How Cruel is God?

[eyez0nme]

I have to say this much, infinite number of times, cruel.

He could be a monser, in fact, if he even exists.

How can he use mother nature and kill so many people and not care?

[Idlethought]

God works in mysterious ways sonny boy

[NERD]

It's easy to question God, yet when something unexplainable happens, people are more likely to turn that to chance/luck, or themselves.

[eyez0nme]

So you agree that--there is no god.

and if there is, well, he is the monster

[Quartermaster]

The same way He can kill and take revenge and all that other good stuff.
He's God. He knows what He's doing. And if God doesn't exist, then the question is moot.

Anyway, let me say further: It doesn't matter if any disaster comes from God (unless He makes it clear with a booming voice or talking goldfishes or whatever), what matters is how we react to it. We remember that life is not eternal, we make our days count, and we help others in need and so forth.

[NERD]

So you agree that--there is no god.

and if there is, well, he is the monster

I didn't say that. My stance on a divine being remains neutral.

[Annoying MSN Person]

Hello. Your friendly neighbourhood God here.
How about some self determination? I can't transubstantiate every time you need someone to run to and cry about your troubles.

Fucked up things happen every day. Life will be a bitch until you break down and slip into a haze of melancholy and frustration and give up on your futile attempts to wake up. Beautiful souls will be lost. Moments of love will come to nothing. You will sell your soul to the devil and dance in the quagmire of your own personal hell.

[CNagy]

To acknowledge the existence of God as a supreme being is to acknowledge that he is above such petty mortal descriptions as kind and cruel. To try and hold him to the same standards that we would hold a human being to is juvenile, because to call him cruel or kind is to imply that we understand his motives.

[NERD]

Exactly. To a supreme being, he/she may acknowledge the difference between life and death, but may come as trivial differences. Because of that, it is hard to question the intentions of God whatever the consequences are, and unless we were to be able to overcome the limits of being mortals, and being human, we cannot really do anything to prove/disapprove the existence of God.

[keitaidensha]

To acknowledge the existence of God as a supreme being is to acknowledge that he is above such petty mortal descriptions as kind and cruel. To try and hold him to the same standards that we would hold a human being to is juvenile, because to call him cruel or kind is to imply that we understand his motives.
ding ding we have a winner

people are basically too stupid and too limited in their understanding to know anything about the nature of god, assuming god exists and fits our basic definitions of the supreme being

[hereyago]

don't blame god...

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Well i've commonly heard religous "leaders" (a term I use loosely) say that New Orleans was one of the most corrupt citys in the world (and people i know that have been there have said the same thing long before the hurrican ever came) and their justification is that god smote the city because of it wickedness....or some old testement stuff like that...

Personally i think its rather egotistical to blame god for every event in you life. You think god is controling every aspect of all our lifes? Why did he send the hurricane, why does he let crime happen, why does he let bad things happen to good people, ect. Then whats the point of free will? Of course heres and idea...maybe shit just happens, maybe god didn't specifically create the hurrican (btw life as we know it wouldn't exist if the climates were any differant than they are infact the whole new orleans area would be under water thousands of years ago if hurrican and tropical storms didn't regularly cause the river to overflow bringing valueble silt to the area. And by building the levies they prevent that silt from doing it job and new orleans sink more and more every year thus increasing the devestation when the levies accually broke. There fore god had everything working find until we thought we knew better), maybe it the goverments fault for skimping on the leveis, maybe its the new orleanians fault for choosing to live in an area that was obviously dangerous, or then again mostly it not directly anyones fault as a series of unrelated events that came togather and resulted in a tragedy

[Kustom]

Well, if I can't understand the real motives behind someone's actions, and they sure as hell look evil to me, I usually don't side with him do I?

Remember this quote whose author I forgot:
"God's only excuse is, he doesn't exist."

[Jynx_lucky_j]

life as we know it wouldn't exist if the climates were any differant than they are infact the whole new orleans area would be under water thousands of years ago if hurrican and tropical storms didn't regularly cause the river to overflow bringing valueble silt to the area. And by building the levies they prevent that silt from doing it job and new orleans sink more and more every year thus increasing the devestation when the levies accually broke. There fore god had everything working find until we thought we knew better)

Hows that for a reason? How about not changing the climate of the world just because people chose to live in a place than has been know to have hurriacains for thosands of years. how about people evacuating when they are told to? How about the govoner sending out the busses specificailly set aside to evacuate the people that couldn't get out on their own? How about people knew it was comming days in advance. How about by creating the levies we made the results of hurrican worse by letting the land of new orlens sink into a bowl. How about the people that stayed specifically to loot, as in they sated looting with in hours of the hurricain before all hell broke loose. How about the goverment saying that building up the levies was not a priority despite numerous request to do just that. Do you think that god specifically created that specific hurricane specifically to kill a bunch of people? If you accually watched all the specails and informitive shows that came out as a result of the storm, you would see the devestation is far more the fault of man than that of God. We are the only creature on the planet that not only does not mesh with the enviroment around it, but actively destroys it.

Essentially by your theory, even with out the hurricane, because of the fact that not everyone dies of old age, because there isn't peace and happiness through out the world, because everything isn't perfect, and we don't live in a paradise, that there cannot be a god or at best only an evil one?

Edit: And while we're on qoutes a simpler form of what i just said. "We want God to come and save us. But he won’t. God doesn’t stop levees from failing, he doesn’t stay the force of tsunamis, and he doesn’t stop planes from smashing into buildings. Deus Ex Machina is overrated." - Waiter Rant

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Well look at it this way.

Mother nature has been used to kill thousands of people throughout history.

China had an earthquake in the early A.D. that wiped out somewhere around 100,000 to 200,000.

So you know...this isn't anything new.

[Jay]

Snip.

<in reference to your first paragraph>

Dude, how about not HAVING to rush to the aid of people who live in natural disaster-prone areas in the first place? People get themselves into these situations by CHOOSING to live in these prone areas, so it's their own fault.

[Lyndis]

Exactly. People knew the hurricane was coming, yet they chose to stay. That's the only reason so many lives were lost, because people didn't evacuate when they had more than enough time to do so. It was their lives, their choices, and their consequences for choosing to remain in New Orleans (for reasons I'll never understand). Another question to ask is, why didn't the New Orleans mayor evacuate the people with all those buses?

So you can't blame God or President Bush; the real blame goes to the people who chose to stay in the path of the hurricane and put their own lives at risk (and to the city leaders for not evacuating those people in due time).

[Jay]

I think it's funny that the Australian government apologised to Aussie Katrina victims. They have eyes and ears, and most of them I assume would have a television, so they could see the weather reports, realise that a hurricane is on its way, put two and two together, and get the hell out of there.

It's not up to anyone to apologise or provide aid. It's up to the people to know that a disaster is coming and to avert it by moving away from the place the disaster is going to strike.

[Idlethought]

Anyway, God isnt as cruel as you think. It's kind of funny that whenever something bad/horrible happens people are quick to be like "Fuck you God! What the fuck man how could you DO this shit?!" but they dont thank God when something great happens or something simply good like being able to live another fuckin day, or living in a country where you have the OPTION to overconsume, check out south africa people. check out haiti. yall are livin the good life compared to the vast majority of the world and whens the last time you thanked god for that? whens the last time you said "hey god, thanks for lettin me have it so good!"

Until you give God ALL his credit keep your divine criticisms to your fucking self

[Jay]

Someone give this man a cigar and the keys to the city.

[Darkblade]

if there IS a god.. he (or it) is asleep at the wheel and should be fired.

[Jay]

There's no god, capital G or otherwise.

[/cynical]

[Justin Ellis]

Exactly. To a supreme being, he/she may acknowledge the difference between life and death, but may come as trivial differences. Because of that, it is hard to question the intentions of God whatever the consequences are, and unless we were to be able to overcome the limits of being mortals, and being human, we cannot really do anything to prove/disapprove the existence of God.

Ah, but the cruelty does not stem from the action itself, but rather the ignorance in which this being seems to hold man. That is, if God is indeed Omnipotent, all knowing and all powerful, then he must surely be well aware of not only the suffering that he inflicts on humanity directly through natural disasters, wars, bad movies and whatnot; but he must also be well aware of the spiritual anguish he brings his people by never providing an explanation for his actions. The only reason belief in God exists at all is because human beings by their nature seeking explanation, so why would God willingly and intentionally throw humanity for endless loops and undermine his own support?

All in all, just keep in mind that God has only been proven to "exist" within the minds of people and religious texts. Before that, there is nothing to recount the presence of a God in the geological record of the Earth nor in any astronomical observations. Most theology holds that God created man, be keeping the above in mind and recalling all the different religions that have graced the Earth - it seems clear to me that man creates God.

[belladonna]

He gives us freedom of thought and freedom of choice... he lets us choose our own path.

[Jay]

...And then comes along and wipes people out with natural disasters when he doesn't liek the path they choose?

[eyez0nme]

Hahahahahahaha--man, guys thanks for the laugh.

Let me tell you why God is cruel: what if, omg, what if free will is only an illusion God has put forth, to decieve mankind, for in truth free will doesn't exist. He picks and choose who he wants the children of God to be. What if that's how God works? What would that make him?

[Jay]

Man, for once I agree with you.

[Idlethought]

if that is the way it works then so fuckin what. what you gonna do about it besides bitch?

[Admiral Luis]

I'll tell you guys a story that made me be certain of the existence of God. I'm christian.

In this Summer I was in the street with my friends and suddenly I started shouting a love song that I knew but didn't even know whose song it is (now I know). I started shouting it for no reason at 2 a.m. I had not heard that song in years. But still I shouted her in the middle of the night.

Next day I went home. I went to hi5, wich is a site in wich you can make a journal of what you want. I look to my ex-girlfriend's journal and I see the lyrics of the song I just shouted for no reason last night. She posted the lyrics there because her new boyfriend had broken up with her. I look at the time of the post - 2am yesterday - the precise moment I shouted that song. I didn't know what to think at the time. I really love that girl.

There is a God and he has the worst sense of humour ever.

Don't tell me it is a coincidence - I hadn't heard that song for years and I shouted it for no reason at that precise moment.

By the way the song is Caetano Veloso - Sozinho.

[Jay]

I'm sorry, but that's not a very strong argument FOR the existence of God.

I'm an athiest myself, I just can't justify putting my faith in some guy who may or may not have walked on water, turned water to wine, whatever; some guy who may have parted the Red Sea; some guy who claims to have created Adam and then Eve from Adam's ribbone. I'm sorry, but I just can't do it.

But go ahead and believe that yourself, I'm not here to deny you that. ;)

[Citizen]

God is as cruel as you make him.

[Idlethought]

I'm sorry, but that's not a very strong argument FOR the existence of God.

I'm an athiest myself, I just can't justify putting my faith in some guy who may or may not have walked on water, turned water to wine, whatever; some guy who may have parted the Red Sea; some guy who claims to have created Adam and then Eve from Adam's ribbone. I'm sorry, but I just can't do it.

But go ahead and believe that yourself, I'm not here to deny you that. ;)

lol i used to be an athiest. i guess to affirm a belief in a higher being you just gotta have certain unbelievable shit happen to you. no one says you have to believe any scripture, i dont. the god i believe in has very simple qualities, those that many will disagree with but quite frankly i dont give a shit.

I believe God isnt 100% good, I think he is perfect. Perfect in that he has everything, he embodies all possible points of every possible spectrum. That being said i believe he can do whatever he wants, whether it kill people off or make them unbelievably happy. I believe for myself all God wants to do is teach me lessons. Thassit.

[Overkongen]

Usually, whenever these discussions come up, I've tired of trying to disprove god (to me it seems easy, but it seems like a lot of people disagree), so instead, I've gone for the whole is-god-your-pal-or-a-complete-psycho? I usually talk about the good old flood.

Meet Daisy, a five-year-old. She has gone out one day, to pick some flowers. She's walking around, minding her own business, when all of a sudden, God sends the flood, and drowns her, because she is an evil sinner. Killing her isn't enough, though, so after that, he sends her to Hell, where she will suffer for all eternity.

Now, I don't know what y'all think about making five-year-olds suffer, not to mention killing them, but I definately know what my own stance on the matter is.

[Justin Ellis]

I'll tell you guys a story that made me be certain of the existence of God. I'm christian.

In this Summer I was in the street with my friends and suddenly I started shouting a love song that I knew but didn't even know whose song it is (now I know). I started shouting it for no reason at 2 a.m. I had not heard that song in years. But still I shouted her in the middle of the night.

Next day I went home. I went to hi5, wich is a site in wich you can make a journal of what you want. I look to my ex-girlfriend's journal and I see the lyrics of the song I just shouted for no reason last night. She posted the lyrics there because her new boyfriend had broken up with her. I look at the time of the post - 2am yesterday - the precise moment I shouted that song. I didn't know what to think at the time. I really love that girl.

There is a God and he has the worst sense of humour ever.

Don't tell me it is a coincidence - I hadn't heard that song for years and I shouted it for no reason at that precise moment.

By the way the song is Caetano Veloso - Sozinho.

Chance circumstance. With the billions of people that walk the Earth now, in the past and in the future, it had to happen to someone eventually. That person happened to be you, congratulations. You only see it as an act of God because to you choose to view such an act through the lense of theology . When you look at it objectively, it's really not that special.

[Kustom]

Snip

So it had to be God and nothing else, is that right?

Not Vishnu or Cupid or pure randomness; telepathy or "the power of love" or you being way more obsessed with your ex than you should? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that. If God exists, maybe he has other things on his mind than micro-managing what your ex writes up on her blog at 2 am. Or maybe not, but good luck proving it to us doubters.

[TygressVirgo]

I love arguments like this, really spins your head around and makes you define what you believe.

I'm Catholic, plain and simple.


This is what I have to offer.

1. - When people talk about the curelty of God, I cannot but help to ask "Have you thanked Him for the goodness in your life lately?" It is so easy to blame a fellow human, what more the all powerful God? In my most humble opinion, I fully believe that God knows what He is doing. I fully believe that we will ALL go to heaven, He came to save us all, not just those He picked. If you believe in Adam and Eve, than you must realise that God gave us the choice not to sin. We chose sin, therefore I situation changed from one of Paradise, to one of trial. However, in the world of trial, He is with us always and speaks to us to help us find our ways.

2. - Now for a more personal note. I believe there is a God because I feel a total and complete joy only from Him or the thought of Him. When I come from Mass, I leave feeling Blessed beyond what I deserve. This is the most simple description I can give to anyone. Regardless of what follows this life, I will always be thankful for what goodness I have known on this earth, and all the lessons I have learned from the bad experiences.

Yours in Friendship.
Ty

[Ybbor]

In this Summer I was in the street with my friends and suddenly I started shouting a love song that I knew but didn't even know whose song it is (now I know). I started shouting it for no reason at 2 a.m.

sounds to me like you were just drunk ;)

[Stormhammer]

Anyway, God isnt as cruel as you think. It's kind of funny that whenever something bad/horrible happens people are quick to be like "Fuck you God! What the fuck man how could you DO this shit?!" but they dont thank God when something great happens or something simply good like being able to live another fuckin day, or living in a country where you have the OPTION to overconsume, check out south africa people. check out haiti. yall are livin the good life compared to the vast majority of the world and whens the last time you thanked god for that? whens the last time you said "hey god, thanks for lettin me have it so good!"

Until you give God ALL his credit keep your divine criticisms to your fucking self

Quoted, in case some of you missed it the first time around.

-Stormhammer-

[Pierrot le Fou]

You know, you remind me of the man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town. And that all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, 'I'm religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.' The waters rose up. A guy in a row boat came along and he shouted, 'Hey, hey you! You in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.' But the man shouted back, 'I'm religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.' A helicopter was hovering overhead. And a guy with a megaphone shouted, 'Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I'll take you to safety.' But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety. Well... the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter, he demanded an audience with God. 'Lord,' he said, 'I'm a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?' God said, 'I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?'

Though it's been said in different words by many other people.

[Alphonse v.2]

People plan and God laughs.

[Komidol]

I think there are too many Emo's here to have a god Topic. ^__^

[Maian]

You know, existence of God cannot be proven or disproven with scientific or mathematical means. (And no, the ontological argument doesn't work.) Scientifically or mathematically proving that that god is "perfect" is even more difficult (and perhaps impossible, considering the nuances of the word "perfect").

With that said, there are some assumptions being made in this thread: that god directly causes each storm, that whether or not we have free will actually matters, what "perfection" means, what "good" means, and more...

As for whether I believe in god, I'm 50/50 :)

[kyaa the catlord]

We all know that global warming and George W. Bush caused the storm. God, he's so last century.

[Idlethought]

just out of pure curiosity, why is everyone so quick to want to disprove god? just wondering...

[kyaa the catlord]

Fear.

Realizing that there are things out there that you cannot see is frightening.

[Kustom]

Just because good exists doesn't mean there is a God, no more than because evil exists Satan automatically does. BUT because evil exists it is to me the most simple and convincing evidence that an all-powerful benevolent god doesn't.

Why would God let 5 year olds be raped and murdered or make people stumble on the remains of their mother hacked to pieces and thrown down the latrines as happened to my friend in Rwanda?

There are only two explanations worth mentionning:
1) God's mysterious ways: We can't possibly understand, but everything is good and well in a brave new word. Ok, so this little girl had to be raped and killed because who knows, she might have been the next Hitler (and the raping was there for good measure?). Or putting her family through this will make them stronger and holier members of their community and generate more good than harm. But you only have God's word on this: you weak-minded human cannot possibly comprehend.

Wait a minute? I can't understand but must accept it? This kind of faith is the first step suicide bombers or sectarian fanatics have to learn before they go on and blow children up or gas people in the metro. So how do I know God is even good or benevolent? Maybe he seeks to do the most evil and his moments of goodness are his mysterious ways of advancing that goal (same argument in reverse)?

If God exists, and is all-powerful, then surely I must hold him responsible for both good and evil, at least by failing to prevent one or the other. But if I cannot understand his motives at all and find it repulsive that he allows kids to be raped or brutally slaughtered, I won't become one of his followers without any evidence that he really is good.

By the way, saying God could prevent men from cutting children into pieces but won't because he wants them to retain the free will to decide for themselves if they can rape and kill children (and several times) is too obscene for me to even consider. Worse even if he could step up to save kids in major pain and doesn't: kids don't learn any valuable life lesson by suffering and dying, and it wouldn't impair anybody's free will to prevent that.

Or maybe you think they get a free express ride to heaven because of all that blood-coughing and hospital rooms and in-pineboxness before even turing 8. But then, why them? And if everyone goes to heaven, doesn't the guy who died at 70 get a better deal? No evidence of goodness or fairness here.

2) The other way around this is to say God is not all-powerful. Then evil comes from either men or Satan, God just created men but doesn't control them. This is perhaps more-convincing (although surprisingly a lot of Christians and the Catholic church refuse to consider the possibility of God not being all-powerful). But who's responsible? Who created men, snakes and apples, me ask? "Oops, I just created A-bombs, but I wash my hand of everything that could happen because of that. Not my problem. Here, take it. I'll make sure to blame YOU if something goes wrong."

If God has so completely lost control over the course of events he set in motion, I don't see any powerful reason to worship him either. At least he is not as completely rotten as I think he'd be in example 1 (using my meager human judgement scale, I don't have a godly one available). But it makes him look sufficiently foolish (capable of big head-slapping mistakes) and powerless to think that men created Him in their own image, and not the other way around.

[kyaa the catlord]

3. God knows better than to micromanage. :D

[Kustom]

Why pray then? If God is off reading the newspaper, surely he doesn't have time to listen to prayers or update so and so's ex-girlfriend blog... :p

Besides, if you mean he could micro-manage but won't, it's really the same as number 1, or if he would but can't, it's number 2. Pretty neat categories and they're not mine :D

[Idlethought]

by saying god CANT do something youre in essence limiting infinity, which cant be limited

[kyaa the catlord]

Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool

If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool

He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool

He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool

No wonder there are so many Christians

"Jesus was Way Cool" by King Missile.

