A mortal God?

[evenifigoalone]

Ahh yes, I read it.

It doesn't Rebute the fact that God didn't need evil to exist, he allowed it to.

He is all powerful, He didn't need evil at all.

Did you read any of the companion articles? Just curious.

I don't expect it to necessarily change your mind. In my experience, debate rarely changes the mind of the people debating. They/we have reasons to believe what they are saying and they/we ain't backing down. It can be informative for people watching, though.

In any case, it's like 4:30 in the morning here, so I need to get going. I'm actually trying to avoid debates at the moment (for several reasons, but I've been in quite a few in the past), so I probably won't be coming back to this thread for that purpose.
I'll leave it to the rest of you peoples.

 

[Atothetheist]

The issue of evil and suffering is a massive one, it's one that affects people regardless of belief. Christians have the additional problem because we believe in a loving God. How do the 2 reconcile? It is a very difficult and legitimate question. Why does God allow suffering? People who are far more intelligent than I am have dedicated their careers looking at this and still have barely scratched the surface. You could say "well there is no God" but all you've done is solve the intellectual problem, you're still left with the actual problem of suffering. I don't see how atheism actually offers any kind of hope, especially if you go as far as Professor Richard Dawkins does;

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music. - Out of Eden

I know Professor Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists and I am interested if any atheists here agree with the above conclusion of the world.

There's a debate available between Professor Gideon Rose and Professor John Lennox on the issue of suffering. Professor Rose puts up some fantastic and well constructed arguments but Professor Lennox is very much equal to him.

[video=youtube;yMT-EdFH5Kc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMT-EdFH5Kc[/video]

This is not an issue that should be trivialised in any way shape or form.

Atheism is just a view on a diety.

It doesn't, and couldn't answer any moral questions, or any questions other than the specific reason of why the title is given. Just because religion gives hope to people, doesn't mean that god is more probable. It is more logical to think that suffering is random, and it is corraborated by the observed instances we have gained. (innocents dieing from illnesses, etc. Bad people dieing from the same.)

Atheism isn't able to make that question.

If your wondering why atheists try to do good... It is not only beneficial from a evolutionary standpoint ( my opinion on basic morality) it is also a point to say "Because there is no thing giving out justice, we are left to do it. We have to give out justice, kindness, love, etc, because there is no God giving such things out. We are social animals, and we have an INNATE want to be happy, and make other happy.( Most of us anyway.)
Whether that comes from God, or evolution, is on your opinion, but at most one can be right.

 

[Atothetheist]

Did you read any of the companion articles? Just curious.

I don't expect it to necessarily change your mind. In my experience, debate rarely changes the mind of the people debating. They/we have reasons to believe what they are saying and they/we ain't backing down. It can be informative for people watching, though.

In any case, it's like 4:30 in the morning here, so I need to get going. I'm actually trying to avoid debates at the moment (for several reasons, but I've been in quite a few in the past), so I probably won't be coming back to this thread for that purpose.
I'll leave it to the rest of you peoples.

Yup, I read the companion ones as well.

 

[Grazer]

Atheism is just a view on a diety.

It doesn't, and couldn't answer any moral questions, or any questions other than the specific reason of why the title is given. Just because religion gives hope to people, doesn't mean that god is more probable. It is more logical to think that suffering is random, and it is corraborated by the observed instances we have gained. (innocents dieing from illnesses, etc. Bad people dieing from the same.)

Atheism isn't able to make that question.

If your wondering why atheists try to do good... It is not only beneficial from a evolutionary standpoint ( my opinion on basic morality) it is also a point to say "Because there is no thing giving out justice, we are left to do it. We have to give out justice, kindness, love, etc, because there is no God giving such things out. We are social animals, and we have an INNATE want to be happy, and make other happy.( Most of us anyway.)
Whether that comes from God, or evolution, is on your opinion, but at most one can be right.

Suffering is random but that doesn't disprove the existence of God any more than the fact religion gives hope proves there is a God. I'm assuming then you disagree with Professor Dawkins.

You say its beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. That may well be true and if you look back in history there are many practices that were normal then that are abhorrent to us now. But again, that doesn't disprove God due to the mechanism/agent argument (just because you have a mechanism, doesn't exclude an agent who designed it) I don't fit God into a gap that I don't understand, my faith is not based on that.

