Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

second point I totally agree, but you dont need to burn someone for them to know fire is hot.

 

 

 

Really? I thought my second point was crap compared to the first. :P

 

 

 

You do not need to burn someone to know fire is hot, but you do need to experience both hot and cold temperatures to understand temperature in general. If you lived on the Equator all your life and you were sweaty all the time then you wouldn't see that as "hot", you'd see it as normal because it's all you know. However, once you go to Antarctica then you will realize that being sweaty isn't the only thing that can happen to your body - you can also shiver. You realize that being sweaty is not the default so you will then realize the distinction and two new terms will arise for you - cold and hot, instead of just what's normal or default.

 

 

 

Here is what I am getting at though; even if we need opposites I think we can agree the world could be much better without us not realizing what good and bad are. Maybe the occasional house fire would teach us a lesson, but if god is trying to teach us a lesson things such as world wars seem like a case of overdoing it.

 

 

 

Thats not to say I doubt god exists, but I dislike the notion that everything bad is happening because we are supposed to learn something from it. Paradoxically, I find the main point of history using what we did bad to learn what we should do moving forward.

[Zierro]

I think we can agree the world could be much better without us not realizing what good and bad are

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. Our whole nature is based on this principle. If we do something that triggers a positive stimulus then we will continue to do it. On the other hand, if we do something to trigger a negative one then we will stop. It's in our nature to seek the positive.

[Rien]

Is God inherently evil if he created things with the intent of us to do evil things?

 

 

 

No, evil is necessary in order for good to exist at all. I see it as nothing more than a reference tool for comparison. To understand the concept of "hot" you must understand "cold" as well. It's all relative, so a reference tool is required.

 

 

 

Why is he* testing us when he would want us to live in eternal paradise.

 

 

 

Not sure, but I think it might have to do with our independence. Having your parents do your science project for you is nothing to be proud of. Doing it on your own allows you to experience the feeling of triumph though.

 

 

 

I agree with the first point, but it is for this reason that I can't accept the concept of Heaven and Hell; they're far too absolute.

 

 

 

I'd be more inclined to agree with your second point but for the "losers" in the equation. Those who pass God's ridiculous "test" may be entitled to feel all the more triumphant in having done so on their own merit, but where does that leave those who fail? Not everyone is born into equal opportunity, so, comparatively, there will be people who will receive a free ride into Heaven (e.g. being born into a wealthy, christian family) as opposed to others who will never receive a fair chance (e.g. those born into poverty-stricken families in remote corners of the world) and will have to suffer for eternity for it. Under God's benevolent justice, those who've never even heard of Christianity will be sent to Hell; where's the justice in this? As I've mentioned before, I don't believe that any crime--no matter how terrible--could warrant an eternity of hellish torture and misery. And so, if even murderers, rapists, and child molesterers are undeserving of Hell's Fire, how is sending otherwise virtuous non-christians justifiable?

 

 

 

You belittle the disadvantaged in suggesting that those saved can be "proud" and "triumph[ant]" for having benefitted from the skewed system.

[Rien]

I think we can agree the world could be much better without us not realizing what good and bad are

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. Our whole nature is based on this principle. If we do something that triggers a positive stimulus then we will continue to do it. On the other hand, if we do something to trigger a negative one then we will stop. It's in our nature to seek the positive.

 

...Which begs the question: Do you think mankind is better off for having left the Garden of Eden? Until they ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve couldn't be said to have known the difference between the two, could they? What with the Garden of Eden being described as a paradise on Earth and everything, I think it poses an interesting question; are we better off for having become "aware?"

[mmmcannibalism]

I think we can agree the world could be much better without us not realizing what good and bad are

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. Our whole nature is based on this principle. If we do something that triggers a positive stimulus then we will continue to do it. On the other hand, if we do something to trigger a negative one then we will stop. It's in our nature to seek the positive.