[Trump]

There is such a fine line between free will and preventing evil that I can't even begin to comprehend the delicacy invovled in balancing the two. If someone wants to be evil then you have to let them be evil before condemning them. Unfortunately that means good people suffer. Another concern is that perhaps bad things need to happen to some people so that others learn from those situations. If one person suffers so that thousands learn to avoid or prevent those situations from happening again, was it worth it?

Trying to justify God's actions is pretty pointless anyway. You have control over your own life and you can turn any situation good or bad through your own actions.

[Idlethought]

There is such a fine line between free will and preventing evil that I can't even begin to comprehend the delicacy invovled in balancing the two. If someone wants to be evil then you have to let them be evil before condemning them. Unfortunately that means good people suffer. Another concern is that perhaps bad things need to happen to some people so that others learn from those situations. If one person suffers so that thousands learn to avoid or prevent those situations from happening again, was it worth it?

Trying to justify God's actions is pretty pointless anyway. You have control over your own life and you can turn any situation good or bad through your own actions.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

[thatguy]

Live.

Have fun kids!

[Overkongen]

I'm sorry if the following offends... I will be making the point that god is truly evil. If you're not comfy with that, don't read.

I didn't get much reply to the post I made earlier, but now that I look at it again, maybe people thought I was referring to the tsunami instead of the flood. Regarding faith, I don't have much to say about the tsunami. The flood I was referring to was the one where Noah built a boat, and saved almost nothing from the wrath of God. Regarding this flood, it was god who actively chose to send it, so we can hold him responsible.

Now, the flood was sent to kill af all of the evil sinners. After they died, they would all be sent to hell. This includes the kindergarden girl I mentioned earlier.

Which is more evil, molesting a child, and having that child suffer for it the rest of her life, or killing loads of children, and then sentencing them to eternal punishment afterwards? I don't remember exactly how long ago the great flood was, but let's assume that these kids have been suffering for the last 5000 years.

Now, who is more evil, a child-molester, og god?

[Idlethought]

To us it would seem evil but to God it seemed justified and because we're limited in our reasoning and by our 5 senses we arent really in a position to judge whether he's good or evil. We don't know what happened to those kids who died in the flood, we can only assume.

What we can do is not dwell on the (far far) past because we're not living then we're living now.

[Snake eyeS]

I think Kustom is right on the mark with his last post, he is capable of wording it so much better then me. 2 thumbs up for kustom.

with that said im going to twist the argument a bit by giving my 2 cents about relegion and not about god(enough has been said: atheist 1- 0 believers)

When someone in this post wrote, man created god you should of all stopped and agreed with him and we would live happily ever after without blowing eachother up.

my rant:

I think relegion has outlived his purpose, we no longer have to be afraid of the unknown because we have alot of anwsers, something we didnt have a long time ago. people back then needed something to blame the rain, thunder and disasters for. now we have learned that weather does what the fuck it wants,and that there is no god leading it. People also need to have a way to deal with pain, praying to god is a good way to do it, if your loved one dies, its easier to say that it was because god needed him up there and that his ways are mysterious....it eases the pain, and in that way.. i am happy that there are relegions who gives you that god that wil comfort you with your own desilluison.

But recently the crusades, monastary's , churches, suicide bombers ,al qaida and other merry bands of people who screw people in the name of god by asking them for money or killing for no aparent reason, makes me believe that relegion is now serving another cause then it was designed for. Your God would step in if he saw someone take his name in vain by killing lots of people or robbing them of all their money.

I understand that your belief will give you alot of comfort and that it can make people be fair and honest(yay for that) but, your belief also gives you false hope, twisted anwers, cheating and buttfucking priests.

hopefully i made myself clear, and i dont want to totally disrespect people who have been christians all their lives. everyone has been raised up and influenced by certain things, good for you. i woudnt say this stuff to a old lady which only hope in life is that her god would come and pick her up at the right time.. im saying this stuff to you guys, all smart and capable men that are open for reason.

and with all the different beliefs, which God is the real god is it God, allah, boedha or whoever is out there?

[Idlethought]

Snake, I can comfortably and honestly say I created the God that I believe in now and that I don't subscribe to religion. I think religion itself is evil and know (there's documentation on this) that religion has been the source of much destruction and pain in the world past and present. In contrast I think a simple belief is harmless, as long as that belief doesnt drive you to justify hurting other people. Aaaaaaand...I've lost my train of thought. I hate it when that happens.

[Snake eyeS]

Snake, I can comfortably and honestly say I created the God that I believe in now and that I don't subscribe to religion. I think religion itself is evil and know (there's documentation on this) that religion has been the source of much destruction and pain in the world past and present. In contrast I think a simple belief is harmless, as long as that belief doesnt drive you to justify hurting other people. Aaaaaaand...I've lost my train of thought. I hate it when that happens.


well i pretty much said the same thing you said, except i used a shitload of non-important words :) thanks for the summary.

[Admiral Luis]

So it had to be God and nothing else, is that right?

Not Vishnu or Cupid or pure randomness; telepathy or "the power of love" or you being way more obsessed with your ex than you should? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that. If God exists, maybe he has other things on his mind than micro-managing what your ex writes up on her blog at 2 am. Or maybe not, but good luck proving it to us doubters.


Maybe you are right ... I'm really fucked up with her right now ... but one thing I tell you - I dont believe it could be randomness.

By the way whos Vishnu??

[ellie]

I didn't read this whole thread so hopefully I'm not totally just saying what someone else has said.

The problem for Christians is this:
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is completely benevolent
3. There is evil in this world.

How can evil exist if God is good? There are two kinds of evil in this world--natural evil and moral evil. Why would God put these here if he is entirely benevolent?

One theory is explained by Saint Augustine. God is immutably good and creates all other things, and therefore all created things are by nature good. All things are good even if they are corrupted. Evil has no substance--evil is the lack of good. If evil did have substance, then it would be "good" because it would be made by God. Good things yield greater pleasure when you can compare them to bad. We cannot be human without evil. God gave us free will. If everything was good all the time, then we would not have free will, and it is the fact that we have free will that makes us human. Thus, we need both free will and evil in the world.

Another theory is that the world is at a necessary stage in evolution. God created humans in two stages: the image of God and the likeness of God. We are already in the image of God, so we may now be in the process of being made into the likeness of God. It is necessary that everyone is morally imperfect, because this is just a step in a long plan for God. The world is currently at an immature state of creation.

[Admiral Luis]

Maybe you are right ... I'm really fucked up with her right now ... but one thing I tell you - I dont believe it could be randomness.

By the way whos Vishnu??

Forget it I already know

[Marie]

I don't think natural disasters can be counted as evil. It's natural, it happens, the earth does stuff on its own without regard to who lives where and what's going on. That isn't God; it's the weather system. I'm sad about what happened with Katrina, but yes, people had ample warning to get out. It also doesn't help when a city is built below sea level, not too far from a lake. I love you, French intelligence. <3

God cannot be blamed for everything that happens; sometimes things just happen on their own.

[Pierrot le Fou]

CAUTION: Shitstorm Approaching

Now, the flood was sent to kill af all of the evil sinners. After they died, they would all be sent to hell. This includes the kindergarden girl I mentioned earlier.

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

So point being, he didn't like humans because angels were fucking them. To put it frankly.

When Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree of knowledge, they learned about good and evil. God didn't intend that, but he had given them free will and free passage within the garden with ONE RULE that Eve couldn't even follow. So he destroyed his creations because they had invented murder, they had created cities in which they didn't believe in God, and a whole bunch of other bad nonsense.

So God destroyed them, except for the faithful in Noah and his family. And they didn't go to Hell, because in the Hebrew Bible there was no Hell -- just Sheol; absence from God.

CAUTION: Shitstorm Imminent

But that's beside the point. That's an intellectual response, and this is an 'OMG, I f'in hate God! OMG!' thread, or is becoming one. And people sit there and produce these countless 'proofs' or 'evidence' that God doesn't exist while being entirely incapable of actually reading the Bible. I'm no Christian, but I will defend to the death of me their right to believe in a God, and I will constantly take out my aggressions on people who don't understand the first thing about religion or the Bible yet shit on it like they're superior.

Guess what? Religious folk are standing on the same ground as you anti-religion atheist assholes are. That ground, by the way, is the ground of no proof.

God was never a good guy. Read the Old Testament. He eliminated his own creations, destroyed cities, intentionally spread people here and there and fucked with their languages, he screwed with Job hardcore, and was a general prick to humanity. Jesus was the nice guy, and he died for it. God knew better.

So why do bad things happen to good people? Because God was never an ever-benevolent loving guy. In the Old Testament he was fucking with people. In the New Testament, life was a test to decide what happened in the afterlife. Why do little kids get raped? Because life doesn't matter, and they're going to heaven anyway. Why do little kids get murdered? Why do good people die? Why doesn't God stop suffering?

Because God believes in FAITH. And without FAITH you aren't getting into heaven, which is the only point of this whole 'life' thing according to the New Testament. Trials and tribulations are just that -- trials. Are you a good person? Will you renounce God in your times of need or embrace him?

70% of the people in this world believe in a personal Diety of some sort. 70%. And people are saying that 'religion has outlived its usefulness?' What a crock of shit. It feels good to believe for so many people. It feels good for you to shit on religion, because it's scary to you. Death and what comes next is scary to other folks, so they believe in a God. The two groups are so similar it's eerie, yet you act as if your shit don't stink.

Well fuck that.

Religious or not, you have a right to believe what you believe. But the problem I have is when folks decide to impose what they believe on everyone else. that applies both to religious and non-religious folk. The latter tend to be a fuckloud louder, especially on the internet, and that pisses me off to no end. At least the religious understand the other side. The anti-religious don't have a fucking clue and lash out at any organized religion like angsty teenagers rather than actually take the time to understand what the fuck they're lashing out against.

Congratulations folks, you've made my hungover day.

Go pick up a copy of the Bible. Or read it online at http://biblegateway.com

Until you do that, shut your fucking yaps about the evils of religion if you don't know shit, because honestly, it makes you look like a twat in the eyes of the Lord and anyone else with a clue who's reading.

[Idlethought]

well...clap clap clap

[raevyn]

CAUTION: Shitstorm Approaching

Congratulations folks, you've made my hungover day.

Go pick up a copy of the Bible. Or read it online at http://biblegateway.com

Until you do that, shut your fucking yaps about the evils of religion if you don't know shit, because honestly, it makes you look like a twat in the eyes of the Lord and anyone else with a clue who's reading.

best suggestion ever. I read the bible when I was younger, I still read it today. I couldnt tell you where was what or anything, I found church to be useless and trivial I found I could believe in a (God)/(Godess) god from here. I have faith, but I also know that having faith isnt enough in this world. Trials tribulations and all that shit. There is life also, we created this world the way it is now. We live in it day by day dont we? You can have faith and work the way you wish to in this world.

[Justin Ellis]

Now for a more personal note. I believe there is a God because I feel a total and complete joy only from Him or the thought of Him. When I come from Mass, I leave feeling Blessed beyond what I deserve. This is the most simple description I can give to anyone. Regardless of what follows this life, I will always be thankful for what goodness I have known on this earth, and all the lessons I have learned from the bad experiences.

Not a rational argument. A cocaine addict could say the exact same thing about when he shoots up, and his argument would be no more or less plausible than yours. The will to simple satisfaction is neither supportive of God existence nor moral. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, "A little poison makes for an agreeable sleep, and much poison for an agreeable death."

And pierrot le fou, please, temper your arrogance. Don't assume every atheist is totally unfamiliar with the Bible. Aside from its numerous and gross self contradictions, the Bible is filled with God commanding people to commit heinous acts of cruelty and violence. For example, God command Abraham to kill his own son, Isac. Jael, wife of Heber, killed Sisera by hammering a nail through his temples - the Bible calls her blessed. Psalms 58:10 says, "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."

Anyone can crack open a Bible and fined plenty examples of just how perverse the Christian sense of morality is. It's not my "good book", folks, it's yours.

All dubious ethical codes aside, God is a wild assertion that goes totally unsupported. "But God by definition can't be proven or disproven..." you may say. Great. The same goes UFOs and magical creatures. The only reason religion persist is because, frankly, people naturally fear dying, and can't quite accept that someday, they will.

[Idlethought]

Again I'm gonna ask this, why are people so obsessed with disproving God? Why not let those that believe, believe. Let those that don't believe, not believe.

[Bowling Pin]

God is cruel because He allowed Gaia Online into the world.

Yet, God also allowed 24. Perhaps He is more benevolent than He lets on...

[Pierrot le Fou]

It seems I touched a nerve.

Here in a thread where several people are trashing religion, you got offended because I told you folks to shove it if you don't have a concept of what you're talking about? So it's okay to shout down religion, but shouting down atheism is out of bounds? Why is it that despite all the shit that's said about Christianity, I have never had someone proclaiming their faith rudely. Sure, Mormons come to my door now and then, but if I ask them to leave, they politely do. Atheists? Can't get them to shuttup for the life of me.

So why exactly is that? Is it because most loud-mouthed atheists are insecure little brats who feel the need to put down Christianity especially to establish and justify the superiourity of their position?

I have no problem with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, Christian Scientists -- whatever. I have a problem with people rudely deriding others for their beliefs when there is absolutely no reason to, save personal prejudice. Why the Hell is it unreasonable for me to point out that folks who rant about how much a religion suck are probably talking through their asses and just don't expect to be called on it?

And what the fuck makes you think I'm Christian?

[Overkongen]

Peirrot, I agree on the part about reading the bible, and seeing that god isn't all benevolent. It's obvious that he isn't. I'm just tired of believers saying that he is. I know I cannot denounce the existance of god any more than I can denounce the existance of santa.

You say that religion is scary to us. I say: Attacks on abortion clinics, the crusades, 9/11, London Bombings, Bush going to war against the "AXIS OF EVIL!!!", witches being burnt, and just the other day, I read an article about how a man had been killed by a mob of people because he was accused of practicing witchcraft.

I admi it, there are few parts of religion I do not fear. It would be some of the eastern religions (and not even all of them, they have their bad seeds too), that truly stress tolerance, and tell people how they think people should live, but leave other people to decide for themselves.

What scares me isn't god, though, it's the people who believe in him, and what crimes they're willing to commit to appease him.

[Kustom]

God was never a good guy.

[...]

Because God was never an ever-benevolent loving guy.

You'd be surprised, but quite a few articulate christians would disagree. :cool:

Anyway, my personnal position is: there might or might not be a God and this I may never know, but until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation of why he allows evil to happen whatever God there is isn't worth worshipping to me. I agree that some atheists might make stupid brainless comments much the same as religious people sometimes do, but most people can have a reasonable discussion and overlook posts that don't make any valid points, and ranting about it surprisingly doesn't make them go away.

As far as I'm concerned, in the context of christianity I'm ready to accept the argument that the New Testament corrected the endless amount of stupid, pure nasty evil comments found in the old and that the Christian God is supposed to be benevolent, according to the bible. Which doesn't go a long way towards convincing me, because as far as I'm concerned the bible might have been written by bored scribes waiting at the caravan stop and not God, directly or indirectly.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why? Why do you state that you refuse to believe in God until there is proof, when there can be no proof ever? Why even create a stipulation? Why not own up to the fact that you are an atheist, plain and simple, and not due to lack of proof, because you have an equivalent lack of proof that God doesn't exist, but because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

You make it sound like this is a rational choice. Like somehow it is irrational to believe in God when there is no proof. It is equivalently silly to refute its existence without proof, but you refuse to look at it that way.

To make matters worse, you assume that God must be compatible with belief system X (in this case Christianity), and use the flaws in the religion to convince yourself that God doesn't exist, ignoring the fact that there are slews of religions, and sects within those religions, each with different belief sets. Just because the Pope gets something wrong doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it could simply mean that the Pope isn't God. What a shocker, eh?

You are taking a position that God doesn't exist, and requiring other people to convince you otherwise by offering proof that doesn't exist. That's not rational. You're so fixated on this Christian conception of God, but you refuse to even truly consider what's being said in Christianity, reverting instead to some dumbed down version of Christianity that you have this image of, that will prevent you from ever having to change your mind.

Read this. (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1183)

This isn't like Santa. We claim that Santa delivers presents and whatnot that Santa doesn't actually deliver. We claim that Santa lives at the North Pole, when we know that there ain't any cottage or a candy-cane striped pole up there. Sure, it's not conclusive proof that he doesn't exist, as proving that something doesn't exist is almost impossible, but it's a pretty safe bet considering the circumstantial evidence that he doesn't exist.

[Overkongen]

Okay, my mistake. I cannot denounce god any more than I can denounce the existance of invisible, immaterial, flying unicorns.

[Pierrot le Fou]

That is also ridiculous.

The concept of a God existing has circumstantial evidence -- the existence of a universe which cannot be explained by any physics that will ever exist, because it requires knowledge of things outside the system we're stuck in. Flying immaterial invisible unicorns have no circumstantial evidence, let alone solid evidence.

You're just being insulting now.

[Invictus]

Because God believes in FAITH. And without FAITH you aren't getting into heaven, which is the only point of this whole 'life' thing according to the New Testament. Trials and tribulations are just that -- trials. Are you a good person? Will you renounce God in your times of need or embrace him?

Bravo, Pierrot.

Now, as a Christian, I do believe that God is ultimately Good and Just. However, as Lewis so eloquently put it, this by no means indicates that He is a "tame" God.

[Kustom]

You are taking a position that God doesn't exist, and requiring other people to convince you otherwise by offering proof that doesn't exist.

I am not saying God doesn't exist, I am saying if he does I am not the least compelled to worship him if I cannot relate to his value system. In order to call God cruel or evil you have to first admit that he might exist, so I don't see how it is an atheist debate. Nowhere did I claim to prove God doesn't exist, but it's his Christian benevolent incarnation that I am questionning. If you want to make the claim that God isn't good and doesn't fit the description of any particular religion, fine, but that's not what Christian people are actually saying and not what is discussed here. If God isn't actually good or evil and is a purely immaterial being unrelated to anything in the real world, discussing him has no relevance whatsoever and then all beliefs are equal.

[Idlethought]

Invictus, you believe that God is ultimately Good and Just? I have a question for you. Do you believe God is also perfect?

[Kustom]

That is also ridiculous.

The concept of a God existing has circumstantial evidence -- the existence of a universe which cannot be explained by any physics that will ever exist, because it requires knowledge of things outside the system we're stuck in. Flying immaterial invisible unicorns have no circumstantial evidence, let alone solid evidence.

You're just being insulting now.

Look, your concept of God is best defined this way:

God (n.) : The cause of the universe

Now this is all perfectly sound, but it doesn't have anything to do with good, evil, the bible, Jesus, evolution, Krishna, gay marriage, going to church, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, heaven and hell, etc.

If you want to call the cause of the universe God, go for it. I won't challenge you on this one, it makes perfect sense or none at all given our utter lack of knowledge in that area. But please explain the logical steps you see linking God creating the universe to everything else I mentionned, it remains a mystery to me.

"There is an Entity called God that created the universe. --> Therefore he is good, wise, and we must build him monuments, go at the mass every sunday morning to pray, lay siege to aborption clinics and write letters to our congressmen to protest sodomy."

Please explain the causality here because I just don't see it. This thread is here to discuss the existence of a benevolent God and you are not addressing that issue.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Christianity does not equate to God.

Stop making specious arguments that waste everyone's time.

The belief in a Supreme Being -- Good, Evil, or Lawful Neutral is not attached to one specific religion or set of religious dictates. So stop dumbing down the issue.

