riddles help simplify the matter:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Unfortunately, Epicurus didn't have the benefit of the Bible to help him frame his analysis. The element of man's free will, which allows us to choose to good or evil, is central in understanding God's choice to allow evil to continue in this world...for a time. Allowing free will to choose to do good or evil, but not requiring that we accept the consequences of those bad choices, would be empty. Instead, Christian theology says that through Christ the chain of evil is ultimately broken.

 

[zєяσ]

Against all better judgment on my part, I'm going to jump into this with a couple of comments:



It seems to me that both theists and atheists run afoul of an inherent inability to prove their views regarding whether there is or is not a god as a causative agent in the origin of the universe and life. Science is a wonderful tool for analyzing nature, but it has limits as to what it can and cannot test. Simply intoning "Big Bang" and "Evolution" gets nowhere in this debate. Most, but not all, Christians believe that God began the universe with a big bang and that he used the process of evolution as a part of his plan of creation.



Unfortunately, Epicurus didn't have the benefit of the Bible to help him frame his analysis. The element of man's free will, which allows us to choose to good or evil, is central in understanding God's choice to allow evil to continue in this world...for a time. Allowing free will to choose to do good or evil, but not requiring that we accept the consequences of those bad choices, would be empty. Instead, Christian theology says that through Christ the chain of evil is ultimately broken.

Again, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. To determine my beliefs, I try my best to use proven evidence and rational logic. Making a claim that a deity, fairies, etc made the universe suspends such methods.

And good and evil is highly objective, plus you have to prove that not only a god exists, but that he is indeed the source of morality, or if there is an objective moral system.

With that said, the Bible and other holy books are anything but "holy." I quickly found this out about the Bible when i was trying to reaffirm my faith, but all the Bible did was drive me away further. The God of the Christians sends those to a place of eternal hellfire if they dare to have thoughts of doubt.

 

[Eastoff]

...It seems to me that both theists and atheists run afoul of an inherent inability to prove their views ...

I think if he was an agnostic, does he have to prove he's not sure there is a god?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Many other organisms, animals, etc. function with some sort of governance. Wolves, for example, are a good example of this. But this is no evidence of a god or gods. Sometimes when we don't know an answer to the big questions, we form one based on our observations. The thing with gods though is that people did not look far enough. And it seems you are implying that the only for people to be moral is if their is a god.

My implication was that without the idea that there's something or someone telling you what to do who has a widely perceived authority to legitimately do so, then it's much easier to form what people call "morals" that everyone agrees to live by. I'm not saying they're always right, or the best for the society, or even fair...I'm saying that by the definition crowtrobot responded with, and the one westnob wrote that I ignored, have been generally (throughout history) born from a figure perceived to have a legitimate right to make people follow their law. Whether it was Buddha, Pharaoh, Hammurabi, Justinian, Christ, Confucius, Mohammed, etc...someone dictated what the laws were going to be, and eventually the society started legislating through them.
The dictionary definition of moral? "Of or relating to right and wrong in behavior". Not "do unto others...", though that's a theme in a lot of religious texts. "Right and wrong". Going back to my last post...who are you to tell me what is wrong?

If people try to be moral out of fear of eternal damnation, then imo, they aren't moral. Would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?

It's different if we do it out of fear of jail time? You're welcome to your opinion, obviously, but at least in the Christian religion, your morality or lack thereof has no bearing on your eternal resting place. I can't speak for the others.

Of course, once one says that there is a god or gods, then that opens up like 20 new questions. I guess in this case I prefer the Occam's Razor method. But as I said before, once you make a claim, you then have the burden of proof. In our early days, we didn't have high standards for proof. Just to add, the epicurus paradoxes/riddles help simplify the matter:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.

I guess I'm not as smart as Epicurus. How does he justify that?

2. There is evil in the world.

Concur. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

Not quite as Q.E.D. as epicurus hoped, I'm afraid.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus[/QUOTE]
I'll leave it to others:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. --C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

The westminster confession (which Reformed Christians affirm, though some may not) has a chapter dedicated to it. Confessions are NOT scripture, but the one at this site has the scripture proofs to what the confession says. Happily, the next chapter talks about grace, because if you just stopped there you might get really bummed out.