 

...Which begs the question: Do you think mankind is better off for having left the Garden of Eden? Until they ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve couldn't be said to have known the difference between the two, could they? What with the Garden of Eden being described as a paradise on Earth and everything, I think it poses an interesting question; are we better off for having become "aware?"

 

 

 

I think it ends up being an apple to oranges comparison. Tranquility and knowledge dont compare very well when its an all or nothing trade, many people would take a little of the other for a little of the either way but its hard to say whether a full trade either way will be good. Of course, Adam and Eve didnt really have that choice with full considerations so its hard to say whether they made a good call.

[Zierro]

...Which begs the question: Do you think mankind is better off for having left the Garden of Eden? Until they ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve couldn't be said to have known the difference between the two, could they? What with the Garden of Eden being described as a paradise on Earth and everything, I think it poses an interesting question; are we better off for having become "aware?"

 

 

 

The purpose of that could be to demonstrate our imperfections (temptation, disobedience to god) and show us what things are like when you don't follow god. You raise a good point though. The story of Adam and Eve has always came as a gigantic mystery to me.

[Alg]

...Which begs the question: Do you think mankind is better off for having left the Garden of Eden? Until they ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve couldn't be said to have known the difference between the two, could they? What with the Garden of Eden being described as a paradise on Earth and everything, I think it poses an interesting question; are we better off for having become "aware?"

 

 

 

The purpose of that could be to demonstrate our imperfections (temptation, disobedience to god) and show us what things are like when you don't follow god. You raise a good point though. The story of Adam and Eve has always came as a gigantic mystery to me.

 

I always interpreted it as a story of temptation and punishment. Generally, disobedience is usually grounds for punishment, though sometimes it may pay off in the long run; the payoff being knowledge, choice, etc.

[Lenticular_J]

I think Adam and Eve can be compared to the difference between childhood and adulthood. Boys and girls play together when they're young - indeed, can be naked together and not think anything of it - but once we're adults, we get sexual. Like a sex machine, man. Of course the "apple" would symbolize love and sex and all that. Are we better for shedding the layers of innocence? I don't know. I like being aware, though.

[Rien]

Thanks for the replies; Genesis has always interested me, and I enjoy reading everyone's interpretations. It goes to show that you don't necessarily need to be a Christian--or even a theist, for that matter--to appreciate some of the finer symbolism found in the Bible.

 

 

 

These lines, in particular, especially intrigue me:

 

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) ~ Spoken by the Serpent to Eve.

 

"And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)

 

 

 

The question is--as these lines seem to suggest--whether or not we, as humans, could potentially become as God in our knowledge and power were we to be given enough time. Could we, through the use of our mental faculties and technological advances, become truly omniscient and omnipotent? It's certainly an alluring concept, but I'd like to know what the rest of you think. I can't help but wonder at the possibilities; after all, we've made many, many incredible advances in just the last century, so what could we achieve in another hundred years should we survive gross overpopulation and nuclear war? How about in a thousand years? Ten thousand? One million? The possibilites are endless it would seem, just so long as we survive. :lol:

 

 

 

Anyway, it's a bit off-topic, but for any of you who haven't already, I highly recommend reading "The Last Question" (a short story by Isaac Asimov). 'Consider it related reading material; it'll be well-worth the short while you'll take to read it. I'd say it's easily among my favorite three short stories. :thumbup:

[Lenticular_J]

I think you should look into Pierre Teilhard's theories and thoughts on dogma. I'm surprised this guy wasn't made into a saint, although many thought his doctrine heresy because it seemed very alike to Socinianism (considered heresy because it was an even more skeptical offshoot of Antitrinitism, which is an offshoot of Christianity that's much like deism due to its rejection of most scripture except for the belief of Jesus' divinity).

 

 

 

In case you don't feel like looking too hard into his theories, I'll sum up what I know. Teilhard thought that all beings - humans would likely be the first, but even bacteria would do this - will evolve into an eventual unification with the Godhead, the Omega Point. Today, if his beliefs were widespread and well-known, I wouldn't be surprised if they were relatively common. He believed we should focus on bettering ourselves and helping evolution takes its random, winding course.