I already stated why bad things happen in Christianity in the thread I linked to. It's a class on Jesus and addresses this very issue. But rather than actually read and comment on that, you have decided to start talking about God as if Christianity is all that counts, and as if I never addressed the original question (which I did twice mind you).

[Invictus]

I have a question for you. Do you believe God is also perfect?

As in "does not make mistakes," yes. As in "never does anything that does not serve His purpose," yes. As in "will always be regarded by humans as having done the proper thing," obviously not. ;)

[Pierrot le Fou]

As in "does not make mistakes," yes. As in "never does anything that does not serve His purpose," yes. As in "will always be regarded by humans as having done the proper thing," obviously not. ;)
I bet you believe in flying invisible immaterial unicorns too. Stupid theist.

Is it really so hard to grasp that theists are not these utterly one-dimensional simplistic 'believe in every word of the Bible' folks that they seem to get constantly painted as? Is it possible to understand that even amongst believers, lots of the time they ask themselves the same questions, but fall back on faith? Or is that asking you to destroy this whacky notion you have that religious people are irrational unicorn-believers?

[Idlethought]

As in "does not make mistakes," yes. As in "never does anything that does not serve His purpose," yes. As in "will always be regarded by humans as having done the proper thing," obviously not. ;)

Ok, what's your definition of perfection? Besides God

[Kustom]

Christianity does not equate to God.

Stop making specious arguments that waste everyone's time.

The belief in a Supreme Being -- Good, Evil, or Lawful Neutral is not attached to one specific religion or set of religious dictates. So stop dumbing down the issue.

I already stated why bad things happen in Christianity in the thread I linked to. It's a class on Jesus and addresses this very issue. But rather than actually read and comment on that, you have decided to start talking about God as if Christianity is all that counts, and as if I never addressed the original question (which I did twice mind you).

I really don't understand what you're talking about, then. First you said the Christian God was not benevolent based on quotes from the old testament, then you said God cannot be proven evil because he is the cause of the Universe. Then you started quoting Jesus to show God was running a giant moral experiment. I'm really confused about what you were trying to say.

I never equated God with Christianity, no more than you did, and just used it as an example of a religion that has given thought to the question of whether or not God is good. I didn't quote the bible inconsistencies, you did. How the hell am I dumbing down anything? Will you please quote us and tell us what this is all about?

I never even once said any belief whatsoever is wrong. I questionned whether people should follow God if:
1) He exists
2) His motives are unknown/impossible to comprehend (that includes running giant experiments to select the best souls to bring into heaven. I'm not sure I got your point, but it sounded like spiritual darwinism to me)

And I only gave my take on this, I'm listenning to what others are saying.

I questionned your logic when you claim that one cannot refuse the existence of a benevolent God because god created the universe. That God created the universe has no moral consequences whatsoever as far as I understand it.

[Overkongen]

I've ended at this place before with a girl I know. I think, that in order to be a proper christian, you have to believe in what the bible tells you. Conversation taken from memory:

Her: I'm a christian
Me: So you believe the world was created in seven days?
Her: No
Me: What about Jesus dying and rising from his grave?
Her: No, but it's more like, I think the ten commandments are a good set of rules.
Me: So do I, am I christian now?
Her: I think being christian is about wanting to be a good person
Me: So in other words, if I'm not christian, I can't be good?

The conversation trailed off at this point.

Anyway, pierrot, I don't hink we'll be getting any further now. I believe that there is faith, as in belief in a higher being, and then there is religion, which to me must be about following the books. And this goes for both christians and muslims and whatever.

I don't much like what's written in the Koran (don't know how to spell it in english), but at least a lot of muslims insist that it is the true word of god, and that it is devoid of mistakes. Same thing with the guy I've debated with from the Hare Krishna movement. He pretty much still insists that the sun is populated in the same way that earth is, for such are his teachings. Now that's what I call religious people. Whereas most christians (where I'm from, anyway) are like: "No no, that's meant as a metaphore. When the Bible says that the world was created in seven days, it really means that it was created several million years ago. And this part where it tells us to stone women who commit adultery? That means that we shouldn't stone people" and so on and so forth.

In short: If people don't believe in the bible, I have trouble seeing how they qualify as being christian. They can then call themselves theists, which at it's very broadest goes something like "There is something out there that we don't understand. I'm calling it god" As I've observed in the world around me, I'm pretty much alone with this view.

Anyway, we can stop here, or continue, I just don't think we're gonna get much further. If you feel like discussing more, we could start mailing each other, seeing how this thread is in reality about god being evil. Or we could continue it here. Your pick.

[Invictus]

In short: If people don't believe in the bible, I have trouble seeing how they qualify as being christian.

For what it's worth, I concur.

Ok, what's your definition of perfection?

The dictionary definition, more or less. As applies to God, the state of being without defect or blemish.

[Idlethought]

so you dont believe that something perfect is all encompassing?

[Invictus]

so you dont believe that something perfect is all encompassing?

Not sure I know what you mean by that. Encompassing what?

[Idlethought]

of everything

[Invictus]

. . .

Something perfect does not necessarily have to encompass everything, if that's what you're asking. I'd admire a bit more clarity in your questions, though. :P

[Idlethought]

Why doesnt something perfect encompass everything. Because if its missing something then it would be incomplete no?

[Invictus]

Not necessarily. Perfect means "without defect." Hence, a perfect operating system would never crash. That doesn't mean it would encompass all things. :P

What's your point in trying to draw me out and say that, anyway?

[Idlethought]

...damn lol well what would you consider a defect
i consider something perfect to be something that encompasses all points of every spectrum and i consider god to be perfect. meaning he embodies everything. good, evil, light, dark, chicken, cheese, and cotton.

[ZMarie]

I'm sorry if the following offends... I will be making the point that god is truly evil. If you're not comfy with that, don't read.

I didn't get much reply to the post I made earlier, but now that I look at it again, maybe people thought I was referring to the tsunami instead of the flood. Regarding faith, I don't have much to say about the tsunami. The flood I was referring to was the one where Noah built a boat, and saved almost nothing from the wrath of God. Regarding this flood, it was god who actively chose to send it, so we can hold him responsible.

Now, the flood was sent to kill af all of the evil sinners. After they died, they would all be sent to hell. This includes the kindergarden girl I mentioned earlier.

Which is more evil, molesting a child, and having that child suffer for it the rest of her life, or killing loads of children, and then sentencing them to eternal punishment afterwards? I don't remember exactly how long ago the great flood was, but let's assume that these kids have been suffering for the last 5000 years.

Now, who is more evil, a child-molester, og god?

The problem with a good part of this argument is that if you know most Christianity, you know that God didn't send the girl to hell. She would have joined him in heaven.

[Overkongen]

Sorry, I didn't think sinners went to heaven. If the sinners go to heaven, who goes to hell?

And as far as I remember, god will allow mass murderers and rapists into heaven if only they just repent before they die. I'm assuming the flood came somewhat suddenly, so people didn't have time to repent. Besides, wasn't the repenting rule made by Jesus? This was much before that, then.

And please don't get me started on what I think about the whole "Be EVIL, believe, repent, get into heaven free or be good, kind and caring, and go to hell anyway if you don't believe" That would be a topic worthy of discussion in this thread, if people have the same idead of hell as I think they do.

[TygressVirgo]

O dear,

I just love it when I tell my feelings and thoughts on God, someone compares me to a crack addict.

I wrote what I wrote to simply share my views. Take what you will from it. It was not an argument in any form, although I asked questions. They were more for your thoughts than for me to recieve answers.

- Ty


P.S. - If you ever want to see the ugly side of Christianity, just check out the History of Christianity Forums on the History Channels website. Be warned, it's quite horrible the things people say.

[DrChicken]

Hmm I find more logic in the statement:

"When something good happens, God is great! praise god! its gods will!..... when something bad happens, hey... he works in mysterious ways"

[Annoying MSN Person]

Ahem. To reiterate. I am God. I am the most nasty bitch you will ever encounter. Go back and tithe some more, that might appease me.

[Kustom]

Hmm I find more logic in the statement:

"When something good happens, God is great! praise god! its gods will!..... when something bad happens, hey... he works in mysterious ways"

It is really the same logic as:

"When something bad happens, God is evil! Down with god! it was gods will!..... when something good happens, hey... he works in mysterious ways... To achieve his evil plans!"

Both points of view are on par, they're one and the same really...

[Trump]

Anyone can get into heaven if they just repent before they die? Don't make me laugh. I do not believe that for a second. The best you can hope for is purgatory if you really are apologetic for the things you have done and you understand why you shouldn't hav done them. So after paying for your sins in purgatory, you might make it to heaven some century.

[ZMarie]

Sorry, I didn't think sinners went to heaven. If the sinners go to heaven, who goes to hell?

And as far as I remember, god will allow mass murderers and rapists into heaven if only they just repent before they die. I'm assuming the flood came somewhat suddenly, so people didn't have time to repent. Besides, wasn't the repenting rule made by Jesus? This was much before that, then.

And please don't get me started on what I think about the whole "Be EVIL, believe, repent, get into heaven free or be good, kind and caring, and go to hell anyway if you don't believe" That would be a topic worthy of discussion in this thread, if people have the same idead of hell as I think they do.

Children are innocents and are automatically sent to heaven in most Christian beliefs.

And if you know anything about Christianity, you know that you can not knowingly commit a sin with the thought that you will just ask forgiveness for it afterwards.

Not trying to get you started on anything. I'm just letting you know that the hypocrital acts of some does not represent an entire religious belief.

[Balain]

Children are innocents and are automatically sent to heaven in most Christian beliefs.

And if you know anything about Christianity, you know that you can not knowingly commit a sin with the thought that you will just ask forgiveness for it afterwards.

Not trying to get you started on anything. I'm just letting you know that the hypocrital acts of some does not represent an entire religious belief.

Exactly.


And please don't get me started on what I think about the whole "Be EVIL, believe, repent, get into heaven free or be good, kind and caring, and go to hell anyway if you don't believe" That would be a topic worthy of discussion in this thread, if people have the same idead of hell as I think they do.



I can't talk for ever christian religon I know mine really well. If someone is truey good they will go to heaven if they know of jesus or believe in him or not. That's the general belief ayways. If you are good when you die you will see God and Jesus for who they are and know them and go to heaven. Probally a bad way to describe it but hope made some sense.

I also never understood people that put down religon because of the crusades or 9/11 or whatever is done in the name of any religion or whatever crime some cleric has done.

These things were done or started by misguided or troubled or crazy or just plan bad people. people aren't perfect and sometimes they are involved in a church or religion.

And yeah the crusades were bad but only the first couple were started by a bad pope the rest were started by nobles just looking to steal gold.

[Overkongen]

No, true, but child molesters, rapists and murderers can get into heaven if they ask forgiveness, I mean, if they truly repent.

Look at it this way:

If Hitler, asked forgiveness before he died, because he truly wanted to repent, god would grant him entry into heaven. Me, I try to be good and kind (well, most of the time, anyway), and haven't commited any large sins (well, except blaspheming, and I actually have a part of the bible that says that blaspheming is the one unforgivable sin), but I have a hard time seeing myself begging for forgiveness before I die. Thus, I will go to hell. Hitler gets rewarded, I get punished.

And thanks for your last line. I know I can get pretty riled up about the actions of the church throughout history. Here in Denmark, a lot of preachers tell us to be good and kind towards other people, and I suppose that is a good value to instill in people, but to me, just me, it rings false, coming from those people.

I'd rather try to be good without the backing of an organisation who directed the crusades, and allowed witch-burnings. However, if the church helps other people to behave better, well, that I won't try to stop. To me it just seems like hypocracy.

(BTW, I'm still not convinced about God letting kids into heaven. I know it's somewhere in the Koran (please, someone, how do I spell it?), but I'm not too sure about the bible)

[Balain]

Look at it this way, Let's say you kill someone. It's an acciedent you were in a rage what ever the reason. You were truely sorry for it. I would hope that you could be forgiven.

As far as I know there is no unforgiviable sin

I think koran is spelled right.

I don't recall anywhere in the bible where children go to hell. I think the catholic church way back when and for a long time thought unbaptized children went to the first level of hell or something. I think that was started by Dante though.

I couldn't tell you what the Koran says about kids going to hell. The little bit I do know about the core muslim beliefs I doubt innocent kids would go to hell.

[Invictus]

If Hitler, asked forgiveness before he died, because he truly wanted to repent, god would grant him entry into heaven. Me, I try to be good and kind (well, most of the time, anyway), and haven't commited any large sins (well, except blaspheming, and I actually have a part of the bible that says that blaspheming is the one unforgivable sin), but I have a hard time seeing myself begging for forgiveness before I die. Thus, I will go to hell. Hitler gets rewarded, I get punished.

The gist of the thing is that God's offering everyone a hand up into heaven. If Hitler takes the hand, he gets to go to heaven. If you take the hand, you get to go to heaven. If, on the other hand, God offers you a hand up and you slap it away, well, can you really blame anyone but yourself that you don't make it?

[Overkongen]

I don't know, I might question the fairness of Hitler getting in, even though he was the cause of millions of deaths, and me not getting in, simply because I don't believe in god/consider him evil and unjust if I did believe. And I'm supposed to ask forgiveness before I die, so there's no way to be sure until it is too late.

Anyway, here: http://bible.cc/mark/3-29.htm

Seems that if I turn my life around now, dedicating it to a life of serving the lord, and helping those in need, I still go to hell.

[Trump]

Well, regardless of heaven or hell I plan on living my life for me. I want to be happy, and if everyone around me is happy that brings me part of the way there. I will make decisions based on my situation and the people around me and worry about God later.

[Invictus]

Anyway, here: http://bible.cc/mark/3-29.htm

My understanding of that verse is that if, once an individual has truly accepted salvation, he turns his back thereupon, he is forever damned. The key here is the reference to the Holy Spirit (the aspect of God that dwells in the saved) as opposed to the Father or the Son.

[Kuhool]

God is commonly referred to the Father, in your mainly Christian society.

Now, compare this to a parent.

Depending on your situation, a majority of you are sitting at this computer typing up your opinions because somewhere along the road your parents gave it to you.

This must mean they love you, now, have you ever done anything to anger them? Have they willingly punished you, knowing that you will suffer? How therefore can they love you, if they generally know everything about you since they created you, and have already had an upbringing? Why do you listen to such cruel forces? And why if you say sorry, they should be happy with you, yet when you call them "bad parents" yet you are a good person, why won't they be as happy as if you had simply said sorry?

It is easier to blame any one else, rather than yourself.

[skate_mate]

This is an interesting thread. I wrote a little post on my blog (htp://willmbarker.blogspot.com/) with my thoughts on this a while ago. I'll transcribe a bit of it here.

If there was indeed a God then there would be two ways in which we could have knowledge of him.
1. We could look at the world around us and try to infer what he might be like (assuming he created it).
2. He could tell us about himself.

The existence of the universe is better explained through the existence of a supernatural being. There are things which come into existence, we all know this. For example, this blog is coming into existence as I write it. It is also obvious that everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else (I caused the blog, it didn’t cause itself). As we go back throughout the history of causes and reactions we find that the beginning of the universe needs a cause. One would then assume that the cause for the universe would need a cause, but then that cause would also need a cause. This leads to a paradox of causes. Science (specifically the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) strongly points to the conclusion that the universe has an end however, and therefore must have a beginning. Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first cause always existed. Because this cause exists apart from the space-time continuum and has no beginning this cause must also have no end and therefore be eternal. Because this cause exists apart from the space-time continuum and has no spatial features this cause must be omnipresent.
Every culture we know anything about has a deep sense that certain things are morally permissible and certain things are morally prohibited – moral objectivity. Where are these morals derived? If the individual decides what is morally acceptable then if I think it is acceptable for me to rape you then it is permissible for me to do so. This is obviously not so and therefore the individual cannot determine morals. Are morals decided by more than one person (a society/the world) then? If I live in a racist society then is racism permissible? Certainly not; the society does not determine moralistic laws. The only other explanation is that morals are derived from nature and help us to survive. We know that this is completely false as we do not need morals to survive, in fact they hinder us from ‘getting the most’ sometimes (i.e. rape). For true objective morality we need a standard that we can point to outside of society, or else we can never truly condemn the actions of someone (Hitler for example) as wrong just because his views did not agree with our own. Therefore moralistic laws need to be trans-personal, trans-cultural and trans-temporal: they need to come from a supernatural being. This leads us to infer that if there is some supernatural being responsible for human nature, that being is personal. He has a moral aspect to his nature.
In summary, I have so far suggested that a supernatural being responsible for the universe must:
-be eternal
-be omnipresent
-be all powerful
-be personal

The second way we could know about this supernatural being is if he told us about himself. Amazingly, there is a supernatural being that fits all of those attributes and has told us about himself. Guess who :-P

Please note that the above isn't written as a scientific debate. Rather, my feelings on how obvious it is that a God exists ;-).

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the question in the title of this thread - "Not at all."

[Invictus]

Wow, good stuff, Skate_mate. I daresay it sounds like you might have been reading Lewis of late...

[Idlethought]

good shit skate_mate that was an interesting read

[TygressVirgo]

Wow, good stuff, Skate_mate. I daresay it sounds like you might have been reading Lewis of late...


Are you referring to C. S. Lewis?

Wonderful post Skate_mate!

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I'm sorry, but that's not a very strong argument FOR the existence of God.



Actually thats not a very strong argument for YOU to believe in the existence of God.

Turns out that people will have faith and all the strange places and if they can find something that gives them hope and love then more power to them.

There really shouldn't be any reason Christians need to defend the fact God exsist to athiest anyway. They set their mind on something they think is right and there really isn't anything you can do about.

Both sides just need to work out that standard without sounding pompous. Sad fact is that you both sound angry each time when in your heart you know this is right and the other person is trying to tell you that you are wrong.

That gets annoying for people I suppose.

[eyez0nme]

Why do you do this? When you know there are no morals; it's only a figment of our imagination, a concoction from the brain that tricks us into believing there is such thing, when there is not--a brain that has evolved and slowly grown larger for 100's of millions of years: evolved from animals. Don't you get it? It's only an innate nature that we kill other human beings, including rape. Look for instance at praying mantis and anarchids, and many other forms of creatures, after they mate they eat their husbands and wife. And other animals kill each other (for survival) and eat species of their own body. This is natural, not morals. Because they dont exist.
I can kill you and feel nothing, so can you, do the same. Think about it, you fools.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Why do you do this? When you know there are no morals; it's only a figment of our imagination, a concoction from the brain that tricks us into believing there is such thing, when there is not--a brain that has evolved and slowly grown larger for 100's of millions of years: evolved from animals. Don't you get it? It's only an innate nature that we kill other human beings, including rape. Look for instance at praying mantis and anarchids, and many other forms of creatures, after they mate they eat their husbands and wife. And other animals kill each other (for survival) and eat species of their own body. This is natural, not morals. Because they dont exist.
I can kill you and feel nothing, so can you, do the same. Think about it, you fools.

If the brain evolve in the way you describe, then there are alot of animals that have been around much longer than us, shouldn't they be far more intellegent than we are? I mean their brain have been given far more time to evolve. You can't tell me that being smarter held no evolutionary value, i can't think of a single creature that wouldn't benifit from being smarter. Why did we evolve to be so smart while our bodies evolved to be weaker? Whouldn't it be better to be both strong and smart?