 

[Eastoff]

Of course not! I quoted it!

Well I addressed the fact that if you have your community to answer to, then that is someone. It's sort of like playing basketball. If you hog the ball and get all the points, you won't win. If you give up some of your shots to teammates, you will do better together.

Or to put it another way, I won't rob anyone therefore nobody will rob me.

 

[zєяσ]

I think if he was an agnostic, does he have to prove he's not sure there is a god?

Someone has to clarify the definition of agnostics for me, because it is an enigma. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Thus agnostic means "no knowledge"-or do i have that wrong.

But it says nothing of belief. Just knowledge. Hence one label for myself I use is "agnostic atheist". I don't believe a god or gods exists, but I don't know.

We can't prove that unicorns or dragons don't exist. What we can do however, through using the scientific method, Bayesian reasoning, rationality and strict standards of evidence, is place a probability value on unicorns, dragons, etc. Through all that we can surmise that the existence of unicorns is so unlikely as that it really should not invoke serious thought on the subject.

Keep in mind no one is saying "god is false because theres no evidence". an I apologize if I sound that way. What i'm saying is the best argument against god is that there is no more evidence for a god than for unicorns, dragons, easter bunny or Santa, etc and that religious believers have not as of yet offered any concrete evidence and reasons from my experience.

In the same way, I believe we need to say why the concept of God is irrational rather than say 'there is no evidence therefore he can't exist'.

The belief is irrational because the idea of god is not based upon unbiased research, it is not based on evidence from the outside world or otherwise. It is a matter of personal conviction. That conviction is due to ignorance, indoctrination, or etc...

 

[Eastoff]

Well it seems I had a false definition in my mind. I thought agnostic meant being unsure if there is or isn't a god and atheist meant belief there is no god or a lack of belief in god.

 

[zєяσ]

My implication was that without the idea that there's something or someone telling you what to do who has a widely perceived authority to legitimately do so, then it's much easier to form what people call "morals" that everyone agrees to live by. I'm not saying they're always right, or the best for the society, or even fair...I'm saying that by the definition crowtrobot responded with, and the one westnob wrote that I ignored, have been generally (throughout history) born from a figure perceived to have a legitimate right to make people follow their law. Whether it was Buddha, Pharaoh, Hammurabi, Justinian, Christ, Confucius, Mohammed, etc...someone dictated what the laws were going to be, and eventually the society started legislating through them.
The dictionary definition of moral? "Of or relating to right and wrong in behavior". Not "do unto others...", though that's a theme in a lot of religious texts. "Right and wrong". Going back to my last post...who are you to tell me what is wrong?
It's different if we do it out of fear of jail time? You're welcome to your opinion, obviously, but at least in the Christian religion, your morality or lack thereof has no bearing on your eternal resting place. I can't speak for the others.

I guess I'm not as smart as Epicurus. How does he justify that?
Concur. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Not quite as Q.E.D. as epicurus hoped, I'm afraid.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

I'll leave it to others:

The westminster confession (which Reformed Christians affirm, though some may not) has a chapter dedicated to it. Confessions are NOT scripture, but the one at this site has the scripture proofs to what the confession says. Happily, the next chapter talks about grace, because if you just stopped there you might get really bummed out. [/QUOTE]

I am too lazy to multi quote so i apologize in advance if this post seems disorganized.

As for the first part, yes, you are correct that moral figures seem to represent authority and it doesnt mean they were 100% right. Hence why I said in an earlier post that our morals have developed through time. Most religions seem to become more moral the newer they are.
To add, I never once claimed I am an absolute when it comes to morals. So I have no right to tell you what is truly moral since I dont come from authority but I don't strive to that authority position b/c I dont claim my morality to be absolute.

The Christian religion and its morality is dependent on the resting place. If you do not live with the total conviction that Jesus is your savior and the messiah, you're damned. How is that moral? And then you have the sects of Christianity that make claims further than that. I could bible quote all day and even break down how the Sermon on the Mount is hypocritical to show such arguments, but I'm not that patient.