An innate sense of wanting to be happy, at what cost though? Should I make myself happy regardless of the impact on anyone else?

I believe all people are created in the image of God which is why we have innate sense of morality. Just because you don't believe that, doesn't mean it's not true (and yes, just because I believe it, doesn't mean it is) I think it was yourself that said "belief doesn't change the truth"

I completely understand the argument against God from the suffering standpoint, especially after listening to Professor Rose. As you said, atheism cannot offer anything or comment on it.

 

[evenifigoalone]

You are right, Anecdotal evidence is useless to me, because I have a friend who believes everytime he leaves his house, he returns to it with it on fire. He says he sees it burning, smells it burning, and even "feels" it burning. That doesn't mean it was burning. Anecdotal evidence isn't a reliable way to find the truth, unless you supplement it with the scientific method, or replication of results.

Agh, I haven't gone to sleep yet, so here's one last question.
It's not just me thinking I've experienced and, heck, communicated with, God. There are a lot of such testimonies. Thousands, probably millions. Just seems like there'd be something to it with so much of that?
Anecdotal evidence only goes so far, I know. But just saying.

 

[Atothetheist]

Agh, I haven't gone to sleep yet, so here's one last question.
It's not just me thinking I've experienced and, heck, communicated with, God. There are a lot of such testimonies. Thousands, probably millions. Just seems like there'd be something to it with so much of that?
Anecdotal evidence only goes so far, I know. But just saying.

There are thousands of people who can be deluded into thinking they have communicated with God. A woman cut her baby's arms off because of that said communication. Now you think she moght be crazy, and a bad example, you may be right. I too, have felt a strange feeling whenever I hear a particular hymn, a perfect moment of enjoyment that one might confuse for such things, but I have expierienced the same things with Muslim readings of the Qu'ran.

People are pattern seeking mammals, and sometimes we super impose a pattern, not the same one, but simililar patterns. One of the most common ones is God.

 

[Atothetheist]

Suffering is random but that doesn't disprove the existence of God any more than the fact religion gives hope proves there is a God. I'm assuming then you disagree with Professor Dawkins.

You say its beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. That may well be true and if you look back in history there are many practices that were normal then that are abhorrent to us now. But again, that doesn't disprove God due to the mechanism/agent argument (just because you have a mechanism, doesn't exclude an agent who designed it) I don't fit God into a gap that I don't understand, my faith is not based on that.

An innate sense of wanting to be happy, at what cost though? Should I make myself happy regardless of the impact on anyone else?

I believe all people are created in the image of God which is why we have innate sense of morality. Just because you don't believe that, doesn't mean it's not true (and yes, just because I believe it, doesn't mean it is) I think it was yourself that said "belief doesn't change the truth"

I completely understand the argument against God from the suffering standpoint, especially after listening to Professor Rose. As you said, atheism cannot offer anything or comment on it.

I never said my position of this issue does disprove God, but it makes a case for a non loving, or a non all powerful God.

I agree with the quote. Dawkins is talking about the material world. DNA doesn't care about what position we sleep with our partners in, nor anything for that matter, but that doesn't mean it isn't the source of Morality. Evolution is the process of which we gained it, the DNA doesn't care if it got any useful adaptations either, it just does what it has been programmed to.

You are applying a quote from observation, and misapplying it. I agree with Dawkins that things are random, people get lucky, but this is a quote on material things. Good and evil aren't material things. They are pure contructs of the mind. They are abstract ideas about negatives and positives.

I have said multiple times suffering is random, people get lucky.

We humans rely on eachother to get through life, it is beneficial to ourselves and eachother to help other people. People like me, who help for the reason that it is our responsiblility, not God's to give out justice, help people in need, etc, are happy to help another person, it makes us happy.

We were evolved. Not created, and natural selection did the process, use Okham's Razor, and cut out the unnecessaries. Chimps are observed comforting other chimps, and trying to cheer others up. This is even more evidence of evolutionary basic morals. Society has a swing on specific Morals, and if taught in direct opposition, it can ldefuse the basic morality in us.

While atheism can't comment on suffering, Humanism can.

The world acts as if there is no God watching over it. That is my contention, and it will be until proven otherwise. As I said, a case CAN be made for deism, but not for theism because it claims knowledge that people can't possibly know.

And it shows.

 

[Mike]

I was avoiding putting down christianity, because then I would get banned.