Morales may or may not be handed down from god. But you have to admit that there are certain universail things that are pretty universally not acceptible. Killing someone without reason, differant culture have differant acceptible reasons, but i don't know of any that you could do it just because. From an evolutionary stand point, wouldn't it be more beneficail to to the indiviual to kill every other member of the same sex so that their genes will be spread? But that would hurt the species as a whole. What civilisation let you have sex with whom ever you want regardless of weather they are willing. From and evolutionary stand point wanton reproduction would be a bad thing passing on bad traits into the next generation. A large number of animals have various courtship rituals for this reason. Stealing, you want it you take it, right? But there are few cultures that have know sense of personal property. Many animals are territorial or will attack you if you try to take their food. You might not feel bad about it yourself, but that doesn't mean that others don't. Morales are not an individual thing, they are a group thing. Morales are things that a group generally agrees on spoken or not. Just because an individual doesn't feel holden to them doesn't mean they exits. Every community based creature has a set of rules they live by. and many community creatures that have a rebel that does follow their rules either cast that individual out or kill them, so you should be thankful that we are not most creatures. Morale are some of the ones we live by to facilitate existance togather. We would be a short lived species if we did away with all rules.

[skate_mate]

Wow, good stuff, Skate_mate. I daresay it sounds like you might have been reading Lewis of late...
Well, to tell the truth I've never read any C.S. Lewis! Actually, I did read teh Chronicles of Narnia when I was in grade 2...
I really appreciate the fact that you enjoyed reading that though ^^

Why do you do this? When you know there are no morals; it's only a figment of our imagination, a concoction from the brain that tricks us into believing there is such thing, when there is not--a brain that has evolved and slowly grown larger for 100's of millions of years: evolved from animals. Don't you get it? It's only an innate nature that we kill other human beings, including rape. Look for instance at praying mantis and anarchids, and many other forms of creatures, after they mate they eat their husbands and wife. And other animals kill each other (for survival) and eat species of their own body. This is natural, not morals. Because they dont exist.

Errm, I think your whole post just contradicted your argument there. Evolution, as you said, encourages you to murder others who you think may infringe on your percieved 'happiness' (which is nothing more than neurons firing in your brain. If it is only that, why not take drugs?). It is a murderous doctrine. It teaches that white people evolved from the lesser Africans. Evolution is a racist doctrine. It teaches that the main aim in life is to 'get the most' for yourself. It is a selfish doctrine. It teaches that in order to further your own family line you should fornicate with as many females as you can. Evolution encourages rape.
Now, if nature tells us that there is absolutely nothing wrong with these things (which it does) then why should I not murder you, steal your possesions and rape your girlfriend right now (assuming I could get away with all of these things)?

[DrChicken]

It is really the same logic as:

"When something bad happens, God is evil! Down with god! it was gods will!..... when something good happens, hey... he works in mysterious ways... To achieve his evil plans!"

Both points of view are on par, they're one and the same really...

Theres an orange on my desk. Lets give it a shot.

Somthing goes wrong: Its ok. The Orange didnt move because it is mysterious. I should just keep my faith that if something bad happens, if the orange jumps up and saves me then I shall praise it forever. But Even if it doesnt, I have faith in the orange that it knows my path and any misfortune is just part of the oranges plan for me. The bigger plan.

Something Goes right: The Orange didnt move because it was trying to make me realise my inner strength to succeed, and thus I should give it praise.

Hey someone else try it. Are there any other interesting objects that we can attribute with God's "unique" and "powerful" qualities?

[skate_mate]

It is really the same logic as:

"When something bad happens, God is evil! Down with god! it was gods will!..... when something good happens, hey... he works in mysterious ways... To achieve his evil plans!"

Both points of view are on par, they're one and the same really...
This analagy (and the one in the post above mine) are not congruent analagies at all. The difference is that you have blind faith in an orange. I have informed faith in a logically defensible God (thats the main difference between Christianity & any other religion).
I have a Bible which has 66 books explaining God's personality and the way in which he acts. Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. I have an informed faith in the way in which my God acts. Therefore, I have a basis on which I can interpret my surroundings/evidence. That is why I come the the conclusion of God being infinitely righteous (and in my imperfectness I sometimes cannot understand his plan, because I do now know the full parameters he works under), and that is also why I don't come to the conclusion of God being evil - all evidence of God contradicts it. An analagy: Maths shows us that 2 + 2 = 4. Now, you can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 as much as you like, but the reality is that 2 + 2 = 4. In the same way you can believe in your holy orange all you like, but the reality is that the orange does nothing. You can believe that God is evil, but the reality is that God is good.

Why do you do this? When you know there are no morals; it's only a figment of our imagination, a concoction from the brain that tricks us into believing there is such thing, when there is not--a brain that has evolved and slowly grown larger for 100's of millions of years: evolved from animals.
Why do you believe this? The universe shows the molecules-to-man (or "goo-to-you") is impossible. Nature tells us without a doubt that information can only be gained from previous information which, ultimately, is traced back to intelligence. Matter by itself can never give birth to information. From nothing, nothing comes. (apart from where the order is a property of the matter, for example crystals or snowflakes have order but that is a property of the matter) In every single observed case of evolution, it also results in a loss of information, yet people look at this 'downhill' evolution and say that, over time, it results in 'uphill' evolution. Its like saying that if I eat a piece of a pie every million years then after enough years I'll end up with a full pie on my plate. This is nonsensical. Do they not realise that if you have a loss of information in every generation that you would have to primarily have a source for that initial amount of information? (i.e. you had to have a pie to start with) And if information (or order) only comes from intelligence, where did that information come from? Also, the brain is like a Boeing 747. The Boeing 747 has thousands of parts. Do you realise that not one of those parts fly? Like a brain, if you do not have all the parts then the thing as a whole is useless. But a brain it is much more complicated than a Boeing 747. Not only do you need the billions upon billions of atoms, the chemicals in the right balance, the correct sequence of DNA, etc, etc, you also need the timing. All of the neurons and little biochemical machines have to fire in the right sequence for anything to happen. It is irreducibly complex. Keep in mind that a single part of a brain is useless, it is only when they are in combination that it proves any use. If natural selection tells us that useless things are discarded over the generations, then why did all of these useless parts of a brain stay around until they were in the correct combination to be worth keeping? Actually, natural selection, the law of information, etc all show us that this wouldn't happen.

(assuming you believe in the general atheistic view of the universe)
According to your belief, the universe "just is". The universe just popped into existence. Why couldn't it be a dog, or a banana that randomly appeared I ask? There is no rational basis for you belief. According to your belief, your brain and your current reasoning is soley the result a random explosion followed by millions of years of irrational coincidences purely based in chance. I ask you, how can you honestly assert that your assertion is rational? Unless you have a creator with a preconditioning of logic, reason, rationality (and also morality) you have no objective status from which you can start to use words such as "logic" and "reason" as your very fundemental axiom of existence is a position from the point of view that everything "just is".

You have a blind faith in the evolution of the brain, because it starkly contradicts what is found throughout nature. I have an informed faith which is supported by the world around me. (I answered the 'morality' part of that post in a post a few posts above)

Don't you get it? It's only an innate nature that we kill other human beings, including rape.
First of all "kill other human beings, including rape" doesn't make sense grammatically. Secondly, I agree with you. Through the first Adam sin entered the world and we inherited Adam's sinful nature. But, through the second Adam we have the option to be redeemed/reborn and saved from sin. So yes. I do get it. ;-)

[DrChicken]

This analagy (and the one in the post above mine) are not congruent analagies at all. The difference is that you have blind faith in an orange. I have informed faith in a logically defensible God (thats the main difference between Christianity & any other religion).
I have a Bible which has 66 books explaining God's personality and the way in which he acts. Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. I have an informed faith in the way in which my God acts. Therefore, I have a basis on which I can interpret my surroundings/evidence. That is why I come the the conclusion of God being infinitely righteous (and in my imperfectness I sometimes cannot understand his plan, because I do now know the full parameters he works under), and that is also why I don't come to the conclusion of God being evil - all evidence of God contradicts it. An analagy: Maths shows us that 2 + 2 = 4. Now, you can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 as much as you like, but the reality is that 2 + 2 = 4. In the same way you can believe in your holy orange all you like, but the reality is that the orange does nothing. You can believe that God is evil, but the reality is that God is good.


Why do you believe this? The universe shows the molecules-to-man (or "goo-to-you") is impossible. Nature tells us without a doubt that information can only be gained from previous information which, ultimately, is traced back to intelligence. Matter by itself can never give birth to information. From nothing, nothing comes. (apart from where the order is a property of the matter, for example crystals or snowflakes have order but that is a property of the matter) In every single observed case of evolution, it also results in a loss of information, yet people look at this 'downhill' evolution and say that, over time, it results in 'uphill' evolution. Its like saying that if I eat a piece of a pie every million years then after enough years I'll end up with a full pie on my plate. This is nonsensical. Do they not realise that if you have a loss of information in every generation that you would have to primarily have a source for that initial amount of information? (i.e. you had to have a pie to start with) And if information (or order) only comes from intelligence, where did that information come from? Also, the brain is like a Boeing 747. The Boeing 747 has thousands of parts. Do you realise that not one of those parts fly? Like a brain, if you do not have all the parts then the thing as a whole is useless. But a brain it is much more complicated than a Boeing 747. Not only do you need the billions upon billions of atoms, the chemicals in the right balance, the correct sequence of DNA, etc, etc, you also need the timing. All of the neurons and little biochemical machines have to fire in the right sequence for anything to happen. It is irreducibly complex. Keep in mind that a single part of a brain is useless, it is only when they are in combination that it proves any use. If natural selection tells us that useless things are discarded over the generations, then why did all of these useless parts of a brain stay around until they were in the correct combination to be worth keeping? Actually, natural selection, the law of information, etc all show us that this wouldn't happen.

(assuming you believe in the general atheistic view of the universe)
According to your belief, the universe "just is". The universe just popped into existence. Why couldn't it be a dog, or a banana that randomly appeared I ask? There is no rational basis for you belief. According to your belief, your brain and your current reasoning is soley the result a random explosion followed by millions of years of irrational coincidences purely based in chance. I ask you, how can you honestly assert that your assertion is rational? Unless you have a creator with a preconditioning of logic, reason, rationality (and also morality) you have no objective status from which you can start to use words such as "logic" and "reason" as your very fundemental axiom of existence is a position from the point of view that everything "just is".

You have a blind faith in the evolution of the brain, because it starkly contradicts what is found throughout nature. I have an informed faith which is supported by the world around me. (I answered the 'morality' part of that post in a post a few posts above)


First of all "kill other human beings, including rape" doesn't make sense grammatically. Secondly, I agree with you. Through the first Adam sin entered the world and we inherited Adam's sinful nature. But, through the second Adam we have the option to be redeemed/reborn and saved from sin. So yes. I do get it. ;-)

I cant understand how there can be more reasoning WITHOUT LITERAL LOGIC DEVELOPED FROM TEXT ITSELF AND NOT THE CONTEXT TO WHICH IT ENCOMPASSES, That you can find more sense in the miracles which God aspires to, as well as his existential behaviours than an orange saving my life.

[Kustom]

[snip]

In summary, I have so far suggested that a supernatural being responsible for the universe must:
-be eternal
-be omnipresent
-be all powerful
-be personal

The second way we could know about this supernatural being is if he told us about himself. Amazingly, there is a supernatural being that fits all of those attributes and has told us about himself. Guess who :-P

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the question in the title of this thread - "Not at all."

Missed a couple of steps here. How do you go from the idea of a cause to that of a "being" (a supernatural one at that too) with morals and all? How can you use the argument that "amazingly, there is a supernatural being fitting those attributes" since its existence is what you wanted to demonstrate in the first place?

And finally what's your personnal answer to the original question. If God is:
a) omnipresent
b) all powerful

How come he doesn't stop random suffering when it is in his power to do so (such as in the children in pain argument), since he is "not at all" cruel? Now I bet you're gonna give me the mysterious ways answer again...


the society does not determine moralistic laws.

This is incorrect, as any amount of travel outside your own country will show. The only more or less universal moralistic laws (but there are exceptions to them too) are: do not kill and do not steal, because they are conditions for order within a society, and humans are social animals. Those rules do not apply to lone animals, they are rules of society, not natural trancendental orders.


I have informed faith in a logically defensible God (thats the main difference between Christianity & any other religion).
I have a Bible which has 66 books explaining God's personality and the way in which he acts. Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.

Err... I would say something, but well, convincing you seems out of reach.

[Kuhool]

No matter how much all of you people, religious or not, think you understand the religion or God, you're most likely wrong on a lot of things.

Everyone misinterprets something, and everyone pulls cheap shots.

The way you define what you define is based on your own personal bias, and personality cannot be changed.

[skate_mate]

I cant understand how there can be more reasoning WITHOUT LITERAL LOGIC DEVELOPED FROM TEXT ITSELF AND NOT THE CONTEXT TO WHICH IT ENCOMPASSES, That you can find more sense in the miracles which God aspires to, as well as his existential behaviours than an orange saving my life.
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to say V_V;;; Could you please re-phrase it for a simpleton like me?

Missed a couple of steps here. How do you go from the idea of a cause to that of a "being" (a supernatural one at that too) with morals and all?
Well, its quite simple. I didn't go from the idea of a cause to a supernatural being. I started with the presuppution that there was a supernatural being. I asked the question "If there was a supernatural being (that created the universe), what could we infer about them (from nature/the universe)?" I suggested that the existence of morals was evidence that this supernatural being was a personal being, i.e. that it had a moralistic nature. Its like when a painter paints a painting of themselves. Although the painting may be good, it is only ever a 2D representation of the real 3D painter. a 2D painting could not even begin to comprehend what a 3D painting would be like. Even so, if mirrors some aspects of the painter.

How can you use the argument that "amazingly, there is a supernatural being fitting those attributes" since its existence is what you wanted to demonstrate in the first place?

Remember, I asked the question "If there was a supernatural being (that created the universe), what could we infer about them (from nature/the universe)?". After I found what attributes this supernatural being might be likely to possess I looked around to see if there was any evidence that this supernatural being had ever tried to communicate with us. I then suggested that there is a supernatural being that possesses all of those attributes and has tried to communicate with us. Do you understand? I started off with just "a supernatural being" and ended up with the Christian God of the Bible.

And finally what's your personnal answer to the original question. If God is:
a) omnipresent
b) all powerful

How come he doesn't stop random suffering when it is in his power to do so (such as in the children in pain argument), since he is "not at all" cruel? Now I bet you're gonna give me the mysterious ways answer again...

Well, this question primarily concerns a question of the very axioms for which we operate. My axiom is that in the beginning everything was very good (Genesis 1:31). Then, when man sinned the world began to decay (Romans 8:22 'the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs’). Because of our rebellion against God, God took away some of his sustaining power. He gave us what we wanted - a taste of life without God. Luckily for us however, the world will one day be restored (Acts 3:21) to a state in which, once again, there will be no violence and death. According to Isaiah 11:6–9, wolves and lambs, leopards and goats, lions and calves, and snakes and children, will dwell together peacefully. This is all because God did something about the death, suffering, etc - his name starts with a 'J' (guess who). That is the perspective I am coming from.
The perspective that you are coming from (i.e. your axiom) is that once you die, you're dead. I can sympathise greatly with why you view death, sufferring, hardships, etc. as very evil things as they constitute absolutes.

From my perspective, suffering can have three practical reasons: suffering can ‘perfect’ us, or make us mature in the image of Christ (Job 23:10, Hebrews 5:8–9), suffering can help some to come to know Christ (like a friend of mine) and suffering can make us more able to comfort others who suffer. As for the 'mysterious ways' comment I see no reason why we should assume that it is wrong or why we should scoff at it. There are lots of biblical examples of 'mysterious ways' suffering that actually have a purpose (For example, Job (the book of Job), a man born blind (John 9:1-7), the story of Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31)). The hope of a resurrection is the key to understanding our suffering. I really don't think its that hard to understand. Now, I'm not saying that your level of suffering is equal to your level of sin (supported by John 9:1-3), not at all, but I am implying that the decaying state of our world today is a result of sin. Of course some examples of suffering are a direct result of sin (e.g. The Holocaust, 9/11).
Also, you must remember that God dwells in eternity and He is lovingly preparing His people to spend an eternity with him. The present suffering, intense as it can be at times, is so insignificant in view of eternity that it can’t even be compared to the glory to come (for believers that is). You say that God is doing nothing about it but in reality he has done everything (read the New Testament).

As you can see it is more of a question of presupputions. Because of my presupputions I came to a different conclusion. I'd like you to ask the same question under your belief system. Assuming you're an atheist, for you to complain that the Christian God is ‘evil,’ you must provide a standard of good and evil by which to judge Him. But if we are simply evolved pond scum, as a consistent atheist must believe, where can we find an objective standard of right and wrong? Our ideas of right and wrong, under this system, are merely outcomes of some chemical processes that occur in the brain, which happened to confer survival advantage on our alleged ape-like ancestors. But the notions in Hitler’s brain obeyed the same chemical laws as those in Mother Teresa’s, so on what grounds are the latter’s actions ‘better’ than the former’s? Also, why should the terrorist attack slaying thousands of people in New York be more terrible than a frog killing thousands of flies?
As a Christian I have a belief in an eternal moral law giver. As an atheist you have no objective knowledge of good and evil for which you can base your question on as objective evil inadvertently concedes the very point you're trying to argue against.

No matter how much all of you people, religious or not, think you understand the religion or God, you're most likely wrong on a lot of things.

Everyone misinterprets something, and everyone pulls cheap shots.

The way you define what you define is based on your own personal bias, and personality cannot be changed.
Yeah, to a degree I agree with you here. Christians are like a family; although there may be differences in opinions between the different children they still love the same father and bind together throughout the hard times. I know that I'm guilty of sometimes misinterpereting things.

Err... I would say something, but well, convincing you seems out of reach.
Ack >_<;;; Please do say something! I'm in the pursuit of as much knowledge as I can, and I would love for you to ask me questions. I've asked a lot of these questions myself. Until recently for a long time I wouldn't believe but then the obviousness of the truth hit me. I think that if you really question and search for answers then you will find them (Matthew 7:7). Regarding the text that you quoted, please note that I said that every verifiable claim is true. A lot are yet to be verified (i.e. Revalations is yet to happen) and others are unverifiable (i.e. in 2342 BC Moses picked up a rock, thats unverifiable).

Thanks heaps for the comments! =D

[Kustom]

Yours is by far the best argument I've read so far in favor of God, but I was questioning your faith in the Bible's claims being all true because, well, I don't share it.

It's a sensitive issue I know, some people see analogies and consistency where others see only coincidence and incoherence... Once a guy tried to convince me that the tower of Babel in fact represented the word trade center and threw all sorts of quotes at me to prove it. I'm not a bible expert (I've read it mind you) so I couldn't contradict his opinion, but I remained highly skeptical. I think people's dispositions easily turn far-fetched analogies into obvious truths or the other way around. Whenever I hear arguments about the truth of the bible, I see at best circumstancial evidence where others see definite proof.

My estimate is that since the Bible is a collection of old books that have been translated, reprinted and most likely rewritten endlessly, passing through ages of censorship and tight church control, most of the original parts of it have to have been changed / arranged, probably beyond recognition. Therefore I would not consider it to be the exact word of God, even if it originated from him. Besides, other religions than Christianity make the same claims based on books (let's at least mention Islam and Judaism, based on the bible too!). So why would christianity be the only right religion?

Regarding your question about atheist morality, this is a realisation every atheist has to deal with: there is no objective morality. A friend once told me: "I don't understand atheism; if I didn't believe in God, I would steal and kill and rape!".
I replied: "I really hope you don't loose faith!"

Atheists have ways to build their morality, however. Atheism comes from the humanist tradition (which itself originates in Christian values, as opposed to beliefs), which insists on universalism (ie treat others as you would like to be treated), freedom, human rights, etc. But those principles are made by men, you say. They are not "objective"!

And you're right. But aren't all values that way? Can you really point at a particular value and tell me it is truely unmistakably universal? Not one of the ten commandments is actually applied in all cultures that follow the Book... Take this one: Thou shall not kill --> Death penalty.