As for Epicurus, the paradox is simple. If God is moral, all good, then why is there evil in the world? Wouldn't an omniscient and omnipotent being (which is a paradox) not allow evil exist?

 

[zєяσ]

Well it seems I had a false definition in my mind. I thought agnostic meant being unsure if there is or isn't a god and atheist meant belief there is no god or a lack of belief in god.

Don't take my definition for granted. Agnosticism is too vague. I just gave my best attempt at the meaning.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Well I addressed the fact that if you have your community to answer to, then that is someone. It's sort of like playing basketball. If you hog the ball and get all the points, you won't win. If you give up some of your shots to teammates, you will do better together.

Or to put it another way, I won't rob anyone therefore nobody will rob me.

I don't quite understand the second part...people rob others all the time, even with laws and punishments doled out for breaking them. If there weren't a code saying that theft was wrong, are you saying people wouldn't?

Imagine a bunch of 5 year olds playing basketball. If there weren't rules saying that you had to dribble, that points were scored putting the ball through the hoop, and that you couldn't take the ball forcibly away from another player, do you think the game would resemble what it should?

 

[crowTrobot]

My implication was that without the idea that there's something or someone telling you what to do who has a widely perceived authority to legitimately do so, then it's much easier to form what people call "morals" that everyone agrees to live by. I'm not saying they're always right, or the best for the society, or even fair...I'm saying that by the definition crowtrobot responded with, and the one westnob wrote that I ignored, have been generally (throughout history) born from a figure perceived to have a legitimate right to make people follow their law. Whether it was Buddha, Pharaoh, Hammurabi, Justinian, Christ, Confucius, Mohammed, etc...someone dictated what the laws were going to be, and eventually the society started legislating through them.

false. what an atheist considers morality is born from evolution, not from any person's or religion's mandate. it's a matter of what we have learned both through evolved instinct and collective experience is beneficial for survival and well being of both individual and social group (intimately related), & ultimately species.

 

[Eastoff]

I don't quite understand the second part...people rob others all the time, even with laws and punishments doled out for breaking them. If there weren't a code saying that theft was wrong, are you saying people wouldn't?

Imagine a bunch of 5 year olds playing basketball. If there weren't rules saying that you had to dribble, that points were scored putting the ball through the hoop, and that you couldn't take the ball forcibly away from another player, do you think the game would resemble what it should?

I am saying that the laws themselves are there because stealing from me is just as bad as stealing from you. Clearly god did not come down and say "THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE LAWS ABOUT NUCLEAR BOMBS!" and yet we have laws against these sort of things. They are created out of a common good. It's like investing in a bank or stock market (in the 90s), you temporarily lose money in order to overall gain money.

I'm not trying to say everyone will follow the code together.

I'm not talking about 5 year olds in basketball, i'm talking about high school level and beyond. My point is that teamwork is better than individualism.

Let's take a hypothetical situation:

You and 5 friends are in the woods. One of you has a knife, but has a sprained ankle. You realize there is a killer coming towards your campsite. Would you be better off to steal your friends knife, run away, and leave your friend? Or would you be better to work together to keep watch and prepare?

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't quite understand the second part...people rob others all the time, even with laws and punishments doled out for breaking them. If there weren't a code saying that theft was wrong, are you saying people wouldn't?

if stealing was detrimental for the strength of the social group they depend on for survival (as is the case) why would they?

i can see how concepts like this would be hard to grasp for someone who doesn't understand or believe in evolution.

 

[e_blazer]

Again, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. To determine my beliefs, I try my best to use proven evidence and rational logic. Making a claim that a deity, fairies, etc made the universe suspends such methods.

And you believe that a universe can arise from nothing without any proof. Further, you believe that life can originate, complete with all of the complexity of the DNA encoded in the simplest cell that permits it to replicate, purely through random chance, without any proof or even a rational explanation of how such a thing is possible.

And good and evil is highly objective, plus you have to prove that not only a god exists, but that he is indeed the source of morality, or if there is an objective moral system.

I don't have to prove anything. The Bible says that there's ample evidence of God's existance throughout his creation. You can look at that creation and draw your own conclusions. That's what free will is all about.