I've seen very secure atheists who would have recognized that a person of faith was struggling and left this one alone out of respect for our purpose here. In my opinion, that would have been the right thing to do rather than pile on the doubts. I don't think you were egregious, but that would have been a stand-up thing to do.

 

[AlexBC]

Yes, bad thing happen. But what tells you that God is not using this woman now to make a difference, maybe she can help someone else and make a difference through her story. Bad things happen, there is no way They wouldn't God gave us free control and does not lock us up in a world of rules, and because of that we have the option to sin. but if we did not have free control or whatever you want to look at it as, we would not be happy and God wants us to be happy and worship him in many ways. That girl that was hurt and abused as a child, can make a difference with her story, you might see the bad parts, but that is because in our world they sadly weigh more and stand out more than the good stories.

It's this kind of thinking from other Christians I talk to that has me doubting my beliefs. You mention that God might be using her as an example. What do you mean by using?

If he has an active role to play here then he could have stopped here torment. Given her a miracle. He sacrificed her as an example? That's the kind of God I pray to at Church?

Again, I know this is YOUR interpretation of events but the "used as an example" schtick is very common. It makes no sense. He can stop these things but instead allows evil to happen to good people and then uses them as an example to other people who he could stop. Just for the sake of free will? I think I would respect God more if he were just an out and out dictator.

 

[Atothetheist]

I've seen very secure atheists who would have recognized that a person of faith was struggling and left this one alone out of respect for our purpose here. In my opinion, that would have been the right thing to do rather than pile on the doubts. I don't think you were egregious, but that would have been a stand-up thing to do.

Your right, I should have left it alone. When people doubt, they need to search out answers, not more problems.

I am secure about my position, I just wanted to see what type of doubts he had, and it got WAAYYY out of hand.

 

[Atothetheist]

It's this kind of thinking from other Christians I talk to that has me doubting my beliefs. You mention that God might be using her as an example. What do you mean by using?

If he has an active role to play here then he could have stopped here torment. Given her a miracle. He sacrificed her as an example? That's the kind of God I pray to at Church?

Again, I know this is YOUR interpretation of events but the "used as an example" schtick is very common. It makes no sense. He can stop these things but instead allows evil to happen to good people and then uses them as an example to other people who he could stop. Just for the sake of free will? I think I would respect God more if he were just an out and out dictator.

Well, techincally, you could have it both ways, he is ALL POWERFUL for God's sake (pun intended)

 

[Grazer]

It's this kind of thinking from other Christians I talk to that has me doubting my beliefs. You mention that God might be using her as an example. What do you mean by using?

If he has an active role to play here then he could have stopped here torment. Given her a miracle. He sacrificed her as an example? That's the kind of God I pray to at Church?

Again, I know this is YOUR interpretation of events but the "used as an example" schtick is very common. It makes no sense. He can stop these things but instead allows evil to happen to good people and then uses them as an example to other people who he could stop. Just for the sake of free will? I think I would respect God more if he were just an out and out dictator.

I think the "used as an example" comes from the below passage:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?â€

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,†said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. - John 9:1-3

I don't think Jesus is saying that God deliberately caused the man to be blind but he allowed it to happen and God can use him despite his "disability" I don't believe God deliberately sends punishment to us whilst we are on this earth (that's the point of the cross)

 

[stovebolts]

Well, a case can be made for deism in the modern world, but not for theism.

If any other person comments to the differ. Ask them if they had a personal miracle. If they did, as, thm what made them SO special that the overwhelming Majority of the Africans starving will NEVER get the chance to leave the poverty striken country. ( this is to be asked when somebody replies with "He helped with taxes, etc.)

The lack of divine itervention of a God when millions are suffering, by no fault of there own is clearly telling of the situtation...

But, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ( or so say the theists.)

The world looks, and acts as if there was nothing watching over it, making sure justice is in order. Nine million children( under five) die a year. Thousands die of illnesses, not enough food, etc.

It is hard to reconcile a theistic deity( especially an all good, loving one) with this harsh reality.

I believe one of the greatest things a President has ever said was, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!"

It is as if you are demanding that God wave his magic wand and make everything all better. If that is your view of who God is, then it's a view that didn't come from the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I was almost fearful of posting the above verse because I know that you will not even begin to understand it either, but rather you will dissect it when you should be discerning it. You see, the Bible was never meant to be read as a rule book or be viewed through a scientific lense. No, it is for wisdom and to teach discernment. The Bible is not ridged, but rather it is living and active.

