Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255733 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
its a poor gauge on truth, and will otherwise lead our society to a state of delusion.
Faith in what?
Without faith there would be no society, no relationships, and no us. We wouldn't drive, we wouldn't fly, we wouldn't have reproduce, we wouldn't pursue friendship. Faith drives a vast majority of human actions.
"I have faith that the driver coming at my will not swerve into my lane."
"I have faith my partner will not have a sexually transmitted disease."
"I have faith [fill in the blank]."
As for faith in God I found something interesting in my bible study tonight. One of my friends misspoke and said I'll see it when I believe it instead of I'll believe it when I see it. It made me think, we cannot see God until we believe and therefore this argument is pointless. Hrm.
I am, however, finding an interest in Noetic Science
It seems one the surface rather interesting, but this appears to be nothing more then pseudoscience. They have also tried mixing personal experience into this which can very easily give you erroneous results.
Without faith there would be no society, no relationships, and no us. We wouldn't drive, we wouldn't fly, we wouldn't have reproduce, we wouldn't pursue friendship. Faith drives a vast majority of human actions.
Faith is belief without proof. All those things have proof. Such as, statistically, the driver is not likely to pull of the road. You will probably have been driving a ton without it happening. You could have your partner tested for STDs. Faith is not needed.
As for faith in God I found something interesting in my bible study tonight. One of my friends misspoke and said I'll see it when I believe it instead of I'll believe it when I see it. It made me think, we cannot see God until we believe and therefore this argument is pointless. Hrm.
First I will answer then ask a question...
Religion has emotional bias, thus only if you have said bias can you twist your thoughts enough to believe you actually see your deity.
Now for the question, why would god need a medium, a burning bush, to speak to one person but then can just inject thoughts into millions of others who claim to speak with it?
I've never heard of 'noetic' science, what is it?
Samy, I see some of where you're coming from with, "Having faith that the driver coming towards me, going 70mph will safely pass me by", but this is why I do several things before I get behind the wheel of my car: * I check the tires,* see where the gas needle is on the guage,* clean my windows, sit down in the car and *pray. Sounds like a lot but I feel relaxed and in control, everytime.
Mage, I understand where you're coming from with mixing personal experience with scientific experiments. It can cloud or color your judgment, give a predisposition or supposition in the equation and ruin the results.
My point is this. I don't consider myself to be religious. I consider myself to be spiritual because God has communicated with me spiritually. My conversion wasn't as dramatic as the Apostle Paul's but speaking of him, he was a Roman soldier who took pride in hunting down Christians and stoning, flailing, beating and crucifying them. That all changed one day.
My changes took time, that began on a certain day but didn't 'mature' until 4 yrs later. In the Bible it says that this is the mark of a true Christian because they will visibly be changed from the 'natural' man.
wow.... yes i think all of that makes the world go round, well I think..
I've never heard of 'noetic' science, what is it?
Here's what wiki has on it.
Noetic Theory
Institute of Noetic Sciences
Basically they are trying to combine metaphysics with natural science and it's all originating from someones personal experience.
Mage, I understand where you're coming from with mixing personal experience with scientific experiments. It can cloud or color your judgment, give a predisposition or supposition in the equation and ruin the results.
My point is this. I don't consider myself to be religious. I consider myself to be spiritual because God has communicated with me spiritually.
So your agreeing with me that personal experience is useless for making accurate judgments, but go on to say your making judgments based on personal experience?
I think personal expirience can be a valuable asset when making logical decisions.
So your agreeing with me that personal experience is useless for making accurate judgments, but go on to say your making judgments based on personal experience?
Seems like I'm more of a humanist than you. I always put more trust in my personal experiences than facts and statistics they are anything but alive to me. Maybe this it the defining fact between those who believe in a god and those who do not.
Apostle Paul's but speaking of him, he was a Roman soldier
Saul as a actually a fairly powerful Jewish Pharisee; just throwing that in there.
Now for the question, why would god need a medium, a burning bush, to speak to one person but then can just inject thoughts into millions of others who claim to speak with it?
Before the death of Jesus Christ the holy spirit remained in heaven and was not on the Earth as it was not it's time. Therefore communicating with humans was God's "job" if you would and because he is too pure to be seen directly by humans he would have to appear as a medium. Now, however, the holy spirit speaks directly to use as it resides on the Earth and inside all Christians.
Faith is belief without proof. All those things have proof. Such as, statistically, the driver is not likely to pull of the road. You will probably have been driving a ton without it happening. You could have your partner tested for STDs. Faith is not needed.
In the end though you have faith that the statistics are correct ands that the tests use to test for the STD's are as well. We can never be absolutely certain of anything (even God) only more sure of an idea than we doubt it.
I think personal expirience can be a valuable asset when making logical decisions.
How so?