Of course, plenty of religious people will argue their ass off that there is rationale behind this, and plenty of other things, with respect to religion; but as for me, all I see is men struggling with the meaning of words written by men. Whatever deity there is comes from within human beings; I have yet to witness the manifestation of a moral God outside the human realm...

The bible is as good a moral code as any, I sympathize greatly with the Christian philosophy and try to follow it (which doesn't strike me as something religious people often do). But I do not believe Jesus was a real historical character (although he might be a combination of several different figures) or that God sent him to earth. I don't need that. The words of wisdom I find in the bible I keep, the rest I quickly forget about. Sure, it's subjective and is just peanuts to space, life, the universe and everything, but I see no evidence than anything else is more than that.

Let's put this another way: you have no end of people who can explain that Nostradamus predictions are as true as 2+2=4 and some of them are articulate and can be convincing with quotes and all. Does that mean everything he wrote will actually turn out to be true, including the soon to come apocalypse? I don't think so. Scientifically speaking, as long as I see no evidence of supernatural forces at work anywhere, I am compelled to take his predictions as wild guesses and lucky coincidences.

[eyez0nme]

we are simply evolved pond scum, as a consistent atheist must believe, where can we find an objective standard of right and wrong? Our ideas of right and wrong, under this system, are merely outcomes of some chemical processes that occur in the brain, which happened to confer survival advantage on our alleged ape-like ancestors. But the notions in Hitler’s brain obeyed the same chemical laws as those in Mother Teresa’s, so on what grounds are the latter’s actions ‘better’ than the former’s? Also, why should the terrorist attack slaying thousands of people in New York be more terrible than a frog killing thousands of flies?


Look here, my man, that's what I'm asking you. It don't matter if 1000's of people, millions, die to God. It's God fault, everyone died in the World Trade Center, because he could've prevented it from ever happening.

I can go to the Bible, and show you from the Bible, how cruel God is.

[Mr.Babalo]

K, first off, some facts from the bible:

1. Earth is NOT God's domain, it is the Devils domain.
2. Bible predicted natural disasters and diseases in diverse places
3. "The Devil is a hungry, roaring lion that consumes those in it's path"-John something, forgot

[p3p]

This is an interesting thread. I wrote a little post on my blog (htp://willmbarker.blogspot.com/) with my thoughts on this a while ago. I'll transcribe a bit of it here.

If there was indeed a God then there would be two ways in which we could have knowledge of him.
1. We could look at the world around us and try to infer what he might be like (assuming he created it).
2. He could tell us about himself.

The existence of the universe is better explained through the existence of a supernatural being. There are things which come into existence, we all know this. For example, this blog is coming into existence as I write it. It is also obvious that everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else (I caused the blog, it didn’t cause itself). As we go back throughout the history of causes and reactions we find that the beginning of the universe needs a cause. One would then assume that the cause for the universe would need a cause, but then that cause would also need a cause. This leads to a paradox of causes. Science (specifically the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) strongly points to the conclusion that the universe has an end however, and therefore must have a beginning. Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first cause always existed. Because this cause exists apart from the space-time continuum and has no beginning this cause must also have no end and therefore be eternal. Because this cause exists apart from the space-time continuum and has no spatial features this cause must be omnipresent.

First of all, there are scientific theories that attempts to explain why the big bang happened. Search for the "Varying speed of light theory".

http://www.ldolphin.org/dethrone.html
Few will accept the theory unless it makes predictions about the Universe that can be tested by astronomical observation. Dr Maguiejo hopes to come up with such a test soon. Meanwhile, he says the "varying speed of light theory" - it will need a snappier name - answers one of the more tantalising questions about the Big Bang. What triggered it?

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epl/abs/2000/06/6007/6007.html
Quantum birth of the Universe in the varying
speed of light cosmologies

Just because we can't explain the existance of the universe doesn't mean that we should assume it has anything to do with the supernatural. Our understanding of the universe is still not very comprehensive at all.

And even if a supernatural entity created the universe it might as well be some kind of space maggot that doesn't have a will of it's own or any attributes of the christian god.

Every culture we know anything about has a deep sense that certain things are morally permissible and certain things are morally prohibited – moral objectivity. Where are these morals derived? If the individual decides what is morally acceptable then if I think it is acceptable for me to rape you then it is permissible for me to do so. This is obviously not so and therefore the individual cannot determine morals. Are morals decided by more than one person (a society/the world) then? If I live in a racist society then is racism permissible? Certainly not; the society does not determine moralistic laws. The only other explanation is that morals are derived from nature and help us to survive. We know that this is completely false as we do not need morals to survive, in fact they hinder us from ‘getting the most’ sometimes (i.e. rape). For true objective morality we need a standard that we can point to outside of society, or else we can never truly condemn the actions of someone (Hitler for example) as wrong just because his views did not agree with our own. Therefore moralistic laws need to be trans-personal, trans-cultural and trans-temporal: they need to come from a supernatural being. This leads us to infer that if there is some supernatural being responsible for human nature, that being is personal. He has a moral aspect to his nature.
In summary, I have so far suggested that a supernatural being responsible for the universe must:
-be eternal
-be omnipresent
-be all powerful
-be personal

The second way we could know about this supernatural being is if he told us about himself. Amazingly, there is a supernatural being that fits all of those attributes and has told us about himself. Guess who :-P

Please note that the above isn't written as a scientific debate. Rather, my feelings on how obvious it is that a God exists ;-).

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the question in the title of this thread - "Not at all."

I'd argue that morality is relative. The reason that it's not permissible for you to rape me is that the laws are made from the morality of the majority (most of the time). So we as a society has agreed upon a common set of laws, a compromise trying to console different moral values into a package that benefits the most people.

Also, racism was certainly permissible in WW2 Germany or South Africa during apartheid. Of course we can condemn Hitler just because his views are different from our own, just like the justice system condemns murderers who think they did nothing wrong. That's the way we have chosen to have a functioning society, the majority sets the rules.

The fact is that morality varies wildy between different societies and ages.

I think that a persons own sense of morals are influenced from a number of sources, your family, the society you live in and information & ideas you pick up as you get older.

Also how will we ever now of these supposed absolute moral rules? Even within the christian church there are many issues that people can't agree on. If there are absolute morals it should be trivial to settle issues like abortion, death penalty, stem cell research and so forth shouldn't it?

This analagy (and the one in the post above mine) are not congruent analagies at all. The difference is that you have blind faith in an orange. I have informed faith in a logically defensible God (thats the main difference between Christianity & any other religion).
I have a Bible which has 66 books explaining God's personality and the way in which he acts. Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. I have an informed faith in the way in which my God acts. Therefore, I have a basis on which I can interpret my surroundings/evidence. That is why I come the the conclusion of God being infinitely righteous (and in my imperfectness I sometimes cannot understand his plan, because I do now know the full parameters he works under), and that is also why I don't come to the conclusion of God being evil - all evidence of God contradicts it. An analagy: Maths shows us that 2 + 2 = 4. Now, you can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 as much as you like, but the reality is that 2 + 2 = 4. In the same way you can believe in your holy orange all you like, but the reality is that the orange does nothing. You can believe that God is evil, but the reality is that God is good.

I'm curious why you only think the christian god fits with your definition? I would say that many different gods could fit with your definition in your original post. Also you can't really argue that God is good just because you say so.

Let me ask you this. If you saw a little girl drowning in a lake would you help her? Could you help her? Yes you could. And I assume that you would too. So would I. BUT would god help her? Help her when she was screaming for help and feeling complete terror? Of course not. And that sounds if not like a genuinly evil person than definately a person I wouldn't want to have anything to do with. Nor worship in any way. Why should we set lower standards for god, the supposedly all-powerfull and all-good entity than we set on our fellow man?

Why do you believe this? The universe shows the molecules-to-man (or "goo-to-you") is impossible. Nature tells us without a doubt that information can only be gained from previous information which, ultimately, is traced back to intelligence. Matter by itself can never give birth to information. From nothing, nothing comes.

I don't really understand what you mean. What if I roll a couple of dices and write up the results or if I play an instrument and record the music. That's creating information from matter isn't it? Would you mind elaborating on that?

[Jynx_lucky_j]

First of all, there are scientific theories that attempts to explain why the big bang happened. Search for the "Varying speed of light theory".

http://www.ldolphin.org/dethrone.html


http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epl/abs/2000/06/6007/6007.html


Just because we can't explain the existance of the universe doesn't mean that we should assume it has anything to do with the supernatural. Our understanding of the universe is still not very comprehensive at all.

And even if a supernatural entity created the universe it might as well be some kind of space maggot that doesn't have a will of it's own or any attributes of the christian god. If that theory is correct then each "big bang" is created by the big bang before it. Thus we still have a paradox uless you state that at some point there was an "original bang." But something must have caused this bang. And what existed around the cause? What ever that what had to have come from somewhere. and once agin we fall into a paradox. But of course a theory comprised of other theories is weaker than the sum of its parts. And that is one of the problems with the scientific comunities. They are too quick to completely accept ideas that are still in the theory phase. You don't see too many people questioning scientific law. I've yet to hear the argument that gravity doesn't exist and that god is holding each of us down.

I'd argue that morality is relative. The reason that it's not permissible for you to rape me is that the laws are made from the morality of the majority (most of the time). So we as a society has agreed upon a common set of laws, a compromise trying to console different moral values into a package that benefits the most people.

Also, racism was certainly permissible in WW2 Germany or South Africa during apartheid. Of course we can condemn Hitler just because his views are different from our own, just like the justice system condemns murderers who think they did nothing wrong. That's the way we have chosen to have a functioning society, the majority sets the rules.

The fact is that morality varies wildy between different societies and ages.

I think that a persons own sense of morals are influenced from a number of sources, your family, the society you live in and information & ideas you pick up as you get older.

Also how will we ever now of these supposed absolute moral rules? Even within the christian church there are many issues that people can't agree on. If there are absolute morals it should be trivial to settle issues like abortion, death penalty, stem cell research and so forth shouldn't it? The morality discussion has been moved to a more appropiate place http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1597 Essentially the debate has turned to wether we share certain basic morales (as opposed to all the same morales) but justify against them.

Let me ask you this. If you saw a little girl drowning in a lake would you help her? Could you help her? Yes you could. And I assume that you would too. So would I. BUT would god help her? Help her when she was screaming for help and feeling complete terror? Of course not. And that sounds if not like a genuinly evil person than definately a person I wouldn't want to have anything to do with. Nor worship in any way. Why should we set lower standards for god, the supposedly all-powerfull and all-good entity than we set on our fellow man? Well if I'm there then god has already saved her. However i know that is not what you mean. However if she goes to heaven then she will be happy for all eternity. So letting her die is not and evil act. Mearly allowing her to go on to something better. As was mentioned before, for those that don't belive that there is anything after death, death is a far more horrible thing, and much scarier.

But lets say that she doesn't drown. Lets say she makes it to shore. An athiest likely would still say that god didn't save her. They would probly say she saved herself. In fact, I bet if a giant turtle came up under her and carried her to shore on it's back, that they would STILL wouldn't be thanking god. She was just lucky right? An athiest will work just as hard to justify there is no god, as the religous will to justify that there is a god.

Why do you believe this? The universe shows the molecules-to-man (or "goo-to-you") is impossible. Nature tells us without a doubt that information can only be gained from previous information which, ultimately, is traced back to intelligence. Matter by itself can never give birth to information. From nothing, nothing comes.I don't really understand what you mean. What if I roll a couple of dices and write up the results or if I play an instrument and record the music. That's creating information from matter isn't it? Would you mind elaborating on that? Skate_Mate is refering to the origin of life theory here. Occording to evolutionist, random chemicals came togather and form a primordial soup. And some how this goo came to life. However it is a scineticic fact that life only comes from life. You could take all the required molecules and arange them in the right orget to create a simple cell. How ever this cell will not be alive. You can shock it, sneeze on it, or poke it with a stick, and it will still be dead material.

Its that same with information, information can only be created by intelegance. And information can be form by previous information through the use of intellegance (such as the theory created from a theory). But the root is intellegance. You may as well be rolling rocks with out your intellegance to create the information of the dice. So the dice lands on a 3? No it didn't it just randomly landed on a certain side with a certain symbol. Its your mind that makes that the number three. And you are the one that recorded the information with out intellegance to put it down and then interpet it its just random scribbles. If you play an insturment you are the one creating the music, the insturment doesn't play itself. And it doesn't record itself with out you either. And when playing it back it take intellegance to make it information. Otherwise its just random sound instead of the 9th Symphony.

[Invictus]

To add to that, a favourite story of mine:

You may have heard the oft-told account of how Sir Isaac Newton had skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton's home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton in his study, a friend came by who happened to be also a great scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I am a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder, saying:

"This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

[p3p]

If that theory is correct then each "big bang" is created by the big bang before it. Thus we still have a paradox uless you state that at some point there was an "original bang." But something must have caused this bang. And what existed around the cause? What ever that what had to have come from somewhere. and once agin we fall into a paradox. But of course a theory comprised of other theories is weaker than the sum of its parts. And that is one of the problems with the scientific comunities. They are too quick to completely accept ideas that are still in the theory phase. You don't see too many people questioning scientific law. I've yet to hear the argument that gravity doesn't exist and that god is holding each of us down.

Again, just because we can't understand how the universe came to be doesn't mean we can immediately dismiss all scientific theories and claim that a supernatural entity created it. And even if something started the whole process nothing says that is the Christian god. It might just be some kind of strange space maggot.

Also I think you misunderstand science and the scientific method. Science is all about questioning old ideas, more or less there are no facts in science only varyingly proven theories. But that is a strength because it is unrealistic to think that we as humans can analyze and understand something as big as the universe in just a couple of thousand years. We have a lot to learn yet.

Read about the scientific method here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The fascinating thing is that theories are routinely confirmed and shown to match the real world. For example several of Einstein's theories were found to match reality long after his death. So trust me scientists do constantly re-evaluate their findings and that is one of the biggest strengths science has against religion.

When compared, scientific theories have much more tangible proof than the events of the bible or the existance of god for that matter.

The morality discussion has been moved to a more appropiate place http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1597 Essentially the debate has turned to wether we share certain basic morales (as opposed to all the same morales) but justify against them.

Well if I'm there then god has already saved her. However i know that is not what you mean. However if she goes to heaven then she will be happy for all eternity. So letting her die is not and evil act. Mearly allowing her to go on to something better. As was mentioned before, for those that don't belive that there is anything after death, death is a far more horrible thing, and much scarier.

Who says she's going to heaven? And anyway god won't intervene even if she's going to hell. So he basically doesn't care when he sees a person in need who needs help and will face eternal torture if he's left on his own. Again that doesn't sound like the way a good person would act. I know that I would hold my personal friends to a higher standard than that. And I honestly don't see me worshipping that kind of god.

Also one might wonder why many countries has laws against torture. Why not just poke out the eyes of criminals or burn them alive. I mean god's no better himself. In fact he's worse in many ways because he punishes everyone who doesn't worship him and also has the ability to torture you forever. Let's say you're an African girl who's basically never even heard of Christianity. You die at age eleven and tough luck, you're facing eternal torture. Just open up the bible and look at what this girl would have to endure. That is not the acts of a kind and forgiving god that's for sure. Frankly I can't understand how someone can worship that kind of god.

And about death being more horrible for atheists, I agree that the idea of just ceasing to exist isn't very pleasant though it does sound a lot better than suffering eternity being tortured. So I would say that death is more horrible for a christian (of course everybody believes they'll go to heaven but it'll probably be a rough awakening for those who don't)

But lets say that she doesn't drown. Lets say she makes it to shore. An athiest likely would still say that god didn't save her. They would probly say she saved herself. In fact, I bet if a giant turtle came up under her and carried her to shore on it's back, that they would STILL wouldn't be thanking god. She was just lucky right? An athiest will work just as hard to justify there is no god, as the religous will to justify that there is a god.

I don't think an atheist would even considering thanking god, that would be the same think as a devoted christian ceasing to believe in god when faced with adversity. (And of course that happens and atheists also become Christians sometimes.)

Skate_Mate is refering to the origin of life theory here. Occording to evolutionist, random chemicals came togather and form a primordial soup. And some how this goo came to life. However it is a scineticic fact that life only comes from life. You could take all the required molecules and arange them in the right orget to create a simple cell. How ever this cell will not be alive. You can shock it, sneeze on it, or poke it with a stick, and it will still be dead material.

Didn't you just accuse scientists of sometimes accepting theories to fast? It is not a scientific fact that life can't be created from something that's not alive. In fact it's being attempted all over the place, take a look at this for example:
http://www.protolife.net/news/press_articles/NewScientistFeb05.pdf

And the entire theory of the start of life on this planet is also based on the fact that life can spontaneously appear. Just because we can't create life in a lab right now doesn't mean that life can't evolve by chance during millions of years. We've not lived nearly enough time to draw such conclusions.

The fact is that you have to be patient. It's foolish to reject all science just because we don't have all the answers right now. Of course the bible does (claims to) have all the answers so I guess that's why you're so drawn to it.

Its that same with information, information can only be created by intelegance. And information can be form by previous information through the use of intellegance (such as the theory created from a theory). But the root is intellegance. You may as well be rolling rocks with out your intellegance to create the information of the dice. So the dice lands on a 3? No it didn't it just randomly landed on a certain side with a certain symbol. Its your mind that makes that the number three. And you are the one that recorded the information with out intellegance to put it down and then interpet it its just random scribbles. If you play an insturment you are the one creating the music, the insturment doesn't play itself. And it doesn't record itself with out you either. And when playing it back it take intellegance to make it information. Otherwise its just random sound instead of the 9th Symphony.

Well Skate_Mate claimed that information couldn't be created by matter. I and you are matter so if I roll a dice and write the results on a piece of paper only matter is involved. Now your starting to claim that it has something to do with intelligence.

And also, please define information for me. Looking at this page information can definately be created by matter (even without intelligence, like DNA) under more than one definiton of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

But I really don't see how this is relevant, what exactly are you trying to say with all this talk about information?

To add to that, a favourite story of mine:

You may have heard the oft-told account of how Sir Isaac Newton had skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton's home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton in his study, a friend came by who happened to be also a great scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I am a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder, saying:

"This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles"
James D. Watson

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."
Stephen Hawking (English Physicist, b.1942)

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Dr. Carl Sagan

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"
Charles Darwin

"We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act."
Charles Darwin

Just because we can't fathom how the universe was created and became like it is today doesn't mean god created it.

[fo0d]

To the OP, you basically touch on two things: God and Mother Nature. I take this two to represent two very different concepts. But many people take both to represent one.

You all know what the meaning of God is. And i personally do not believe in one.

Mother nature, on the other hand, is the very force that causes everything to happen. The very air we breath, the fundamentals of life, etc. Yet when 'mother nature' acts upon its very 'nature', people always stamp it as either 'good' or 'bad'. "Why did this have to happen!" or "Oh thank god!". Sounds familiar? It should be, because thats what we all do =b

Try to imagine 'mother nature' to represent a single life of its own.Just as a single human strive to survive, so does 'mother nature'. The world has taken 'mother nature' for granted and have pushed her beyond abuse. It's only a natural response for 'her' to cause hurricanes, earhtquakes, volcanic activities, bush fires, etc. All in hopes to keep earth healthy. Because we humans can only see only up to what is in front of us, we fail to see that maybe all these things that we label 'bad' is actually good for earth. Would you want to have earth die young, or have it live for more generation to come.

[Invictus]

Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles

Probably not gonna change his mind, but I'd like to point out that not all creationists are deluded nitwits with no understanding of science. Creationists just start out with some slightly different biases and presuppositions, is all.