But more to your point. When you cast blame on God for all the suffering, are you not shunning responsibility for being part of the solution where you're able?

Did you know that the USA spends more on garbage bags each year than it would cost to end world hunger for that year. Amazing when you look at it like that. But that's only the beginning... What about wells in Africa, have you set anything aside to help provide fresh water for them so they don't get worms and other diseases that cause much suffering? Do you not see the evil you yourself create when you don't use your resources to eliminate suffering where you see it and are able to change it? Why then do you point the finger at God? If it bothers you, then DO something about it. This is the message of the Bible.

When is the last time you've volunteered at a soup kitchen, or helped a struggling neighbor out of work? What talents and abilities do you have that your sharing with the rest of the world to make the world a better place?

That's the God of the Bible. He's a God that blesses us to be a blessing to others. We have a task... each and every one of us.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

If we all did the above, then we'd be doing the Fathers will, regardless if you believed in a God or not... because we all have that divine spark within us.

 

[Atothetheist]

I think the "used as an example" comes from the below passage:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?â€

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,†said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. - John 9:1-3

I don't think Jesus is saying that God deliberately caused the man to be blind but he allowed it to happen and God can use him despite his "disability" I don't believe God deliberately sends punishment to us whilst we are on this earth (that's the point of the cross)

The problem with your God being all powerful, is that literally ANYTHING is possible. He didn't NEED that man to be blind, he WANTED that man to be blind, so he ALLOWED blindess on that man. If you want them to learn a lesson, why not make them learn it without a disability to the man? Why make needless suffering when he could LITERALLY make them learn that lesson in a better, less of a mean way.

The problem of evil is solved without the need of a God.

Just like the mechinism of evolution is solved, making evolution run without God's intervention. Okham's Razor it. Cut God out of evolution, because he is unecessary. Cut God out of evil, because he is unecessary. It works without that huge assumption. That is what I meant by Okham's Razor.

 

[Roof]

Choosing between veggies, or meat for lunch isn't a choice between good and evil.

Tell that to my vegaterian friend

 

[Atothetheist]

I believe one of the greatest things a President has ever said was, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!"

It is as if you are demanding that God wave his magic wand and make everything all better. If that is your view of who God is, then it's a view that didn't come from the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I was almost fearful of posting the above verse because I know that you will not even begin to understand it either, but rather you will dissect it when you should be discerning it. You see, the Bible was never meant to be read as a rule book or be viewed through a scientific lense. No, it is for wisdom and to teach discernment. The Bible is not ridged, but rather it is living and active.

But more to your point. When you cast blame on God for all the suffering, are you not shunning responsibility for being part of the solution where you're able?

Did you know that the USA spends more on garbage bags each year than it would cost to end world hunger for that year. Amazing when you look at it like that. But that's only the beginning... What about wells in Africa, have you set anything aside to help provide fresh water for them so they don't get worms and other diseases that cause much suffering? Do you not see the evil you yourself create when you don't use your resources to eliminate suffering where you see it and are able to change it? Why then do you point the finger at God? If it bothers you, then DO something about it. This is the message of the Bible.

When is the last time you've volunteered at a soup kitchen, or helped a struggling neighbor out of work? What talents and abilities do you have that your sharing with the rest of the world to make the world a better place?

That's the God of the Bible. He's a God that blesses us to be a blessing to others. We have a task... each and every one of us.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

If we all did the above, then we'd be doing the Fathers will, regardless if you believed in a God or not... because we all have that divine spark within us.

Yup, I have. I have visited countries in Africa. I have given up my time to try to help them. I have donated my money.

I do not need a God to tell me what to do, I have my own codes, that I think are better than what is taught in the Bible.

I am doing my best to try to help, I would expect God to give his full measure as well, rather then just watching the millions die in agony, and the thousands starve.

If God did exist, the responisibility would be on him. He created the circumstances of the suffering, they had no input, he created death from maltrition, he created EVERYTHING bad, such as in the verse proscribed. Shouldn't he at least TRY to help his pet projects? In times where the people need him most, God is usually quite. God can clearly apear on toast nowadays, but he can't help the millions that suffer.

That should be telling of the situation.