Let's take an example. I once went out to the car to get some groceries standing on the other side near the back of the car was a girl wearing a black dress. She looked like she was ready for a prom or something. I went to ask her what she wanted and just as I did she got this shocked look on her face and just vanished into thin air right before my eyes. Now that personal experience would tell me she was a ghost thus meaning ghosts are real.
But let's look at the facts. I'm a pretty imaginative person with a history of epilepsy (no seizures for years at this point but still a possible contributor) and it was during a very emotional point in my life. taking these factors into consideration I can't rule out the possibility of a hallucination. There are also other things that could have cause a hallucination besides these factors such as a high electromagnetic field or infrasound. So what's more likely? I really saw a ghost as my personal experience alone would suggest or was I effected by physical and/or environmental factors resulting in a hallucination.
In the end though you have faith that the statistics are correct ands that the tests use to test for the STD's are as well. We can never be absolutely certain of anything (even God) only more sure of an idea than we doubt it.
We can run the same tests over and get the same results. That's not faith. Though you are correct we can't have 100% certainty but we can't develop that higher percentage of certainty accurately with faith. This is the problem of religion, you start with a belief and try to make everything fit that belief often resulting in the warping distorting and flat out ignoring facts. By not believing the presumption before facts are given we can make the belief fit the facts so we don't have to distort and ignore evidence.
So your agreeing with me that personal experience is useless for making accurate judgments, but go on to say your making judgments based on personal experience?
That depends on the what's being judged. In the laboratory, my mind is focused on 'natural' truth. When I'm studying the Bible, my mind is focused on 'spiritual' truth.
Now for the question, why would god need a medium, a burning bush, to speak to one person but then can just inject thoughts into millions of others who claim to speak with it?
The 1st chapter of Genesis says that God walked in the garden of Eden with Adam...after the fall of man, woman and satan/snake or satan and his angels, God would only talk and walk with only a few people, (not all of them were men). If these few devout, God fearing men, (or, women), asked God's forgiveness on behalf of a fellow devout person, God would listen and spare his life.
What you may see as God needing a medium I see as God's separation from his creation once the created gained knowledge of good and evil.
The story of the burning bush was to redirect Moses' attention away from the sheep and focus only on the voice of God. Then Moses was called into service for God, the exodus, leading God's army,etc.
Moses was allowed direct conversation with Moses, he in turn would give God's directions to Aaron and God's chosen people. When the 'Tent of Meeting' was erected, the people had to bring their offerings to the priest, Aaron would cleanse them, burn them and bless the people.
Jesus replaces these laws of Moses and believers no longer need a priest to intercede on our behalf. We can go directly to the Father with all of our petitions.
That depends on the what's being judged. In the laboratory, my mind is focused on 'natural' truth. When I'm studying the Bible, my mind is focused on 'spiritual' truth.
So basically your giving it special treatment?
Let's take an example. I once went out to the car to get some groceries standing on the other side near the back of the car was a girl wearing a black dress. She looked like she was ready for a prom or something. I went to ask her what she wanted and just as I did she got this shocked look on her face and just vanished into thin air right before my eyes. Now that personal experience would tell me she was a ghost thus meaning ghosts are real.
But let's look at the facts. I'm a pretty imaginative person with a history of epilepsy (no seizures for years at this point but still a possible contributor) and it was during a very emotional point in my life. taking these factors into consideration I can't rule out the possibility of a hallucination. There are also other things that could have cause a hallucination besides these factors such as a high electromagnetic field or infrasound. So what's more likely? I really saw a ghost as my personal experience alone would suggest or was I effected by physical and/or environmental factors resulting in a hallucination.
You've actually proven my point. You have lain out what you logically concluded from this personal experience in that you may contribute this event to your epilepsy.
So basically your giving it special treatment?
The ways of God are not natural or, nature based.
As soon as "nous" can be measured and weighed then scientists will be able to test the spirits that I can already do. Noetic science gives new meaning to weighty thoughts, eh?
You've actually proven my point. You have lain out what you logically concluded from this personal experience in that you may contribute this event to your epilepsy.
No I didn't conclude that it was an event due to epilepsy. I said it's a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. I really can't say for sure what I saw I can only take in as many facts as I can and find what is most probable. So it's not based on personal experience but facts.
The ways of God are not natural or, nature based.
I can't think of anything that isn't in the strictest of terms not natural so we really have nothing to call God.
As soon as "nous" can be measured and weighed then scientists will be able to test the spirits that I can already do.
Your not actually doing anything. If a persons spirit or soul is this nous then why would a physical effect such as severe head trauma change it?
Noetic science gives new meaning to weighty thoughts, eh?
No it doesn't.
No I didn't conclude that it was an event due to epilepsy. I said it's a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. I really can't say for sure what I saw I can only take in as many facts as I can and find what is most probable. So it's not based on personal experience but facts.
Then how do we determine facts without personally experiencing them?
Thread is locked!