[Gmesh]

I don't really care. I just live my life, try and be a good person. Not for some spiritual sanctuary but because it genuinely makes me feel good. If god is real or isn't i'm going to continue to live my life the same way. If he thinks i'm not a good person when I pass on... Oh well...

[Shinjula]

Is God inherently evil if he created things with the intent of us to do evil things?

 

 

 

No, evil is necessary in order for good to exist at all. I see it as nothing more than a reference tool for comparison. To understand the concept of "hot" you must understand "cold" as well. It's all relative, so a reference tool is required.

 

 

 

This could do with a bit of refutation actually. There are plenty of concepts which dont have opposites which we understand perfectly well. But its also I think the start of an intersting philosophical debate (at least I'd like it to be, mind you in this thread almost no subject stays as a nice intersting debate, but [garden tool], hum).

 

 

 

There are qualities which have multiple dimensions such as colour which have no opposite, and whilst from some perspectives you can for example suggest from an rgb perspective yellow is opposite to blue, or from a paint perspective orange is opposite blue no true opposite exists, where if its not one then it must be the other (if its not honest then it must be dishonest). Colours arent polarised, if something isnt yellow then then doesnt automatically mean it is blue, and whilst from an rgb perspective it would have a blue component if a non yellow colour was being displayed on tv, in frequency terms that wouldnt be true.

 

 

 

There are also qualities which just have singular dimensions such as mass, where there simply is only a positive amount and whilst people always talk of light and heavy objects thats always relative to zero, and in fact your own quality of temperature falls into this category, there is no such thing as cold, our perception of cold is simply because the way we are brought up drives us to create dualistic impressions of the world around us. And this brings in an important piece of information which is worth paying attention to, which I would generally state as "There is no evil, there is only good" - at the very worst there is only a complete lack of good, zero good if you will. i'll not say much more about that in this post I'll leave it up to the rest of you to discuss that proposition and give me your reactions.

[Zierro]

There are qualities which have multiple dimensions such as colour which have no opposite, and whilst from some perspectives you can for example suggest from an rgb perspective yellow is opposite to blue, or from a paint perspective orange is opposite blue no true opposite exists, where if its not one then it must be the other (if its not honest then it must be dishonest). Colours arent polarised, if something isnt yellow then then doesnt automatically mean it is blue, and whilst from an rgb perspective it would have a blue component if a non yellow colour was being displayed on tv, in frequency terms that wouldnt be true.

 

 

 

You're speaking of things with more than only two qualities, so of course there are a different means to understanding the concepts. For example, you never have to see black in your life to understand white. You do need another color but it doesn't have to be black. What my point was is that if you only see white - no other colors - then you would not understand the concept of color. White wouldn't be a color to you - it would just be the natural default. As long as you have at least one other thing to reference you then you will discover the potential for differences (blue looks different than white) and then you will understand that you are looking at two distinguished concepts which qualify for distinguished definitions. Plus we're speaking of subjective terms, where someone's hot can be someone's cold, so everyone needs to define these aspects in their own terms.

 

 

 

So what I'm saying does not mean you need to understand the opposite of something to understand that something, but when it comes to subjective abstract nouns like hot, big, good, pleasant (not mass or color) where you are technically the judge of its definition then a reference tool is needed and it has to be the opposite because that's the only reference available - unlike concepts like color where there are tons of different qualities.

 

 

 

"There is no evil, there is only good"

 

 

 

Technically speaking, there is neither. We create what is good and evil in our minds (as does god). Lack of evil is good and lack of good is evil. The two words are dependent on each other.

[user1991]

 

 

 

"There is no evil, there is only good"

 

 

 

Technically speaking, there is neither. We create what is good and evil in our minds (as does god). Lack of evil is good and lack of good is evil. The two words are dependent on each other.

 

 

 

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

[Zierro]

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

 

 

 

If god made everything then isn't the answer already quite clear?