I'd further like to point out that this in no way denies the existence of God, nor does it really say anything about creationists. I accept the theory of evolution as well; I just don't adhere to macroevolutionary interpretation thereof.

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.

So it does. But can we really understand the Universe? I'd say there's more unknown than known at the point in time.

By the way, no need to quote Dr. Hawking's year of birth to me. I'm rather familiar with his writings and positions. :P

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Sagan is right. You poor, deluded atheists. It must be quite satisfying and reassuring to think that you are the measure of all things and that you will face no post-death reckoning for your actions. Oh, wait. Sagan was an atheist. Whoops, my bad. ;)

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference
Charles Darwin

Been Googlin' those quotes, eh? Actually, said quote is more properly attributed to biologist Richard Dawkins. Come on, if you're going to try and lambast my position, at least lambast it properly...

We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

This quote is illogical, implying that some people believe that natural laws simply "exist" while life had to have been created. I know of no philosophy which holds such to be true. I believe the laws of the Universe and the Universe itself were created by special act, just as surely as the smallest insect.

Anyway, I'm afraid none of the provided quotes refute Newton's logic. Order does not arise from chaos. You can toss Lego blocks in random directions for a million years, and you won't end up with a castle or space ship. A rhesus monkey can pound on the keys of a typewriter for a million years, but Shakespearean prose will never come out. Storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes sweep through civilized areas all the time, but you'll never see a fully formed BMW spring forth from all the random junk being thrown around. When you see a building, you assume that someone built it; you're not foolish enough to presume that subtle movements of the earth somehow produced concrete, plumbing, and electrical wiring.

[p3p]

Probably not gonna change his mind, but I'd like to point out that not all creationists are deluded nitwits with no understanding of science. Creationists just start out with some slightly different biases and presuppositions, is all.

I'd further like to point out that this in no way denies the existence of God, nor does it really say anything about creationists. I accept the theory of evolution as well; I just don't adhere to macroevolutionary interpretation thereof.



So it does. But can we really understand the Universe? I'd say there's more unknown than known at the point in time.

By the way, no need to quote Dr. Hawking's year of birth to me. I'm rather familiar with his writings and positions. :P



Sagan is right. You poor, deluded atheists. It must be quite satisfying and reassuring to think that you are the measure of all things and that you will face no post-death reckoning for your actions. Oh, wait. Sagan was an atheist. Whoops, my bad. ;)



Been Googlin' those quotes, eh? Actually, said quote is more properly attributed to biologist Richard Dawkins. Come on, if you're going to try and lambast my position, at least lambast it properly...



This quote is illogical, implying that some people believe that natural laws simply "exist" while life had to have been created. I know of no philosophy which holds such to be true. I believe the laws of the Universe and the Universe itself were created by special act, just as surely as the smallest insect.

Anyway, I'm afraid none of the provided quotes refute Newton's logic. Order does not arise from chaos. You can toss Lego blocks in random directions for a million years, and you won't end up with a castle or space ship. A rhesus monkey can pound on the keys of a typewriter for a million years, but Shakespearean prose will never come out. Storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes sweep through civilized areas all the time, but you'll never see a fully formed BMW spring forth from all the random junk being thrown around. When you see a building, you assume that someone built it; you're not foolish enough to presume that subtle movements of the earth somehow produced concrete, plumbing, and electrical wiring.

Don't focus to much on the quotes, my main point is that just because we can't fathom how the universe was created and became like it is today doesn't mean god created it.

And yes if you let the monkeys pound away long enough Shakespeare's writing will be the result. It's simple probability theory really.

If anything's foolish it's too believe you can apply the same rules and experiences of the tiny time we have existed on this small earth and apply them to the whole universe. I'm surprised at how frivolously you dismiss these theories when you have nothing to compare to and have no chance of fathoming time periods that are many millions time more than the entire time our species has existed...

Who knows how time and space behaved at the moment the universe was created. You keep questioning the scientific theories that try to explain things like the universe but when you see a theory that doesn't explain it all you want to discard it for some reason instead of realizing the fact that it is not complete and that we do not know everything. Just because science doesn't have all the answers right now doesn't mean it's completely wrong. I see science today as a sign that we're on the right track but still have much much more to learn.

At least science has much proof that supports it's different theories, instead of constantly trying to prove that different scientific theories are flawed (which is pretty obvious but not a reason to give up like you want but instead to continue exploring our surroundings) can't you show some arguments for your own standpoint?

Why do you assume that we know it all and if we don't we're wrong??? It's like saying a child is wrong when he says that 2+2=4 but does not yet master advanced differentiation.

[Invictus]

Don't focus to much on the quotes, my main point is that just because we can't fathom how the universe was created and became like it is today doesn't mean god created it.

True. Nor, however, does it imply His nonexistence. Occam's Razor, my friend. When you see a structure built with order and complexity, the presupposition until proven otherwise is that it was designed and construced by some form of intelligence. Again, I refer you to the Newton example. Of course, instead of simply accepting that said complex structures are the result of intelligent design, man contorts and vastly multiplies the entities required to explain the existence of such in a desperate effort to place himself on top of the natural order.

Naturally, of course, you can't disprove God, so unless someone finds completely and indepedently verifiable proof that the universe came into being through entirely random processes, it will always be logical to presume the existence of a higher power.

If anything's foolish it's too believe you can apply the same rules and experiences of the tiny time we have existed on this small earth and apply them to the whole universe.

Yup. Isn't that exactly what YOU are doing, though? Your applying man's self-admittedly limited experience in the universe to categorically deny the existence of a higher power, despite the presence of implicit evidence therefor.

Why do you assume that we know it all and if we don't we're wrong???

Uh oh, I sense the advent of Full Rant Mode (tm). Never said any of the above. 'Fraid you're starting to ramble, pal.

[p3p]

True. Nor, however, does it imply His nonexistence. Occam's Razor, my friend. When you see a structure built with order and complexity, the presupposition until proven otherwise is that it was designed and construced by some form of intelligence. Again, I refer you to the Newton example.

What is more believable? What requires more faith? To believe in an intelligent designer does require blind faith. I find it more logical to believe in something that is testable and falsifiable like macroevolution instead of relying on blind faith.

Instead of Occam's razor you might as well pose the following question:
"if one objectively studies the arguments in favour of intelligent design, and one does the same for the scientific theories, which one of these are better; is more useful and logical an explanation; and better supported by evidence, and therefore "most believable"?

Also Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, it doesn't automatically mean that the simplest explanation is the best one. Just because we here on earth find that complex things are often made by some intelligence doesn't mean we can apply that to the entire universe. I don't think we know enough to make the assumption that an intelligence created the universe.

I think our current understanding of things can somewhat explain the reason why the universe is like it is. At the time of the big bang there was very low entropy and as the universe expands naturally the entropy increases like you said in your post, but if you take into account gravity it doesn't seem unplausible at all that the matter in space would position itself in certain ways.

Again you draw conclusions from your limited experience on earth and assume that something as complex as the universe can't come into existance without an intelligent designer. I don't think any living human can comprehend the workings of the universe and reach a definitive conclusion that it must be created by some intelligent designer.

And even if there was an entity that created the universe what says that it has any feelings whatsoever? It may as well be an advanced space maggot giving birth to the universe every x years.

Also it may be possible that the universe has existed forever. If you claim that god has existed forever without someone creating him than the universe itself might as well have existed forever too. Or perhaps some larger "thing" containing multiple universes.
Why would something as complex as a god evolve out of nothing if the universe can't?

Of course, instead of simply accepting that said complex structures are the result of intelligent design, man contorts and vastly multiplies the entities required to explain the existence of such in a desperate effort to place himself on top of the natural order.

Of course the explanation of how the universe came to be and every thing we see around us won't be simple. You're proposing to discard centuries of very well grounded research in favor of magic more or less. Why? Just because the universe is complex to explain doesn't prove there is a god. Of course it is complex to us but I'm sure that we as a species will some day be able to understand the universe much better than we do now.

Naturally, of course, you can't disprove God, so unless someone finds completely and indepedently verifiable proof that the universe came into being through entirely random processes, it will always be logical to presume the existence of a higher power.

Well I don't agree with that but even if the logical conclusion was to assume the existance of a higher power, that higher power might as well be an evil or neutral space worm.

Yup. Isn't that exactly what YOU are doing, though? Your applying man's self-admittedly limited experience in the universe to categorically deny the existence of a higher power, despite the presence of implicit evidence therefor.

Well compared to the strong base of science and the different theories describing the universe I'd say that the evidence for a god is less than the evidence we have that science is the answer. In fact there's basically no evidence at all of the existance of a god.

Uh oh, I sense the advent of Full Rant Mode (tm). Never said any of the above. 'Fraid you're starting to ramble, pal.

Maybe my post was a little incoherent, I often change and add parts in the middle of it so it might become a little chaotic.

[eyez0nme]

P3p--believing in God or not believing, either way, takes faith, my blind friend.

And THERE IS NO GOD.



You may have heard the oft-told account of how Sir Isaac Newton had skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton's home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton in his study, a friend came by who happened to be also a great scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I am a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder, saying:

"This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

Good fiction story, needed that laugh.

[eyez0nme]

Okay, there might be a God--but, so what? We're gonna burn in Hell, like God said. God can be pain in the ass, not only that, but if we have no chance of ever going up towards the oppoiste way, then He is a monster.

[TygressVirgo]

Okay, there might be a God--but, so what? We're gonna burn in Hell, like God said. God can be pain in the ass, not only that, but if we have no chance of ever going up towards the oppoiste way, then He is a monster.


How are we all going to end up in hell if God saved the world? Just a really basic question, because first and foremost all Christians say "God saved the world". So how are we all going to hell?

[Invictus]

That whosoever believeth on him might not perish.

Anyway, p3p, you didn't pay much attention to what I said, so I'm not going to bother rephrasing it all. It takes faith to believe and faith to disbelieve. What evidence would you accept as clear proof of God's existence?

[eyez0nme]

How are we all going to end up in hell if God saved the world? Just a really basic question, because first and foremost all Christians say "God saved the world". So how are we all going to hell?


You need to read the Bible for a change.

[skate_mate]

Ah, great discussion =). I think there's been some really good points brought up by both sides. I'd love to respond to it all but I have no time V_V;;; Just quickly...

And the entire theory of the start of life on this planet is also based on the fact that life can spontaneously appear.
I agree with your point in the rest of that paragraph that just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't be done, however I think that you are severly misguided in saying that the theory of macroevoluion in the molecules-to-man sense of the word is based on the fact that non-life can come from life. It is based on the assumption that life can arise from non-life, although nobody has ever observed this before. Because nobody has ever observed it before its almost the opposite of a fact o_o;

I think somebody asked about the information theory that I (loosely) brought up before. You can find some more info on it here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp).

Who says she's going to heaven? And anyway god won't intervene even if she's going to hell. So he basically doesn't care when he sees a person in need who needs help and will face eternal torture if he's left on his own. Again that doesn't sound like the way a good person would act. I know that I would hold my personal friends to a higher standard than that.
I gave some reasons on the previous page as to why there is suffering in this world. It all really comes down to the assumptions that you start off with anyway I think. You started with the assumption that she was an innocent girl. As the Bible says, I start off with the assumption that she isn't innocent (i.e. she has sinned).
Also, I don't want to go into morals (already another thread for it), but how can you say that your morality is better than God's? To see a crooked line you must first know what a straight line is. If we are nothing but molecules shuffling, neurons firing and chemicals than what difference does it make if she dies? What obligation have you got to save her in the first place? What is bad about her dieing?
God does care about our sufferring though. To use an illustration, its like there is a door with a handle only on the inside. God is on the outside knocking on the door asking you to let him in to help you but the handle is on the inside - only you can open it.

[p3p]

That whosoever believeth on him might not perish.

Anyway, p3p, you didn't pay much attention to what I said, so I'm not going to bother rephrasing it all. It takes faith to believe and faith to disbelieve. What evidence would you accept as clear proof of God's existence?

I just think that the resulting data from centuries of scientific research are make it seem like science is on to something as opposed to the basically non-existing evidence for the existance of god. Exactly what evidence I would accept is hard to answer but it would have to be something tangible.

I agree that it takes some amount of faith to believe in science or god. But were the belief in god relies on blind faith, trust in science can be based on the facts that we have large amounts of experimental data that strongly supports that science has a correct view of the world. To me it just seems that to introduce an element of magic where science can explain things (given enough time to research) is pointless.

Ah, great discussion =). I think there's been some really good points brought up by both sides. I'd love to respond to it all but I have no time V_V;;; Just quickly...


I agree with your point in the rest of that paragraph that just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't be done, however I think that you are severly misguided in saying that the theory of macroevoluion in the molecules-to-man sense of the word is based on the fact that non-life can come from life. It is based on the assumption that life can arise from non-life, although nobody has ever observed this before. Because nobody has ever observed it before its almost the opposite of a fact o_o;

Ok, that's true it's based on the theory that life can arise from non-life. But evidently many scientists find that theory plausible. Also Jynx_lucky_j claimed that there existed a scientific fact saying that life can't come from non-life and that's obviously wrong. And I wouldn't call a theory the opposite of fact. A well grounded theory can come close to a fact.

There's alot of research on this area right now and I wouldn't be surprised if someone successfully creates life from scratch soon. Just because we can't do it right now proves nothing, it's like saying we will never ever be able to fly 200 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/
http://www.protolife.net/news/press_articles/NewScientistFeb05.pdf

I think somebody asked about the information theory that I (loosely) brought up before. You can find some more info on it here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp).

First of all, just because we can't right at this second understand and explain every aspect of evolution doesn't mean it's wrong. Evolution takes millions of years, you won't se a bird change to a lizard just by taking a walk in the park. When it comes to information nothing says that information needs an intelligence to be created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#Information_as_an_influence_which_lead s_to_a_transformation
Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose.

All they seem to argue is that because we can't just whip up some life in a lab in under 5 minutes time it couldn't have happened on earth during millions of years under unknown conditions. And because we can't match the technology of DNA with our silicon chips then evolution is not true? That's completly illogical.

Our technology has constantly been getting better and better and soon it will be even better still. But that doesn't mean we can say that just because we can't do something now we'll never be able to. In fact looking at history the most probable thing is that we'll soon be able to do all the things they use as evidence.

The arguments they're using are pointless. You might say 200 years ago that: "God exists because we have yet to master flight as the birds.". We'll we did. And now they're saying: "We can't create life in a lab". And we'll do that too some day. But then they can just change it to: "We can't X right now" where X is anything we can't create or do. So arguing like that is not only pointless but just fooling yourself.

I gave some reasons on the previous page as to why there is suffering in this world. It all really comes down to the assumptions that you start off with anyway I think. You started with the assumption that she was an innocent girl. As the Bible says, I start off with the assumption that she isn't innocent (i.e. she has sinned).
Also, I don't want to go into morals (already another thread for it), but how can you say that your morality is better than God's?

Simple, morality is relative and to me not saving someone in pain is a bad thing to do. I would save someone in pain and god wouldn't so that makes me better. Also torture is definately a bad thing, I think most people agree with that and god is involved in large scale torture of innocent people. (Oh I forgot they didn't worship and submit themselves to him so they deserve eternal pain and torture, sure that justifies it :rolleyes: )

To see a crooked line you must first know what a straight line is. If we are nothing but molecules shuffling, neurons firing and chemicals than what difference does it make if she dies? What obligation have you got to save her in the first place? What is bad about her dieing?
God does care about our sufferring though.

We'll I know how it feels to be in pain and being scared. I don't like that feeling so I know she's suffering. If I was suffering I would want to be saved and just standing around looking at someone who suffers would feel wrong to me so I would save her. I guess I don't really have an obligation to save her but I would choose to. And I wouldn't like what I had done if I just let a little girl die like that. Also I would know that her parents and family would suffer if she died and again I wouldn't want that to happen to me or my family so I would help her.

Just because you don't believe in god or absolute morals doesn't mean you don't have a personal sense of right and wrong. Do you only do good deeds to appease god or what?

To use an illustration, its like there is a door with a handle only on the inside. God is on the outside knocking on the door asking you to let him in to help you but the handle is on the inside - only you can open it.

We'll if god's omnipotent I'm sure he can open a door from the outside. But anyway why would I want to worship a killer, torturer and a generally bad person. I wouldn't stand for someone performing torture or looking at a girl drown in real life so why would I accept that in the person I worship?

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Again, just because we can't understand how the universe came to be doesn't mean we can immediately dismiss all scientific theories and claim that a supernatural entity created it. And even if something started the whole process nothing says that is the Christian god. It might just be some kind of strange space maggot. Just because you can't understand how a supernatural being such as a god could exist doesn't mean you can immediatly dissmiss all religous beliefs and claim that it had to have just happened. You see? A little rewording and the argument goes both ways.

Also I think you misunderstand science and the scientific method. Science is all about questioning old ideas, more or less there are no facts in science only varyingly proven theories. But that is a strength because it is unrealistic to think that we as humans can analyze and understand something as big as the universe in just a couple of thousand years. We have a lot to learn yet.

Read about the scientific method here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The fascinating thing is that theories are routinely confirmed and shown to match the real world. For example several of Einstein's theories were found to match reality long after his death. So trust me scientists do constantly re-evaluate their findings and that is one of the biggest strengths science has against religion.

When compared, scientific theories have much more tangible proof than the events of the bible or the existance of god for that matter. Don't worry, i understand what the scentific method is. First a scientist makes an observation, formulates a hypothesis about the observation, proposes a theory that explaines the observation, then performes experiments designed to prove or disprove the theory, when proven the theory becomes a law.

Who says she's going to heaven? And anyway god won't intervene even if she's going to hell. So he basically doesn't care when he sees a person in need who needs help and will face eternal torture if he's left on his own. Again that doesn't sound like the way a good person would act. I know that I would hold my personal friends to a higher standard than that. And I honestly don't see me worshipping that kind of god. Once again though you not looking at it from a religious perspective. Life is the deed, and afterlife is the consequence, death is simply when you get caught. For example, if your a theif and go around stealling from people that is your life. When you get caught and sent to jail that is the afterlife. If you save someones life, that is your life. When the local new hears of it and puts you on TV and everyone thinks you're a hero that is the afterlife. Whether you go to heaven or hell is your choice. God has made the laws, and if you break thoughs laws you pay the consequeses. Just like in life.

Also one might wonder why many countries has laws against torture. Why not just poke out the eyes of criminals or burn them alive. I mean god's no better himself. In fact he's worse in many ways because he punishes everyone who doesn't worship him and also has the ability to torture you forever. Let's say you're an African girl who's basically never even heard of Christianity. You die at age eleven and tough luck, you're facing eternal torture. Just open up the bible and look at what this girl would have to endure. That is not the acts of a kind and forgiving god that's for sure. Frankly I can't understand how someone can worship that kind of god.What happens to people who have not had the chance the learn of chistianity? Well it depends on wether or not they have followed gods law. Romans 2:12-16 12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. It also says that the punishment that is dealt to those that have not had the chance to hear will be leesr to those that have heard the word of god. Luke 12:47-48 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. That seem pretty kind and forgiving as even in or world ignorance is not considered an excuse.

And about death being more horrible for atheists, I agree that the idea of just ceasing to exist isn't very pleasant though it does sound a lot better than suffering eternity being tortured. So I would say that death is more horrible for a christian (of course everybody believes they'll go to heaven but it'll probably be a rough awakening for those who don't) But you are the one who choose that punnishment by yoour deeds. If i didn't belive that the police existed, i'll still get punnished when they catch me.