With that said, the Bible and other holy books are anything but "holy." I quickly found this out about the Bible when i was trying to reaffirm my faith, but all the Bible did was drive me away further. The God of the Christians sends those to a place of eternal hellfire if they dare to have thoughts of doubt.

It has been my experience that whenever I thought the Bible had taken me to a place where I couldn't accept what it was saying, that the reality was that I simply didn't understand that section correctly. When I would talk with others who had studied it more deeply, I found that there were always different ways of looking at that section than I was thinking of. The God of Christianity doesn't send anyone to hellfire. They choose the path of separation from God for themselves.

 

[BrianFromWA]

if stealing was detrimental for the strength of the social group they depend on for survival (as is the case) why would they?

i can see how concepts like this would be hard to grasp for someone who doesn't understand or believe in evolution.

There is a very large difference between understanding and belief.

I don't know, why do people steal? You know, if we're evolutionarily wired for right and wrong.

 

[Eastoff]

And you believe that a universe can arise from nothing without any proof. Further, you believe that life can originate, complete with all of the complexity of the DNA encoded in the simplest cell that permits it to replicate, purely through random chance, without any proof or even a rational explanation of how such a thing is possible.

There is proof that something can arise from nothing. Matter is created from "nothing" constantly and then destroyed. This is physics at 300 college level. There is nobody saying life is created with DNA instantly encoded. Perhaps it starts as a compound that attaches other chemicals onto it. Then it breaks into two smaller chunks somehow. It has now replicated. I will admit there is no proof yet of life from non moving chemicals, but that is not to say there is no rational explanation. In answer of random chance, do you think it's possible to get a royal flush? How many hands do you think it would take to get a royal flush? Would you not agree that since our lives are 0.000001% of the existence of the world, chance can play a role? Imagine you are dealt 6 billion hands in poker, 92 of those should be a royal flush.

I don't have to prove anything. The Bible says that there's ample evidence of God's existance throughout his creation. You can look at that creation and draw your own conclusions. That's what free will is all about.

Well the Book of Mormon says Jesus came to america to find the lost tribe of israel. Does that make it true?

 

[Eastoff]

There is a very large difference between understanding and belief.

I don't know, why do people steal? You know, if we're evolutionarily wired for right and wrong.

frankly, because they are lazy. They think the gain outweighs the loss. It's the same reason kids in bad neighborhoods sell drugs. Its a lot easier than flipping burgers. We're evolutionarily wired to do what is easiest for the most outcome. So in someways it makes sense.

edit: I would also suggest thieves are like another species in a general sense. There are wolves and there are cougars. Cougars typically work alone, while wolves work in a pack. If the collective group works better, over time there will be less thieves. Although really thieves are more like a cancer, in that they stop trying to do their real job and only nourish themselves.

 

[zєяσ]

And you believe that a universe can arise from nothing without any proof. Further, you believe that life can originate, complete with all of the complexity of the DNA encoded in the simplest cell that permits it to replicate, purely through random chance, without any proof or even a rational explanation of how such a thing is possible.

Ah epistemology, how I love and loathe you at the same time. You are confusing beliefs with truth.

Universe could have arisen out of nothing, out of God, out of fairies, or the universe could have been eternal. That doesnt mean we can make a truth claim yet. You
are confusing knowledge and truth with belief/faith.

I don't have to prove anything. The Bible says that there's ample evidence of God's existence throughout his creation. You can look at that creation and draw your own conclusions. That's what free will is all about.

You are making a claim with no evidence. You have to prove that the Bible is concrete evidence, that it is the word of God. Also, you have to prove there is a God to have made the words of these books, or it was just ordinary men who just make claims with no proof.

Plus you have to prove that this is a creation.

It has been my experience that whenever I thought the Bible had taken me to a place where I couldn't accept what it was saying, that the reality was that I simply didn't understand that section correctly. When I would talk with others who had studied it more deeply, I found that there were always different ways of looking at that section than I was thinking of. The God of Christianity doesn't send anyone to hellfire. They choose the path of separation from God for themselves.

Matthew 25 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Luke 16 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Mark 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[a] 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.

-biblegateway


He sends them to hellfire if they don't believe. Yeah, that sounds moral.