[user1991]

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

 

 

 

If god made everything then isn't the answer already quite clear?

 

 

 

Who made God?

[Zierro]

No one. There has to be a first cause, because an effect with an infinite amount of causes would not exist.

[user1991]

No one. There has to be a first cause, because an effect with an infinite amount of causes would not exist.

 

 

 

Which is more complex, a Universe that has existed forever, or a consciousness that is everywhere at once, all knowing, all powerful, that has existed forever AND created everything?

[Zierro]

Well, judging by the awesomeness of this world, I'd say it's more complex that everything just happened by accident and the more reasonable answer is that a divine creator exists in this equation. This is an opinionated and biased answer though, so of course I wouldn't expect you to agree. :)

[user1991]

Well, judging by the awesomeness of this world, I'd say it's more complex that everything just happened by accident and the more reasonable answer is that a divine creator exists in this equation. This is an opinionated and biased answer though, so of course I wouldn't expect you to agree. :)

 

 

 

So in order to explain the Universe, the most complex physical thing, you're going to argue for the necessity of an even more complex consciousness that has existed eternally?

 

 

 

Don't try and claim that God is less complex. God created the Universe apparently, he can't possibly be less complex.

 

 

 

The attributes which you say the Universe cannot, or does not have, you give to God.

 

 

 

If you're going to be making wild assumptions, why would you not just assume that the Universe has always existed? Why would you fathom a complex consciousness, with a load of other stuff to go with it, in order to explain something when you could come up with an infinite number of explanations that are less complex and more likely?

 

 

 

There is also an infinite regression. You can't just say "God did it!", because who did God? Where did God come from? You're willing to say that God just exists, but you say this is impossible for the Universe?

[Lenticular_J]

In our human ignorance, we very well could have created some confused, human, baby God. Faith created God, God created faith ...

[user1991]

In our human ignorance, we very well could have created some confused, human, baby God. Faith created God, God created faith ...

 

 

 

What?

[Lenticular_J]

We could be the creators of our Creator. I don't mean in some snide way, literally.

[user1991]

We could be the creators of our Creator. I don't mean in some snide way, literally.

 

 

 

You mean we created God, as in we just made him up?

[Zierro]

Don't try and claim that God is less complex. God created the Universe apparently, he can't possibly be less complex.

 

 

 

Nice twist of words you used there. You should have surprised me and not engaged in logical fallacies in your first response - save them for later. I didn't say god the being wasn't complex - I said the idea that he was the one who created the universe was less complex than the idea that he didn't.

 

 

 

The attributes which you say the Universe cannot, or does not have, you give to God.

 

 

 

Duh. He's the only one which the attributes can be attached to.

 

 

 

If you're going to be making wild assumptions, why would you not just assume that the Universe has always existed? Why would you fathom a complex consciousness, with a load of other stuff to go with it, in order to explain something when you could come up with an infinite number of explanations that are less complex and more likely?

 

 

 

Wild assumptions are made by both theists and atheists alike. Why would you fathom the fact that everything is a complete accident and that we weren't meant to be here? Of course you can pretend like you have logic on your side, but that's not the case - what you speak of derives from pessimism not Occam's Razor. If thinking your life was an accident satisfies you then I don't see how it isn't justifiable to think my life wasn't an accident in order to satisfy me.

 

 

 

There is also an infinite regression. You can't just say "God did it!", because who did God? Where did God come from? You're willing to say that God just exists, but you say this is impossible for the Universe?

 

 

 

Cause and effect isn't relevant to god. If we can assume he made everything we can assume he made cause and effect and time so questions like that are meaningless.

 

 

 

Also, beings with a consciousness are far greater designers than nature. Sure, nature is beautiful but when you compare even the most beautiful photograph with the most beautiful painting then it puts things into perspective. Beings with a consciousness can create beauty and manipulate nature into seeming even more beautiful. Nature does it by complete accident. I see the world as something too miraculous to be a creation of nature alone.