Originally posted by ivanhoeThe existence of energy and matter is itself unexplained. Knowledge gleaned from the scientific method doesn't help in understanding this most basic of issues. In itself this fact makes atheism irrational.
It's a bit short ... what exactly do you mean, Lerxst ?
IvanH.
Interesting. So why does the lack of preventable suffering imply that there is no god? Are you basing this on the fact that God has an obligation to prevent suffering? If you look at the bible, God sent his son Jesus to suffer and die for the salvation of all people. This is not salvation from suffering, but salvation for your soul. Read Frankel who survived the Nazi deathcamps where he said they can take away his freedom (physical) but they cannot take away his liberty (soul).
Furthermore, there is an overwhelming weight of evidence to suggest that there must be a god. There has been a study commissioned by NASA on the probability of finding live and the result was so high that it is deemed impossible.
Some people say Christian believe in a fairy tale. The bad news is that the Bible is the most proven book on earth, all history is verified using the same scientific techniques (I'm not talking about the random guessing game called carbon 14 dating here) - so if you don't believe the bible, then you cannot believe other history sources. ETC.
Originally posted by ReaperI tend to think that the Bible is best read as a book of literature that is truthful, but not always factual. It need not be always factual to be truthful. It addresses the human condition and mankinds desire to find God in the midst of various life circumstances whether it be joy or suffering. Some people get all hung up about creationism vs. evolution. The Bible is not about either. It is about an evolving consciousness in which we struggle with our dependence and separation from God. Sometimes this is done poetically. Sometimes in the form of narrative stories. Again, it need not be factual in every minute detail to tell a very human account of this struggle. Kirk
Interesting. So why does the lack of preventable suffering imply that there is no god? Are you basing this on the fact that God has an obligation to prevent suffering? If you look at the bible, God sent his son Jesus to suffer and die for the salvation of all people. This is not salvation from suffering, but salvation for your soul. Read Frankel who surv ...[text shortened]... re) - so if you don't believe the bible, then you cannot believe other history sources. ETC.
Originally posted by bbarrHi bbarr. God is holy. He is not foir mocking. You may not believe in God, but it does not mean that you may not change your mind in the future. I am a Christian and not only have you offended me, but you have offended God by using "his only begotten blah ..." Since you clearly have some knowledge of the Bible, I want to ask you to respect that. Use it with the same respect as you use all your other sources. Argument and debate is not improved by becoming personal, insulting, disrespectful etc. Thanks
Uh...But doesn't God intervene in human affairs all through the Bible? Isn't God's sacrifice of his only begotten blah blah blah the ultimate intervention?
Originally posted by kirksey957Hi Kirk. It is absolutly true that the Bible does not intend to be the history of the world or a science book. The Bible does use a lot of methaphors and stories to illustrate principals. However, I want to say this, the Bible does say that God created the universe and all live on earth. I absolutely 100% reject evolution as a theory. If fact I have seen so many sources over ther last year who all conclude this that I am a bit frustrated by the lack of media this gets. If you are a Christian and you believe in evolution, then you are saying that God did not create. If you look at churches today who have accepted that God can "create" through evolution, then they are the same churches that accept the gay livestyle as acceptable according to God.
I tend to think that the Bible is best read as a book of literature that is truthful, but not always factual. It need not be always factual to be truthful. It addresses the human condition and mankinds desire to find God in the midst of various life circumstances whether it be joy or suffering. Some people get all hung up about creationism vs. evolutio ...[text shortened]... t need not be factual in every minute detail to tell a very human account of this struggle. Kirk
Originally posted by bbarrYou had to post this while I was on vacation 🙁 OK Bennett my friend, to add a little fodder to our rapidly growing fire here, God's morals are not perfect according to our standards. Does that mean we can and should "limit" God by our own understanding?
then he is clearly not morally perfect
Amici Sumus
Feivel visiting his daughter
Originally posted by kirksey957There lies the problem Kirk. When different people start to interpret the bible, you invariably end up with many different interpretations. Now allowing the bible to be true (relax, this is hypothetical), there can ONLY be one absolute truth. Any more and you risk calling God a sufferer of multiple personality disorder.
I tend to think that the Bible is best read as a book of literature that is truthful, but not always factual
Feivel up in nw Michigan
To answer to the question you would first have to explain what "god" means to you. As the whole concept of god can not be proven to "be" or "not to be" the whole question creates a conflict where you really can't answer to it at all. Whether you BELEIVE if there is a god or not, is a simpler question and the answer to "WHY" someone beleives there is a god or not probably range from very simple to complex onces. And at the end all answers are correct. It is a matter of believing or not after all...
If someone really has some proof of "god" existing, it would surely be nice to see/read. That would probably change the world as we live it for good...
As for me I have to say I do believe there is a "god"... what that means is too hard to explain as I really dont know. Lets just say I beleive there is something more than what our senses and reasoning can explain.
Originally posted by Feivel
There lies the problem Kirk. When different people start to interpret the bible, you invariably end up with many different interpretations. Now allowing the bible to be true (relax, this is hypothetical), there can ONLY be one absolute truth. Any more and you risk calling God a sufferer of multiple personality disorder.
Feivel up in nw Michigan
I've never heard an interpretation like that of the "Holy Trinity" ....... 😕
IvanH.
Originally posted by FeivelWhat other standards should we use? If God's moral code is such that he believes it is right to allow preventable sufferring, and if he is omniscient, then his belief that it is morally right to allow preventable sufferring is true. So it would be true that it is morally right to allow preventable sufferring. But this means that our moral beliefs are hopelessly in error. In fact, it means that there is a complete disconnect between what is actually right and what we believe to be right. The theist can hardly take this position, else he would be forced to skepticism about all ethical claims. He would have no reason to think any act is a sin, he would have no reason to think that, for instance, keeping promises is morally right, hence he would have no reason to think that God would keep his promise to reward belief with salvation. The foundation of the Christian faith is predicated on God's moral perfection AND an ability on the part of the theist to make sense of what is right and wrong. Hypothesizing that God's moral code is so differrent from ours that he would allow some person to suffer needlessly (when he could easily intervene) undermines that foundation.
You had to post this while I was on vacation 🙁 OK Bennett my friend, to add a little fodder to our rapidly growing fire here, God's morals are not perfect according to our standards. Does that mean we can and should "limit" God by our own understanding?
Amici Sumus
Feivel visiting his daughter
Originally posted by ReaperYour offense results from you starting with the assumption that there is a God and that the Bible is true. But this is precisely what we are discussing. So your offense is, in fact, question begging.
Hi bbarr. God is holy. He is not foir mocking. You may not believe in God, but it does not mean that you may not change your mind in the future. I am a Christian and not only have you offended me, but you have offended God by using "his only begotten blah ..." Since you clearly have some knowledge of the Bible, I want to ask you to respect that. Use i ...[text shortened]... Argument and debate is not improved by becoming personal, insulting, disrespectful etc. Thanks