NOTE: This is not an anti religion post, simply a philosophical and age old debate.
Ok, so very very basically, here is an issue with the typical Christian view of God, a view shared by other religions, aside, however.
God is all good God is all powerful (omnipotent) God is all knowing
If God is all good, then why does he make evil things happen? Why does he create murderers and tsunamis?
Some say God creates us with the choice to do good and bad that we may have free will.
So, in this case God creates us without knowing if we'll choose to be good or bad people, or even if we will believe in him/her.
So God doesn't know if we're going to be good or bad, so God is not all knowing.
BUT - Imagine we still want to hold that he his all knowing, i.e he knows everything about everything. This means God creates us knowing that we're going to be good or bad people, this means that he condemns those he creates bad to a life of sin and ultimately hell, so he can't be all Good.
BUT - if we want to still hold that he is all good, then there must be another reason murderers and tsunamis exist, but what? Maybe God created the world, and is not powerful enough to intervene. Then God is no longer all-powerful. Either that or he is powerful enough to intervene, and simply doesn't want to, in which case he is not all good. What do you think about all this?
And an All Powerful, All Knowing, and All LOVING can't just, simply, forgive you? It really requires you to worship it? Is it that petty?
God chooses to extend His grace to everyone that will accept it. Would it be beyond God's ability to have good reason for this, reasons that better men that I may have reasoned and articulated? If you rest your case on the premise that there is no possible explanation that would not make God petty, then that would seem like bad gambling to me.
If you rest your case on the premise that there is no possible explanation that would not make God petty, then that would seem like bad gambling to me.
There are possible ways for God to not be petty, just not according to the Bible.
God chooses to extend His grace to everyone that will accept it.
So, if in life, I cannot find sufficient evidence for his existence but live a moral life, he would not send me to hell? I surely would like to follow what is good and right, but I can only do that by what I know. But on other threads, you have said that simply not believing is cause for eternal punishment.
So, if in life, I cannot find sufficient evidence for his existence but live a moral life, he would not send me to hell? I surely would like to follow what is good and right, but I can only do that by what I know. But on other threads, you have said that simply not believing is cause for eternal punishment.
Belief in Christ is about forgiveness, not condemnation. We are already condemned for our sins; belief in Christ redeems us from condemnation. Can you really live a moral life? The Bible says that all our good deeds are like filthy rags. We try to cover our guilt with good deeds. However, good deeds do not erase our sin, which is what we should receive punishment for.
As for not having enough evidence, the Bible says you do. Romans 1 says that everyone knows God, because God the truth of God is evident from His creation. However, people "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" because they know their deeds are evil. If you say you will believe if you see enough evidence, you are saying the Bible is wrong. Thus your investigation is flawed from the outset. You must consider the possibility that your heart and mind rebel against God and that is why you do not believe.
The Bible says that all our good deeds are like filthy rags.
The Bible also says rabbits chew cud.
Romans 1 says that everyone knows God, because God the truth of God is evident from His creation.
Lol. This is just simply not true. If it was self evident that God existed, there would be very little argument against it.
However, people "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" because they know their deeds are evil.
I'm not supressing anything, and I'm not commiting evil deeds.
If you say you will believe if you see enough evidence, you are saying the Bible is wrong.
The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is claiming God's existence. You can't use the thing claiming to back itself up. That's like trying to pick yourself up by the hair with your hand.
You must consider the possibility that your heart and mind rebel against God and that is why you do not believe.
I'm not rebelling against anything. I would love it if I didn't have to think and decide what is right and wrong and know if I was truly doing the best things, if I could look forward to eternal paradise. Trust me, it's not that.
Okay. First the bible needs to be proven a fact if you expect them to belive it. But not only has it not been proven, some of it has been disproven. So you cannot possibly expect they'll take it as evidence. They do not belive because they want evidence that has been proven before they belive it. The bible is not evidence and cannot be used as evidence. (At least not in this situation.)
I hate to break the chain here, but this is turning from a philosophical debate to a "the bible says..." "well the bible's not real is it?"
And an All Powerful, All Knowing, and All LOVING can't just, simply, forgive you? It really requires you to worship it? Is it that petty?
Is that not one of the objectives of this discussion? Is God really that selfish, or is it logical to demand some praise for your work. Personally I enjoy praise on small tasks, can you imagine if you created the universe and people actually denied that it was your work?
When a rabbit first eats something, the food goes through the digestive system very quickly and then is excreted partially digested. The rabbit then eats the partially digested waste again. This is the process the writer was referring to.