 

[Atothetheist]

Tell that to my vegaterian friend

Alright, let me choose another example:

The choice between brussel sprouts, and carrots, is not a good and evil decision. Certainly not in the same regard as choosing to spare, or kill. Or choosing to let go, and rape.

 

[stovebolts]

The problem with your God being all powerful, is that literally ANYTHING is possible. He didn't NEED that man to be blind, he WANTED that man to be blind, so he ALLOWED blindess on that man. If you want them to learn a lesson, why not make them learn it without a disability to the man? Why make needless suffering when he could LITERALLY make them learn that lesson in a better, less of a mean way.

The problem of evil is solved without the need of a God.

Just like the mechinism of evolution is solved, making evolution run without God's intervention. Okham's Razor it. Cut God out of evolution, because he is unecessary. Cut God out of evil, because he is unecessary. It works without that huge assumption. That is what I meant by Okham's Razor.

Sorry, I'm going to jump in again... Hey, I've got a minute.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

As far as being blind... that discussion has been going on for a long, long time.

John 9:1-3 And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

You know what really gets under my skin? If a man or woman finds to be with child and that child has a disability, then they can opt to end that childs life before it is ever born. To me, that's pretty selfish. Tell me, do you see any value in somebody having a disability? I can think of many.

Again, you demand of God, yet what are YOU doing to make a difference? Your view of scripture I would offer is skewed because you look at the bible in a way it was never intended to be looked at. That is why you come to these erroneous conclusions.

 

[Atothetheist]

Sorry, I'm going to jump in again... Hey, I've got a minute.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

As far as being blind... that discussion has been going on for a long, long time.

John 9:1-3 And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

You know what really gets under my skin? If a man or woman finds to be with child and that child has a disability, then they can opt to end that childs life before it is ever born. To me, that's pretty selfish. Tell me, do you see any value in somebody having a disability? I can think of many.

Again, you demand of God, yet what are YOU doing to make a difference? Your view of scripture I would offer is skewed because you look at the bible in a way it was never intended to be looked at. That is why you come to these erroneous conclusions.

My cousin had a baby with it's skin turned inside out, they didn't end it's life. Everythingit touched, even air, hurt the baby. It cried, screamed, and it died two weeks later. It tormented my cousin and her husband. You tell me how it was better off alive.

And yes, they knew of the condition before it was born. They had the choice to let there child suffer, or end it's life. They chose what they thought was best. Now, they had to live with hearing the shrieks of there firstborn, crying because EVERYTHING it touched was harmful. Do you know the damage it could have caused them? The mental damage it could have caused them, not able to help THEIR CHILD.

 

[stovebolts]

Yup, I have. I have visited countries in Africa. I have given up my time to try to help them. I have donated my money.

If you are doing these things, then keep doing them and urge others to do them. It is never about "I have" but rather, it's about "I'm doing".

I do not need a God to tell me what to do, I have my own codes, that I think are better than what is taught in the Bible.

Me thinks you don't understand much about the Bible... But you think you do.

I am doing my best to try to help, I would expect God to give his full measure as well, rather then just watching the millions die in agony, and the thousands starve.

Leviticus 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the sojourner: I am Jehovah your God.

We are tasked with helping others, but often we get the attitude that what we work for is ours to be spent on our enjoyment. That millions die in agony and thousands starve is a testiment toward how stingy and selfish we people are. Again, we spend more money each year in America than it would cost to end world hunger for that year. Why can't we, as American's put an end to world hunger when we have the means? Really, it's chump change. God has blessed us, yet we squander it as we lavish it upon oursleves. Why then do you demand out of God what you yourself won't do? It's like saying, "God, I don't like what I see. I demand you to change it". When change is well within your grasp. What all that suffering etc does is affirm how selfish we really are in such a fallen world.

If God did exist, the responisibility would be on him. He created the circumstances of the suffering, they had no input, he created death from maltrition, he created EVERYTHING bad, such as in the verse proscribed. Shouldn't he at least TRY to help his pet projects? In times where the people need him most, God is usually quite. God can clearly apear on toast nowadays, but he can't help the millions that suffer.

That should be telling of the situation.

God created humanity and he gave us a task. We aint doing a very good job at it are we?

You sound like a little child. "Mom and Dad (God) have lots of money and I want" or "Why can't I have".

The story of the Bible is that God has enabled us.. yet we squander because we think we know better than our Father in heaven. Welcome to the entry point of the Bible.