I just noticed we just moved away a bit from the OP's topic.

Sorry! D:

 

[Eastoff]

...
He sends them to hellfire if they don't believe. Yeah, that sounds moral.


I just noticed we just moved away a bit from the OP's topic.

Sorry! D:

Well he could argue that it's their choice not to believe. The OP's topic was just religion in general.

 

[zєяσ]

Well he could argue that it's their choice not to believe. The OP's topic was just religion in general.

Usually there's a motivation or reasoning to choose not to.

 

[yakbladder]

He sends them to hellfire if they don't believe. Yeah, that sounds moral.

Is it not possible to have both? Couldn't you have there be a God but have God's will or beliefs be mis-interpreted or manipulated by man? I realize you could never prove this, per se...

Asking proof of something that happened when the only facet of proof one could provide was written or verbal recall is a dangerous concept. At what point is anything solid "proof"? Does that mean if you don't witness or can't witness anything with your own two eyes that it is unprovable and therefore incorrect?

BTW, your earlier statement that Christian religions declare final resting place based upon morality is untrue. There are sects / individuals that do not believe in that theory.


Keep in mind I'm merely trying to explore and push the discussion.

 

[zєяσ]

Is it not possible to have both? Couldn't you have there be a God but have God's will or beliefs be mis-interpreted or manipulated by man? I realize you could never prove this, per se...

Asking proof of something that happened when the only facet of proof one could provide was written or verbal recall is a dangerous concept. At what point is anything solid "proof"? Does that mean if you don't witness or can't witness anything with your own two eyes that it is unprovable and therefore incorrect?

BTW, your earlier statement that Christian religions declare final resting place based upon morality is untrue. There are sects / individuals that do not believe in that theory.


Keep in mind I'm merely trying to explore and push the discussion.

I'm just playing along with e-blazer's thinking is all

I could've sworn I mentioned earlier that the different sects of Christianity interpret it differently. If I didn't, then I apologize and did not intend to generalize.

and i don't mean to say that
no proof=no existence.

All I'm demanding is that if one is going to make such a claim, I wanna know how he/she came to that conclusion.
Was it indoctrination? Faith? Anecdotal evidence? Reason and rationale? Experiments?
I touched on this earlier that as our standards for evidence increased in matters of truth and the universe, so has our understanding and findings. If your two eyes alone can discern the evidence or information, you either use other methods or you try to break past the limitations you have in your insight and senses. Nobody likes the answer to a question to be "I don't know" or "it was magic". So we try to investigate further. This is the beauty I see in science-it is not only self-correcting and has the highest standards thus far for proof, but also it is always skeptical.

You can believe in creationism along with a myriad of other things, but ultimately there is an objective truth. Whether we know or believe what is the objective truth is or not, we can only so far rely on certain standards of evidence. In the mean time, we can speculate all we want, but we can't reach truth yet without trying to prove our hypothesizes.

 

[rocketeer]

As for Epicurus, the paradox is simple. If God is moral, all good, then why is there evil in the world? Wouldn't an omniscient and omnipotent being (which is a paradox) not allow evil exist?

there is no paradox. the existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god.

 

[zєяσ]

there is no paradox. the existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god.

So why call him god or an all good god if he enables evil in his creation?
How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?
Even if it is omniscient and omnipotent only within that system, that still leaves you with the problem it would be rendered powerless to change anything within that system. The two are logically incompatible.

 

[e_blazer]

Ah epistemology, how I love and loathe you at the same time. You are confusing beliefs with truth.

Universe could have arisen out of nothing, out of God, out of fairies, or the universe could have been eternal. That doesnt mean we can make a truth claim yet. You
are confusing knowledge and truth with belief/faith.

Actually, I didn't say anything about the subject of knowledge and truth vs belief and faith. I simply pointed out that there can be no proof, in the scientific or mathematical sense that you are insisting upon, on the subject of the existence or lack thereof of a god or supernatural being. The fact that science can't test for something says nothing about the ultimate truth regarding this issue. God either does exist or does not and that fact is not dependent upon proof or belief or any other human interpretation of the matter.