Didn't you just accuse scientists of sometimes accepting theories to fast? It is not a scientific fact that life can't be created from something that's not alive. In fact it's being attempted all over the place, take a look at this for example:
http://www.protolife.net/news/press_articles/NewScientistFeb05.pdf

And the entire theory of the start of life on this planet is also based on the fact that life can spontaneously appear. Just because we can't create life in a lab right now doesn't mean that life can't evolve by chance during millions of years. We've not lived nearly enough time to draw such conclusions. Actually i'm not jumping to conclutions. The Law of Biogenesis states that all life is from life. It is an essablished law of biology that has been tested time and time again. The Evolutions origin of life essentially trys to bring back a theory debunked since the 19th century, the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which is belief that life arise from non-life under certain circumstances. The modern version of it is known as the abiogenesis hypotheses, and can not get past the hypotheses phase.

Scientist have been trying to create life since people realised that the origin of life was a problem for the theory of evolution. The I actually kinda hope that scientist do succeed in creating a life form. You know what that will proove? That life has to be created. There is a world of differance between something just hapening and delibriatly trying to make something happen.

The fact is that you have to be patient. It's foolish to reject all science just because we don't have all the answers right now. Of course the bible does (claims to) have all the answers so I guess that's why you're so drawn to it. I'm patient if they can actually prove things happen in the way they say they happen, I will happily accept it. But isn't it also foolish to completely belive in something that can't be proven? After all that what you acuse religious people of all the time.

Well Skate_Mate claimed that information couldn't be created by matter. I and you are matter so if I roll a dice and write the results on a piece of paper only matter is involved. Now your starting to claim that it has something to do with intelligence.

And also, please define information for me. Looking at this page information can definately be created by matter (even without intelligence, like DNA) under more than one definiton of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

But I really don't see how this is relevant, what exactly are you trying to say with all this talk about information? You'll need to ask Skate_mate how he feels all this is relevant, I was just clarifing what he was saying.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles"
James D. Watson

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."
Stephen Hawking (English Physicist, b.1942)

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Dr. Carl Sagan

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"
Charles Darwin

"We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act."
Charles Darwin

Yay! I love the Quote Game! :D After all if someone else says it, it must be true.

-"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin
from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor

-"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.... I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."
W.R. Thompson
Introduction to _Origin of the Species_ by Darwin

-"We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science."
Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley
Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy

-"The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature."
G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton

-"We [evolutionists] have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is rather a shock to discover that we have
failed to follow our own sound advice."
John T. Bonner
The Twilight of Evolution

-"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. Lipson, physicist
"A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin

-"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century....The overridings supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research--paleontological, zoological and in the new branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas...Nothing could be further from the truth."
Michael Denton, M.D., Molecular Biologist

Just because we can't fathom how the universe was created and became like it is today doesn't mean god created it. Oops double standard. Just because we can't fathom the existance of a god doesn't mean he doesn't exist. And conversersly just because you do under stand how something works doesn't mean that no one created it.


Oh and the monkey and typewriters, and shakepere thing hass been proven false. They accually exerimented with this. You see monkey aren't just pressing random keys. Infact they find certain keys to be more interiesting thatn others, and they esspestially like the "S" key. They also became bored with it after a couple hours. I forget what new paper article i read that in. However. Even if random key truely were pressed, Borél's single law of chance tells us that when the chance exceeds 1 chance in 10^50 (the figure 1 with 50 zeros), absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur regardless of how much time is alloted. Many evolutionists believe the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10^250 (the figure 1 with 250 zeros). (i know i wrote the math wrong for plain text, but i can't remember the right way, thus the explanations)

[Kustom]

Oh and the monkey and typewriters, and shakepere thing hass been proven false. They accually exerimented with this. You see monkey aren't just pressing random keys. Infact they find certain keys to be more interiesting thatn others, and they esspestially like the "S" key. They also became bored with it after a couple hours. I forget what new paper article i read that in. However. Even if random key truely were pressed, Borél's single law of chance tells us that when the chance exceeds 1 chance in 10^50 (the figure 1 with 50 zeros), absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur regardless of how much time is alloted. Many evolutionists believe the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10^250 (the figure 1 with 250 zeros). (i know i wrote the math wrong for plain text, but i can't remember the right way, thus the explanations)

Well, if you take a finite length of time, but extremely long, eventually the monkey would type a shakespeare poem. A 1 in 10^50 chance is very low and amounts to no chance of happening on a human time scale perhaps, but it's not a zero chance and there's no way you could demonstrate that. Besides, probabilities are games that bear little relation to reality. My guess is no monkey will ever write shakespeare's in the four remaining billion years earth has. But the chances that I would be born the place and time I was with exactly the same path taken in life, as calculated months before my birth, were probably much lower than 1 in 10^50 ; it still happened.

God is the biggest unlikeliness of all, but I am not dismissing the possibility of his existence with 100% certainty just like I trust p3p doesn't; we're just assessing how unlikely it is God exists just like you do with the unlikeliness of evolutionism. I am not for one ever saying God doesn't exist; I'm saying given the existing evidence it's so unlikely that I find it a safe working hypothesis to do without him.

It doesn't take faith not to believe in God, it takes lack of faith, which is an entirely different matter.

[p3p]

Just because you can't understand how a supernatural being such as a god could exist doesn't mean you can immediatly dissmiss all religous beliefs and claim that it had to have just happened. You see? A little rewording and the argument goes both ways.

I'm not dismissing it with 100% certainty. But to me it just seems that to introduce an element of magic where science can explain things (given enough time to research) is pointless.

Don't worry, i understand what the scentific method is. First a scientist makes an observation, formulates a hypothesis about the observation, proposes a theory that explaines the observation, then performes experiments designed to prove or disprove the theory, when proven the theory becomes a law.

Again another thing to speak in favor of science experimentation, falsification etc. things that have no counterpart in intelligent design thus making it sound more like pseudo science.

Once again though you not looking at it from a religious perspective. Life is the deed, and afterlife is the consequence, death is simply when you get caught. For example, if your a theif and go around stealling from people that is your life. When you get caught and sent to jail that is the afterlife. If you save someones life, that is your life. When the local new hears of it and puts you on TV and everyone thinks you're a hero that is the afterlife. Whether you go to heaven or hell is your choice. God has made the laws, and if you break thoughs laws you pay the consequeses. Just like in life.

Ok, if I break the law I will be punished and that's a good system. But the punshiment must be in proportion to the crime. Just like I would dislike a person who killed everyone who stole candy in a store I will dislike a god who tortures people for eternity just because they don't worship him. The "crime" simply doesn't justify torture. In fact to me basically no crime is heinous enough to warrant torture.

What happens to people who have not had the chance the learn of chistianity? Well it depends on wether or not they have followed gods law. Romans 2:12-16 It also says that the punishment that is dealt to those that have not had the chance to hear will be leesr to those that have heard the word of god. Luke 12:47-48 That seem pretty kind and forgiving as even in or world ignorance is not considered an excuse.

If you don't know god's law it not really your fault so I don't see how the punishment for doing nothing should be anything at all.

But you are the one who choose that punnishment by yoour deeds. If i didn't belive that the police existed, i'll still get punnished when they catch me.

Sure it's my fault for not obeying god's law. I agree with that. But what I don't agree with is that because I did not worship god during my life that I deserve to be tortured in eternity. And a person who's that unforgiving to torture everyone from a innocent little girl to Mahatma Ghandi just because they didn't bow down and worship him is just wrong. I would not accept that from the police nor from my closest friends. And certainly not from the one I worship.

Actually i'm not jumping to conclutions. The Law of Biogenesis states that all life is from life. It is an essablished law of biology that has been tested time and time again. The Evolutions origin of life essentially trys to bring back a theory debunked since the 19th century, the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which is belief that life arise from non-life under certain circumstances. The modern version of it is known as the abiogenesis hypotheses, and can not get past the hypotheses phase.

Well neither the law of biogenesis or the abiogenesis hypotheses have been proven. So we just don't know yet. But as I said earlier, scientists are working on creating life right as we speak and I'm sure they will find that life can arise from non-life.

Scientist have been trying to create life since people realised that the origin of life was a problem for the theory of evolution. The I actually kinda hope that scientist do succeed in creating a life form. You know what that will proove? That life has to be created. There is a world of differance between something just hapening and delibriatly trying to make something happen.

Wait a minute so you're basically saying that if they don't successfully create life it's proof that life has to be created and if they do create life it's proof that life has to be created?

That's drawing far to many conclusions. To me if we don't manage to create life this year we might manage to create life next year and we might not be technologically advanced for centuries yet. So you can never say with certainty that we humans will never be able to create life.
And if they do manage to create life it will prove just that, that we humans can create life in a lab. It will not somehow disproof that life can spontaneously come to be. Again, it's impossible for us to fathom how large a million years is. Just as you will eventually roll a six if you roll a dice for one hour life might be spontaneously created after a million years of rolling dice so to speak.

I'm patient if they can actually prove things happen in the way they say they happen, I will happily accept it. But isn't it also foolish to completely belive in something that can't be proven? After all that what you acuse religious people of all the time.

I guess the idea that science is the correct view to view the world can never be proven with 100% accuracy. There will always be other explanations to theories, like god is holding us down instead of gravity. But as I have said before science has a lot that speaks for it, the scientific method and all that entails, years and years of experiments and data that supports various scientific theories and close inspection of those theories by the scientific community. I'd say that the evidence for a god is less than the evidence we have that science is the answer.

For example when Einstein's work perfectly fits with some phenomena we're observing now, long after his death I take that a strong sign that science is indeed correct.

Again, to me it just seems that to introduce an element of magic where science can explain things (given enough time to research) is pointless.

You'll need to ask Skate_mate how he feels all this is relevant, I was just clarifing what he was saying.


Yay! I love the Quote Game! :D After all if someone else says it, it must be true.

I agree, just because someone else says it it isn't true and that was my point to Invictus.

-"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin
from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor

-"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.... I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."
W.R. Thompson
Introduction to _Origin of the Species_ by Darwin

-"We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science."
Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley
Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy

-"The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature."
G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton

-"We [evolutionists] have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is rather a shock to discover that we have
failed to follow our own sound advice."
John T. Bonner
The Twilight of Evolution

-"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. Lipson, physicist
"A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin

-"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century....The overridings supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research--paleontological, zoological and in the new branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas...Nothing could be further from the truth."
Michael Denton, M.D., Molecular Biologist


Oops double standard. Just because we can't fathom the existance of a god doesn't mean he doesn't exist. And conversersly just because you do under stand how something works doesn't mean that no one created it.

Yes I agree but I think science is the answer for the reasons I stated a bit further up the page.


Oh and the monkey and typewriters, and shakepere thing hass been proven false. They accually exerimented with this. You see monkey aren't just pressing random keys. Infact they find certain keys to be more interiesting thatn others, and they esspestially like the "S" key. They also became bored with it after a couple hours. I forget what new paper article i read that in. However. Even if random key truely were pressed, Borél's single law of chance tells us that when the chance exceeds 1 chance in 10^50 (the figure 1 with 50 zeros), absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur regardless of how much time is alloted. Many evolutionists believe the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10^250 (the figure 1 with 250 zeros). (i know i wrote the math wrong for plain text, but i can't remember the right way, thus the explanations)

With random keypresses it hasn't been proven false. Again it's just simple probability theory really.

About "Borél's law", that's just a thing creationists have picked up and used for their own agenda. There's not even anything that's called Borél's law.

What creationists call Borél's law is just rule of thumb. If you have a dice that has 10^250 sides and roll it 10 times statistically the chance of getting a specific side is 10/10^250 and according to your "Borél's law" since the odds are so tiny you would never roll any side. There's no exact point were a probability can be rounded down to zero. Look what he himself says:

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
[...]
"Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit."

When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible [b]under certain circumstances.[/b]

That's it, only "under certain circumstances" can you apply this as a law. But please at least skim through these pages and you will see that you're using his work the wrong way:
http://www.aetheling.com/essays/Borel.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

[Phlips79]

Just out of curiosity, but why does it seem like the atheist-scientific community has to assault religious beliefs, as opposed to simply disregarding them out of hand?

How hard is it to simply say "I don't believe what you believe, we will have to agree to disagree"?

I have a love-hate relationship with Science. I love space exploration, new discoveries, etc. But I hate how every time I read a scientific journal, go to Space.com or read The Planetary Society, there's always some cheap shot at religion.

At some point, someone came to the conclusion that science and belief were mutually-exclusive and proclaimed it to be fact to the world. And unfortunately, most people listened.

[Overkongen]

I'm atheist. The reason I assault religious beliefs, is that they scare me. You don't see a lot of atheists attacking abortion clinics, og flying planes into towers filled with innocents. This is the act of religious people.

I live in Denmark, and right now, the major religions are acting kinda funny. About a year ago, christians halted a sex-ed program, because god forbid that our kids learn anything about icky stuff like that. Rather have them get pregnant with kids they don't want, or infected with oozing sores, that'll teach them not to sin.

Also, they've tried to get the ID-theory into our schools, where teachers are supposed to tell the kids that this is a scientific theory, just as well funded in the scientific method as Darwin is.

And lately, it seems that people have become scared of speaking out against islam. This might be due to the fact that whenever someone gives critique of islam, they recieve death-threats/threats towards their families/beatings.

[Phlips79]

You don't see a lot of atheists attacking abortion clinics, og flying planes into towers filled with innocents. This is the act of religious people.


Congrats on a bigotted over-generalization. Since it's primarily Muslims that execute suicide bombings in the Middle East, then all Muslims must be suicide bombers. Right? Right?

Gotta love when prejudice, in the facade of "all religious people are zealouts and only atheists have a sane world-view", rears its ugly head.

[Enjoy]

God made man, didn't he? That's a pretty cruel injustice to the world, if you ask me...

[Overkongen]

Good work, that nowhere near what I said. I know that heaps of religious people aren't crazies. Still, some are, and I have a hard time telling which group people belong to. How about this one:

Not all muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are muslims?

I don't mean to call them evil, but people who talk to, and recieve orders from invisible entities scare me. Whether they're schizofrenic og religious. I don't know where I have them, or what they're gonna do next.

I remember seeing this documentary about bikers, and how they referred to the criminal ones as the 1%ers, because apparently, that's how many of them were actually involved in serious crime.

Still, people would be ever so slightly unnerved whenever these bikers entered a new bar/cafe/blablabla. Point is, even though they aren't all involved in serious crimes, the odds that they are are higher than with regular folks. Also, even if they didn't, odds were still pretty good that they sometimes hung around the 1%ers. I know, death by association.

If the muslims wanted a better rep, they get the options for it, there was a show on last month, where a group of journalists had made a voting booth outside a mo... mu... place of muslim worship, where they asked whether the muslims were for or against the stoning of adulterous women, as the Sharia asks of them. They all got pretty upset (and I can understand why, it's one hell of a question), but none of them actually said that they were against stonings. Interesting responses, yes?

Of course, I do understand that not all religious people are going to go out and actually ACT on their faith (although I think they should, if they wanted to consider themselves good believers), but still, take the christian belief... Salvation: Worship God, ask forgiveness. Atheists: God will send them to hell, where they will burn and suffer for all eternity. Also, God is good, kind, caring, and so forth. Basically, these people think that nice friendy atheists (Yes, there are a few of them out there, though I am of course not one of them right now) deserve to go to hell.

Me, I don't like the idea of nice people being punished. I also don't like the idea of bad people being punished for all eternity. Enough cruelty is enough cruelty.

[Phlips79]

Good work, that nowhere near what I said. I know that heaps of religious people aren't crazies. Still, some are, and I have a hard time telling which group people belong to.

What you said was that religious people are the ones bombing abortion clinics and flying planes into towers. What you said *just now* was that not all religious people are crazies. Two very different opinions that can be taken very differently just by slight addition or subtraction of wording.

Me? I'm Christian, but you won't catch me hanging out by any abortion clinic. Do I disapprove? Sure. Do I plan on EVER infringing on a woman's right to have one? Nope, it's her right and not mine to infrigue on.

I don't mean to call them evil, but people who talk to, and recieve orders from invisible entities scare me. Whether they're schizofrenic og religious. I don't know where I have them, or what they're gonna do next.

Oh come on now. I know some Churches are a little scarey, but is this truly your world view of religion or does it just fit the topic?

If the muslims wanted a better rep, they get the options for it, there was a show on last month, where a group of journalists had made a voting booth outside a mo... mu... place of muslim worship, where they asked whether the muslims were for or against the stoning of adulterous women, as the Sharia asks of them. They all got pretty upset (and I can understand why, it's one hell of a question), but none of them actually said that they were against stonings. Interesting responses, yes?


Mosques. And I question the validity of this poll. Is it in a primarily Sunni area or Shiite? What country? How many Muslims were polled? Were they men or women?

The range of answers would vastly differ if it were Muslims in the United States or Great Britain versus Muslims in Egypt or Iraq. I'm sure the gender composition would also affect the poll since I'm sure Muslim women may be slightly less strict about that particular part of the Sha'ria than Muslim men.

Anyone can lie with statistics.

Of course, I do understand that not all religious people are going to go out and actually ACT on their faith (although I think they should, if they wanted to consider themselves good believers), but still, take the christian belief... Salvation: Worship God, ask forgiveness. Atheists: God will send them to hell, where they will burn and suffer for all eternity. Also, God is good, kind, caring, and so forth. Basically, these people think that nice friendy atheists (Yes, there are a few of them out there, though I am of course not one of them right now) deserve to go to hell.

Me, I don't like the idea of nice people being punished. I also don't like the idea of bad people being punished for all eternity. Enough cruelty is enough cruelty.

If most Christians acted according to their faith, this world would be a better place. Honor They Neighbor, Thou Shalt Not Kill, Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done Unto Yourself....to name a few. The problem is too many people who call themselves Christians but don't act like it. It gives Christianity a really really bad name. Unfortunately, I'm one of em. In Church on Sunday, and cussing in traffic on Monday.

[Kikuchiyo]

The New Testament has some groovy stuff in it. Judge not, lest ye be judged, turn the other cheek, Jesus getting pissed and flipping over a table when he heard the Romans were taxing people for going to church or somesuch. Stuff like that.

Meanwhile, The Old Testament has the exact specifications for a sacrificial rite in God's name, God killing children in Egypt, as well as a bunch of stuff that doesn't apply to the New Testament (if a man has long hair, it shall be a shame unto him?).

My question is if these people (meaning those that hate gays and think Hurricane Katrina was caused by abortions because it was shaped like a fetus [I'm not joking...]) are listening more to the Old Testament than the New, shouldn't they be Jewish?

[Praetorian]

The following is not written by me, and I don't agree with all that is said and don't agree with its offensive tone, but some of it is pretty much true in my eyes.

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Osama bin Laden is insane. He believes God whispered in the ear of Mohammed 1,400 years ago about how he should conquer Arabia. Mohammed was a pure charlatan -- and a good one at that. He makes present religious frauds like Pat Robertson look like amateurs.

He said God told him to have sex with as many of the women he met as possible. I'm sorry, I meant to say "take them as wives." God told him to kill all other tribes that stood in his way or that would not placate him with assurances of loyalty or bribes. God told him, conveniently, that everyone should follow him and never question a word he said.

He sold this bag of goods to the blithering idiots who lived in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. If that weren't shockingly stupid enough, over a billion people continue to believe the convenient lies that Mohammed told all that time ago -- to this very day.

...

There is no damn Easter Bunny. There is no Jesus waiting to return. Moses never even existed. These were all convenient lies from the men of those times to gain power. Their actions were rational -- they wanted to deceive their brethren so that they could amass power. I get their motivations. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand our motivations, thousands of years later, still following the conmen of yesteryear into our gory, bloody, violent end.

Jesus is said to have said on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.

...

Did I mention Judaism? The chosen people? Come on, get off it. People walk around in clothes from 18th century Russia, thinking they have been chosen by God when they look like a bunch of jackasses. I'm tired of all the deaths because we did not want to give offense. Orthodox Jews are wrong and ridiculous.