If it was self evident that God existed, there would be very little argument against it.
And I would argue that every argument against the God of the Bible is logically flawed.
I'm not supressing anything, and I'm not commiting evil deeds.
Self-deception is a real phenomenon. The Bible says you suppress the truth because you do not want to worship and be responsible to God; and you clearly do have major problem with God requiring worship.
You're not committing any evil deeds? You don't lie, hate, lust, fornicate, steal, envy, or dishonor your parents? Even if we ignore the commandments that are oriented only toward God, it's a lofty claim to say that you're without sin.
The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is claiming God's existence. You can't use the thing claiming to back itself up. That's like trying to pick yourself up by the hair with your hand.
It would be viciously circular to argue that the Bible must be the word of God because it claims to be. However, that is not the argument. The argument is that the Bible claims to be the word of God and if you deny that it is, you're left without a foot to stand on logically.
First the bible needs to be proven a fact if you expect them to belive it. But not only has it not been proven, some of it has been disproven. So you cannot possibly expect they'll take it as evidence. They do not belive because they want evidence that has been proven before they belive it. The bible is not evidence and cannot be used as evidence.
What part of the Bible has been disproven? The Bible as a starting point provides the justification for the presuppositions we take for granted in reasoning, like reliability of senses, uniformity of nature, and laws of logic. The fact that many atheists dogmatically insist that they would believe if presented with enough evidence betrays the fact that they have already decided on a psychological level that the Bible cannot be true.
I don't think any of it has been truly disproven, only rationalized that things in the bible could happen without God and could logically occur by nature.
And I would argue that every argument against the God of the Bible is logically flawed.
This I want to hear. Care to elaborate?
Even if we ignore the commandments that are oriented only toward God, it's a lofty claim to say that you're without sin.
When I think of evil, I think of something morally reprehensible; theft, murder, ****, etc. While I'm not saying that lying isn't inherently bad, it's so much a part of society that it's no longer something considered "evil."
Bible cannot be true
Can you claim to believe in every aspect of the bible? I do not because it's too fantastic, the events of the bible are something you would expect to occur in a fairy tale. And to be frank, I think the acts of Jesus would cause people of that time period to scream witchcraft, rather than God.
When a rabbit first eats something, the food goes through the digestive system very quickly and then is excreted partially digested. The rabbit then eats the partially digested waste again. This is the process the writer was referring to.
That's still not cud and I really hope you do some stretched before trying to preform such vast leaps in mental gymnastics.
I also have to wonder what you regard as logic and reason, because the Bible really doesn't fit into that.
I think that every argument against God has a flaw in it that makes it illogical; if I thought there were sound arguments against God, why would I believe in Him?
When I think of evil, I think of something morally reprehensible; theft, murder, ****, etc. While I'm not saying that lying isn't inherently bad, it's so much a part of society that it's no longer something considered "evil."
This is relative morality. While we wouldn't punish someone nearly as severely for lying as we would for murder, both are abominable in God's eyes.
Can you claim to believe in every aspect of the bible? I do not because it's too fantastic, the events of the bible are something you would expect to occur in a fairy tale. And to be frank, I think the acts of Jesus would cause people of that time period to scream witchcraft, rather than God.
I do believe every part of the Bible. If God is the Creator of the universe, then it shouldn't be hard to believe in any miracle in the Bible. Jewish leaders accused Jesus of working by the power of demons, and other rabbis of the first century accused Jesus of sorcery.
That's still not cud and I really hope you do some stretched before trying to preform such vast leaps in mental gymnastics.
The only place the word for "cud" is used in the Bible is in the passages about unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Instead of forcing the modern idea that "chewing the cud" refers only to rumination, it makes sense to let the word translated "cud" mean partially digested food. Then the alleged contradiction disappears.
I'm not harming anyone or opressing anyone or causing anyone to fear.
You don't lie, hate, lust, fornicate, steal, envy, or dishonor your parents?
There's a difference between evil and human.
it's a lofty claim to say that you're without sin.
I never said without sin. However, I do not think that most of those things you listed are wrong to do. Only steal and lie would be wrong, and lying would depend on what it is and for what reason.
The argument is that the Bible claims to be the word of God and if you deny that it is, you're left without a foot to stand on logically.
Are you looking in a mirror? Without the Bible, you have no proof for any of your claims. You're certainly using the Bible and what is in it for all of your arguments.
My argument stays the same, whilst your argument collapses inward.