You are making a claim with no evidence. You have to prove that the Bible is concrete evidence, that it is the word of God. Also, you have to prove there is a God to have made the words of these books, or it was just ordinary men who just make claims with no proof.

Plus you have to prove that this is a creation.

Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of proof. Faith is a matter of personal decision as to what you believe to be most likely, based upon everything you have observed regarding our existence. For me, I look at the origin of the universe and believe that it is unlikely that such a thing could occur without a god. The same is true of my thoughts on the origin of life. I look at the Bible and the description of the moral failings of mankind and the need for reconciliation with the creator rings true. I look at all of these things and more, and for me they make sense. I don't have the ability to make them real to you. It's a personal journey.

Matthew 25 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Luke 16 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Mark 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[a] 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.

-biblegateway


He sends them to hellfire if they don't believe. Yeah, that sounds moral.

Each of these passages reflects a decision to deny god. If God created mankind because he desired a relationship with us, which is what the Bible teaches, and we won't even go the single step of acknowledging his existence, then we are choosing not to be eternally in relationship with him...which is what hell is.

 

[rocketeer]

So why call him god or an all good god if he enables evil in his creation?
How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?
Even if it is omniscient and omnipotent only within that system, that still leaves you with the problem it would be rendered powerless to change anything within that system. The two are logically incompatible.

again, no that is just not true.

god can be all powerful, all knowing, good, and perfect and evil can still remain in the world. if god wanted to create people with free will, the ability to go against god and the choice of "evil" is necessary.

 

[e_blazer]

So why call him god or an all good god if he enables evil in his creation?
How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?
Even if it is omniscient and omnipotent only within that system, that still leaves you with the problem it would be rendered powerless to change anything within that system. The two are logically incompatible.

Evil, or sin, is choosing to do that which is not God's will. God is all about personal choice. He doesn't want a bunch of mindless automatons to worship him. He wants people to freely choose to believe in him and follow him. You can't have the ability to choose to deny God without the consequence of sin or evil. They go hand in hand.

 

[zєяσ]

Actually, I didn't say anything about the subject of knowledge and truth vs belief and faith. I simply pointed out that there can be no proof, in the scientific or mathematical sense that you are insisting upon, on the subject of the existence or lack thereof of a god or supernatural being. The fact that science can't test for something says nothing about the ultimate truth regarding this issue. God either does exist or does not and that fact is not dependent upon proof or belief or any other human interpretation of the matter.



Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of proof. Faith is a matter of personal decision as to what you believe to be most likely, based upon everything you have observed regarding our existence. For me, I look at the origin of the universe and believe that it is unlikely that such a thing could occur without a god. The same is true of my thoughts on the origin of life. I look at the Bible and the description of the moral failings of mankind and the need for reconciliation with the creator rings true. I look at all of these things and more, and for me they make sense. I don't have the ability to make them real to you. It's a personal journey.




Each of these passages reflects a decision to deny god. If God created mankind because he desired a relationship with us, which is what the Bible teaches, and we won't even go the single step of acknowledging his existence, then we are choosing not to be eternally in relationship with him...which is what hell is.

And what reasoning do you have that there is an existence outside of our universe?

And pay attention to the vocabulary you are using- "deny god"
This inherently assumes that a god exists yet there is no knowledge of such an existence.

I know belief in a god is currently based on faith. I'm talking about knowledge though. Not faith. I know what faith is, and I do not consider it something to be equal to knowledge.

Tell me, do you believe that a male god created the earth and heavens in six days ten thousand years ago despite what we have found out about the universe?


This is pretty much a summary of the argument which Im making:

[video=youtube;w_2W8Nzqm5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_2W8Nzqm5c[/video]

 

[zєяσ]

Evil, or sin, is choosing to do that which is not God's will. God is all about personal choice. He doesn't want a bunch of mindless automatons to worship him. He wants people to freely choose to believe in him and follow him. You can't have the ability to choose to deny God without the consequence of sin or evil. They go hand in hand.

You guys are missing the logical fallacy pointed out in the paradox. If the god you mention is all this, then there shouldn't be such a huge fallacy.

Furthermore, why make denying him an evil?