As are the orthodox and fundamentalists of all of the religions. It says in the Bible that it is an abomination to wear clothes made of two different cloths or to eat shellfish. If you think God will hate you because you mixed wool and linen or because you ate some shrimp, you are insane.

How long are we going to dance around the 800-pound gorilla in the room? The world is run by madmen. It's not just Bush and bin Laden. It is the leader of all of the countries in the Middle East, almost all of the Americas and most of the rest of the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-youre-a-christian-mu_b_9349.html

[Phlips79]

My question is if these people (meaning those that hate gays and think Hurricane Katrina was caused by abortions because it was shaped like a fetus [I'm not joking...]) are listening more to the Old Testament than the New, shouldn't they be Jewish?

Actually they would be Fundamentalist Christian Extremists. And they commit hate crimes just like others in this world, such as Islamic Fundamentalists.

And moderate Christians (like I consider myself) consider them to be a blemish on our religion, just like mainstream Muslims believe Islam is being torn apart through misintepretation by militants and politics.

[Phlips79]

The following is not written by me, and I don't agree with all that is said and don't agree with its offensive tone, but some of it is pretty much true in my eyes.

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Osama bin Laden is insane. He believes God whispered in the ear of Mohammed 1,400 years ago about how he should conquer Arabia. Mohammed was a pure charlatan -- and a good one at that. He makes present religious frauds like Pat Robertson look like amateurs.

He said God told him to have sex with as many of the women he met as possible. I'm sorry, I meant to say "take them as wives." God told him to kill all other tribes that stood in his way or that would not placate him with assurances of loyalty or bribes. God told him, conveniently, that everyone should follow him and never question a word he said.

He sold this bag of goods to the blithering idiots who lived in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. If that weren't shockingly stupid enough, over a billion people continue to believe the convenient lies that Mohammed told all that time ago -- to this very day.

...

There is no damn Easter Bunny. There is no Jesus waiting to return. Moses never even existed. These were all convenient lies from the men of those times to gain power. Their actions were rational -- they wanted to deceive their brethren so that they could amass power. I get their motivations. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand our motivations, thousands of years later, still following the conmen of yesteryear into our gory, bloody, violent end.

Jesus is said to have said on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.

...

Did I mention Judaism? The chosen people? Come on, get off it. People walk around in clothes from 18th century Russia, thinking they have been chosen by God when they look like a bunch of jackasses. I'm tired of all the deaths because we did not want to give offense. Orthodox Jews are wrong and ridiculous.

As are the orthodox and fundamentalists of all of the religions. It says in the Bible that it is an abomination to wear clothes made of two different cloths or to eat shellfish. If you think God will hate you because you mixed wool and linen or because you ate some shrimp, you are insane.

How long are we going to dance around the 800-pound gorilla in the room? The world is run by madmen. It's not just Bush and bin Laden. It is the leader of all of the countries in the Middle East, almost all of the Americas and most of the rest of the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-youre-a-christian-mu_b_9349.html

That article is written by a self-aggrandizing, intolerant, hate-monger. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've met a few Orthodox Jews in my life. While I found some of their traditions and practices to be odd, and far different than my own, they were some of the most kind and gentle people I have ever met.

[Praetorian]

Them being kind and gentle doesn't make what they believe in true. Not that it matters, for all we know mormons are right. No point in discussing it, if the major geniuses of the last 6000 couldn't figure it out, what makes you think you proletarians on a forum will?

[p3p]

No reply to my last post huh? Well that just shows how well creationism stands up in a debate, it just crumbles.

[Life25Karma]

Well i've commonly heard religous "leaders" (a term I use loosely) say that New Orleans was one of the most corrupt citys in the world (and people i know that have been there have said the same thing long before the hurrican ever came) and their justification is that god smote the city because of it wickedness....or some old testement stuff like that...

Personally i think its rather egotistical to blame god for every event in you life. You think god is controling every aspect of all our lifes? Why did he send the hurricane, why does he let crime happen, why does he let bad things happen to good people, ect. Then whats the point of free will? Of course heres and idea...maybe shit just happens, maybe god didn't specifically create the hurrican (btw life as we know it wouldn't exist if the climates were any differant than they are infact the whole new orleans area would be under water thousands of years ago if hurrican and tropical storms didn't regularly cause the river to overflow bringing valueble silt to the area. And by building the levies they prevent that silt from doing it job and new orleans sink more and more every year thus increasing the devestation when the levies accually broke. There fore god had everything working find until we thought we knew better), maybe it the goverments fault for skimping on the leveis, maybe its the new orleanians fault for choosing to live in an area that was obviously dangerous, or then again mostly it not directly anyones fault as a series of unrelated events that came togather and resulted in a tragedy

^ Exactly.

Now everyone drink Sake' and be happy.

[Thespis]

I have to say this much, infinite number of times, cruel.

He could be a monser, in fact, if he even exists.

How can he use mother nature and kill so many people and not care?
So you claim to know the mind of God? :rolleyes:
Right. :cool:

[Life25Karma]

God Pwns. Reconize Homie, and Pay Homage! :D

[Kustom]

What you said was that religious people are the ones bombing abortion clinics and flying planes into towers.

Well, aren't they?

And moderate Christians (like I consider myself) consider them to be a blemish on our religion, just like mainstream Muslims believe Islam is being torn apart through misintepretation by militants and politics.

Sadly, while this may be true for many people, there is a sort of sense of community that makes religious people support fundamentalists or ignore their actions. I have very rarely heard a Christian speak up against anti-aborption commandos, a Shiite Muslim against the Iranian government, or a Jew condemning Israel's actions. When one does every now and then, he's pounded by his coreligious pals who say he's gone "too far" or worse, is an Atheist in disguise... Religious people seem to be always too busy fighting Atheists to care about the black sheeps on their own side.

When fundamentalists are using your religion's name to advance their goals as is happening right now in America, is your first reaction to stand up against them or to blame Atheist outsiders for getting the wrong idea? Fundamentalism is the biggest challenge religions have to face today, not "lack of faith". Until you guys deal with it convincingly, do not wonder why Atheists won't trust you. Unfortunately, many religious people seem to think fundamentalism is not their problem: after all, aren't they all on God's side? I have no doubt the anecdote about Muslims refusing to condemn stoning in front of the Mosque in Sweden was true. Just go to a church after mass and ask people what they think about aborption. In that context, they will stand up behind a conservative view of religion, no matter what they think in private.

"Not acting upon your faith" is easier than condemning people when they go too far. So you don't actually go and sit in front of aborption clinics, great. But you do disaprove of aborption, so aren't you secretly glad other people do it for you? Would you go to the fundamentalists and tell them to their face they're wrong?

[Duke]

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?" - Nietzsche

This quote is Nietzsche's controversial way of saying that God has ceased to be a reckoning force in the people's lives, even if they don't recognize it.

Perhaps, GOD wants recognition?

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Sadly, while this may be true for many people, there is a sort of sense of community that makes religious people support fundamentalists or ignore their actions. I have very rarely heard a Christian speak up against anti-aborption commandos, a Shiite Muslim against the Iranian government, or a Jew condemning Israel's actions. When one does every now and then, he's pounded by his coreligious pals who say he's gone "too far" or worse, is an Atheist in disguise... Religious people seem to be always too busy fighting Atheists to care about the black sheeps on their own side.

When fundamentalists are using your religion's name to advance their goals as is happening right now in America, is your first reaction to stand up against them or to blame Atheist outsiders for getting the wrong idea? Fundamentalism is the biggest challenge religions have to face today, not "lack of faith". Until you guys deal with it convincingly, do not wonder why Atheists won't trust you. Unfortunately, many religious people seem to think fundamentalism is not their problem: after all, aren't they all on God's side? I have no doubt the anecdote about Muslims refusing to condemn stoning in front of the Mosque in Sweden was true. Just go to a church after mass and ask people what they think about aborption. In that context, they will stand up behind a conservative view of religion, no matter what they think in private.

"Not acting upon your faith" is easier than condemning people when they go too far. So you don't actually go and sit in front of aborption clinics, great. But you do disaprove of aborption, so aren't you secretly glad other people do it for you? Would you go to the fundamentalists and tell them to their face they're wrong?
I'll happily tell people that I think they are wrong regardless of if they share my religoiin or not. And while i can't speak for other religions...every church i have been to has spoken against bombing abortion clinics after such a bombing is publisized on the news. Of course the news needs to build these stories up to keep their ratings up. They are not going to ask some random church thier oppinions because they know that most people are going to heartidly against it. They interveiw other fundamentalists to help biuld their story greater than it is. fundamentalist, you know that really a misleading title because if they really got down to the fundamentals then they would be against any form of killing weather a fetus or a abortionist. It does't say thaough shalt no kill, except for abortionists. I can't even count the number of "you can't prevent evil by doing evil" and "you can't support your religion by going against your religion" sermons i've heard. And i have been to many differant denominational churches. So you can't tell me that we are approving by keeping silent.

[Kustom]

I'll happily tell people that I think they are wrong regardless of if they share my religoiin or not. And while i can't speak for other religions...every church i have been to has spoken against bombing abortion clinics after such a bombing is publisized on the news. Of course the news needs to build these stories up to keep their ratings up. They are not going to ask some random church thier oppinions because they know that most people are going to heartidly against it. They interveiw other fundamentalists to help biuld their story greater than it is. fundamentalist, you know that really a misleading title because if they really got down to the fundamentals then they would be against any form of killing weather a fetus or a abortionist. It does't say thaough shalt no kill, except for abortionists. I can't even count the number of "you can't prevent evil by doing evil" and "you can't support your religion by going against your religion" sermons i've heard. And i have been to many differant denominational churches. So you can't tell me that we are approving by keeping silent.

Condemning an act without condemning the underlying ideology behind it is little more than PR posturing. Of course everybody condemns unlawful violent acts, but way fewer people actually go out of their way to prevent them from happening. In the case of fundamentalism, that would require religious people actively fighting against hateful ideas related to their faith and not turning a blind eye on them.

I've seen tons of argument between Atheists and religious people. I have yet to witness an argument between Christian moderates and fundamentalists, for instance. They seem to agree to disagree much more easily than they should, perhaps it's my bias but that's how it makes me feel.

[Jess]

Very interesting topic. Here's something I wrote a couple years ago that is vaguely on topic (this was soon after 9/11/2001 while I still lived in Japan, just to give a frame of reference):


No Organized Religion?
I recieve the newspaper The Daily Yomiuri in Japan. The following letter to the editor was printed one day, and I was so upset I decided to write a response to the letter. The paper never printed it, unfortunately.

Jefferson had it right
Unlike some of the letters that have been written about your Jan. 13 interview with Richard Dawkins, I happen to agree with the idea that organized religion is and has been the root cause of conflict for many years.

Organized religion's track record has been written in the blood of millions throughout history, and its sordid history continues today. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of history or is in denial.

In 1816, in a letter to Archibald Carey, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "On the dogmas of religion ("revealed religions" as they were known back in Jefferson's time), as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."

Jefferson's words are as accurate today as they were back when he wrote them.

I am not against religion. I am, however, against organized religion. I believe that religion should be a private matter. There is no need for a group to tell you what to believe, how to live your life, or what to think. Again, Jefferson said it best: "Religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God.he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship." (Jefferson, Writing, 16:281).

I would not mind seeing all of the churches, cathedrals, mosques, synagogues, shrines, temples and other places of religious gathering replaced by schools, libraries, cultural centers and other places of free intellectual inquiry. I would make all of the various beliefs available for study and then let people choose for themselves what to believe-in private.

Some people might argue that without some kind of religious guidance from some authorative religious body, there can be no morality or order. My answer is that values, morals, and ethics are dependent upon religion and the abundance or lack of them in today's society has nothing to do with a faith or lack of it in a god.

To make this world a better place, people must stop relying on primitive superstitions en masse to nonexistent entities and outmoded ideologies. Instead, they should put faith in themselves and in each other. In order to solve our problems, we need to find strength form within and each other because it exists nowhere else.

Michael J. Kerns
Kasukabe, Saitama Prefecture


Completing the thought
I would like to refer back to Michael J. Kerns' letter, on January 27, 2002. If he will forgive me, I will take the liberty of paraphrasing him. He stated that he believes organized religions are the root cause of conflict in the world for much of human history. If all places of worship were turned into scientific or intellectual centers, the world would be free of many conflicts.

I think he has a point, but I don't think he's carried his thoughts far enough. Organized religion isn't the only cause of conflict. Disputes between nations and states have also caused many conflicts and wars. In the interest of world peace, I propose that we abolish all organized nations. This would surely lessen some of the conflict. People can still belong to a nation, of course, if they choose to, but only in private, since public acknowledgements of nationhood are what lead to dangerous conflicts.

But there are yet other causes of conflict. What about ethnic cleansing and ethnic wars? We have to abolish ethnicity. Since it is obvious from watching the United States struggle with racial tension for four decades that we can't be "blind" to ethnic differences by willpower alone, breeding programs should be initiated to equally blend all races together, so there will no longer be any ethnicities. As this will take several generations to take noticeable effect, we should force all people to dye their hair one color, and artificially color their skin one uniform shade as well. This will be difficult to implement with no public nation states, but I'm sure the interests of the many will drive people to conform to this common-sense program.

Ideologies are also dangerous. Fascism and communism have both led to huge amounts of death, almost uncountable, in the Holocaust, Stalin's killings in the U.S.S.R., and the Cultural Revolution in China. All belief should be outlawed as a matter of course, to make our children safe. Only when we are free from ideas and thoughts can the true potential of the human race be achieved!

All satire aside, Michael has identified a symptom of the basic problem, rather than the disease. Organized religion isn't an outgrowth of hatred, it is simply the expressed desire of people with similar beliefs to group together and have fellowship with each other. There are radicals in religion. There are also anti-religious radicals. There are people with hatred for certain ethnic groups, or different ideologies. There is no monopoly on conflict here.

Any time a number of human beings are in one place, there is a potential for conflict. The common denominator in all wars, fights, arguments, and conflicts is not organized religion. It is much more simple, and tragic, than that. The common denominator is us, mankind.

Jess

[SDSUMarcus01]

I have to say this much, infinite number of times, cruel.

He could be a monser, in fact, if he even exists.

How can he use mother nature and kill so many people and not care?

The fundamental problem with your assumption is that you assume those people deserved to live.

[Overkongen]

I'll assume this refers to the great flood, or the tsunami. I think we can agree that a good deal of infants and toddlers were also killed in those disasters. Marcus, gonna tell me that a bunch of innocent 2-year-olds deserved to die?

[SDSUMarcus01]

I'll assume this refers to the great flood, or the tsunami. I think we can agree that a good deal of infants and toddlers were also killed in those disasters. Marcus, gonna tell me that a bunch of innocent 2-year-olds deserved to die?

I never said they deserved to die. But did they do anything to deserve to live? Has ANYBODY done anything to deserve to live? The only person that did deserve to live died for our sake.

And from the "viewpoint of a Christian," Those children were still innocent, if they had grown up, perhaps they wouldn't be innocent. Would it not be better for them to die innocent and go to Heaven than to die unclean and go to hell just for a few more years of "life" on Earth?

And before somebody twists this, I'm not implying we should kill children.

I think this "right to live" thing is bullshit because anybody who thinks they have the right to live is assuming that they've done something good enough to make their existence worthwhile. I don't think anybody can say that they've done more for mankind than taken from mankind.

But just because I don't believe in the "right to live" doesn't mean that I believe in the "right to kill" or the "right to let someone else die."

[MrQ]

I have to say this much, infinite number of times, cruel.

He could be a monser, in fact, if he even exists.

How can he use mother nature and kill so many people and not care?


After seeing all of these posts started by you I am convinced you dont care about knowing anything.

[Jess]

After seeing all of these posts started by you I am convinced you dont care about knowing anything.

Nah, he's just trolling for responses. Stop encouraging his stupidity. :)

I'm interested that there are some obvious arguements I don't recall seeing in this discussion. This could be because I didn't read things thorougly enough - and if so I apologize - but I have a couple things to offer from one Christian's perspective.

To my way of thinking, there are two ways something horrible happens to people.

1. Other people do something horrible ( murder )
2. An "act of God" horrible thing happens ( tornado )

The reason other people do horrible things is easy to explain from a Christian's perspective - sin. As a Calvinist, I believe in original sin - sin we are born with, passed down from the sin of Adam. We are conceived and born in sin, and thus even innocent babies are not completely innocent. The reason God allows people to indulge their sinful nature on earth is more difficult - but not very. He has granted us free will. We couldn't very well have free will if he didn't allow us to do evil, now could we? The question of why he allows us free will rather than dictate our every thought and deed is more difficult...but for some reason, he has decided to grant us the power - and responsibility - of free will. All of us abuse it at one time or another. It's easy to look around and see people that are "worse" than we are - but that's the sin of pride right there. So...we all suck.

Act of God stuff is harder. Why did my grandpa get so deadly sick with a rare disease before my parents even married? Why, when he lived with it longer than anyone else in my state, did cancer suddenly take him from us in a matter of weeks? He was a good man, a loving grandfather, worked hard his whole life and lived for his family. I believe it is simply a side effect of sin - sin not only warped the human spirit nearly irreparably - it also warped the rest of the physical universe - made it a harsher place.

Deists believed in the "clockmaker" God - he created the universe, wound it up, and then went off to do whatever it is noninterfering omnipotent beings do with their spare time. It held definite appeal within the realm of Newtonian physics - the universe seemed very neat and tidy - then came quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, quantum probabilities. Physics was suddenly messy. This so interfered with Einstien's religious and scientific world view that he rejected his own findings, since, he claimed, God doesn't roll dice.

I find this surprisingly messy quantum world beautiful - and to my point of view, down there...I can see God maintaining the universe. As I look at the world, and I look at my understanding of God, I see that God has a love of rules and order, and generally allows the universe to work the way he designed it - but I see those crazy frothing quantum probabilities as God's way of "fudging" things when he wants to, without obviously proving himself to the modern scientific world - because I don't believe God will ever leave incontrovertable proof of his existence - otherwise what is the value of demanding faith?

In the end, explanations matter little. How foolish of us even to pretend to understand God's purposes or reasons. As foolish as trying to explain economic realities to a tantrum throwing two year old that "needs" the Power Wheels jeep in the toy store.

I love science - I'm one of those ultimate nerds that reads physics for the layperson books for fun - but I think it's silly to imagine we understand even the smallest part of how the universe works. I even think it's distinctly possible that we are fundamentally unable to understand the universe. We are limited by our bodies in ways so fundamental we often don't think of them. All our science consists of ways to make phenomena observable to our five senses. Sight is most important to us. Hearing is probably the second most used. There's also touch, taste and smell. Everything we "understand" about universe is something we've seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. If there are phenomena in the universe that can't be converted, somehow, into one of our five senses, we are simply unable to comprehend it. Not only that, we are also limited by time. There's the obvious limitation of our lifetime - how much knowledge can be absorbed in a lifetime. How long until we're required to learn for 90 years simply to reach the limit of our understanding - will we be able to increase our lifespans enough to allow even more time for useful expansions of those horizons? But also, we live in the strange half-dimesion of time. It only goes one way, though only the second law of thermodynamics seems to require a single direction for time flow.

I see God as a being outside of time - outside of our spatial dimensions. His perspective would be so fundamentally different from ours that even basic communication would be insanely difficult - like trying to explain the color red to an earthworm. You might be able to compare light to heat in the earthworm's understanding. And maybe red would be a certain temperature of "light"...but that wouldn't be red. "My love is like a red, red rose" would be made no clearer to it. We are the earthworm.

It's not always a satisfactory answer. Read Job for some of mankind's earliest recorded expressions of disatisfaction with the answer. But there you go. My opinion in a (rather large! Oops!) nutshell.