Do YOU believe in God?

[pianofrieak2]

bear, my view of truth is absolute and unchanging. That is still true. You're merely talking about which religion is truth. That's a totally new topic. :wink: My points are still valid.

 

 

 

HugATree, you still don't get it? I'm talking the absolute nature of truth. You say that science is your basis for truth. I have already systematically proven why that is flawed. When you say "science can talk about the universe," I agree. But we're dealing with morality not the universe.

 

 

 

Big difference. :o

 

 

 

 

 

Mr_Hyde, if you don't believe Christ is God, then how in the world can you call yourself a Christian? That's Christianity's most fundamental beliefs! I'm not even going to remark on your last sentence.

[bearofthunder]

bear, my view of truth is absolute and unchanging. That is still true. You're merely talking about which religion is truth. That's a totally new topic. :wink: My points are still valid.

 

 

 

 

If you think my religions example was about a "totally new topic," then I would like to know what your example of "absolute and unchanging truth" would be.

[pianofrieak2]

bear, my view of truth is absolute and unchanging. That is still true. You're merely talking about which religion is truth. That's a totally new topic. :wink: My points are still valid.

 

 

 

 

If you think my religions example was about a "totally new topic," then I would like to know what your example of "absolute and unchanging truth" would be.

 

 

 

I was dealing with the aspects of truth. HugATree made the comment that science is his/her basis for truth. Because science can't prove God, then God must not be true. That was their point.

 

 

 

Your religions example, about Hinduism over Christianity and all that, IS A TOTALLY NEW TOPIC. As of right now, we're debating the nature of truth and how you know something is true. It is somewhat related but that's a religions question. We're doing philosophy right now.

 

 

 

If you so desire, I would love to talk to you about Hinduism and why it's flawed. Hinduism=New Age, btw.

 

 

 

 

 

As for your example with the psychic with two kids:

 

 

 

Psychic=God

 

Kid 1=???

 

Kid 2=Sinners (all of us)

 

 

 

Now, I don't know why you brought Kid 1 into this as it seems to me to be irrelevant. Maybe it's Jesus? But then it wouldn't be right because Jesus is fully God and was not created. He CAME into the world but was not created by Mary.

 

 

 

Still, your example didn't take into account my whole view. You know, the BIG BOLD FONT that everyone got mad at me for using? Apparently you still missed it. :?

 

 

 

God created us for love. God in the Trinity was in perfect harmony and peace. They NEEDED nothing. But, they wanted something more. They wanted love. And so, because they wanted love, they created us humans. They gave us free will because without free will, there is no love. There is no choice to do evil. God is not responsible for evil: we are. He gave us the option in order for love to exist.

 

 

 

Because He gave us the option for evil, we have, in our fallen natures, taken it. We have refused to do good=evil. Therefore, because we are tainted with evil, we cannot be in the presence of a perfect, holy God. It makes sense. :)

 

 

 

The answer to your example is that child 1 could not love her. If the psychic wanted love, she HAD to have child 2. Of course, there are billions of child 2s. The psychic knew that SOME of her kids would love her and spend eternity with her. She also knew that MOST of them would not. But, she decided that the option for love was greater than the option for separation. Thus, she went for it.

 

 

 

That's your riddle.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

As for your example with the psychic with two kids:

 

 

 

Psychic=God

 

Kid 1=???

 

Kid 2=Sinners (all of us)

 

 

 

Now, I don't know why you brought Kid 1 into this as it seems to me to be irrelevant. Maybe it's Jesus? But then it wouldn't be right because Jesus is fully God and was not created. He CAME into the world but was not created by Mary.

 

 

No. I never said child #1 is not a sinner. The point is that in the end he became a successful doctor, while in the end child #2 died as a drug addict.

 

 

 

My example fits fundamentalist religions perfectly.

 

 

 

 

Your religions example, about Hinduism over Christianity and all that, IS A TOTALLY NEW TOPIC. As of right now, we're debating the nature of truth and how you know something is true. It is somewhat related but that's a religions question. We're doing philosophy right now.

 

 

 

You can't debate the nature of truth if you do not establish even one thing that you consider to be an example of truth.

[Astralinre]

I figured out why Ghost's original example was inaccurate.

 

 

 

Here is the correct example:

 

A mother will have two children. She is a psychic, and she knows that child #1 will become a successful doctor, while child #2 will become a addict who is brutally killed by thugs on the street. Why should she even have child #2?

 

 

 

=> Because the mother was aware before child #2's birth that he will ultimately become a addict, she is responsible for his suffering because she created him anyway.

 

 

 

However, Child Two's addiction and are not the only parts of his life. As a child, he'll have a pet dog, play with his brother, watch a good movie, have a crush on a at school, make friends, eat candy, and be a kid. Mom knows that he's going to suffer later in life and die painfully, but nevertheless, she wants him to experience all the joys of being a kid.

 

 

 

No one's life is all bad. Even starving, HIV infected orphans in Africa have some simple joys - a kind word or bit of spare change from a stranger, seeing a sunset, finding the tastiest scrap of food ever. Could it be that God believes that if a person is able to experience one moment of pleasure, the pain is worth it? Is it possible that one fleeting glimpse of heaven makes a man's existence worthwhile, even if he is doomed to hell for eternity? Maybe, just maybe, God loves the damned enough that he'd rather them experience a little joy among an eternity of sadness, than to never exist or know happiness at all.

 

 

 

 

 

In regards to the whole Vedas/Bible thing, allow me to quote what started all of this.

 

 

 

 

Like I said before, truth does not change.

 

 

 

The Vedas (the sacred texts of Hinduism) were written in 1500 B.C, long before Christianity came into being. As you said, truth does not change. Therefore, according to you, the Vedas would be true and the Bible would be false.

 

 

 

Piano merely said that truth does not change; he did not claim that the Bible is true because it came before something else. You also made the assumption that the Vedas was true to begin with, according to Piano's beliefs, while his beliefs do not affirm. Saying that truth does not change does not equate to saying that whatever was accepted as truth first is true. That whole debate seems to me to be the result of a misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, my mistake, I did mean to type Christianity. I am not saying my beliefs are right, but I am simply saying it would make the world a better place if they were kept private.

 

 

 

Now I know someone is going to say, "What if your beliefs say to be public"

 

 

 

Well what would happen if my beliefs were to shoot up everytime I see a blue-jay because they are sacred?

 

 

 

It all has to do with social acceptancy. And because we accept publicized (SP) religion, it is a commen thought that they have the right to do what they want, as long as it is for religions sake, which is a very contorted veiw.

 

 

 

Alright, thank you. You did overlook my first question though, which is one of the things I was most curious about: "How did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea?"

 

 

 

And you seem to be very must against people preaching their religion to others, but what is wrong with it? If you follow Religion X, and you believe that Religion X will improve the lives of anyone who follows it, what is wrong with telling other people about it? Is it not a loving act to do what you believe to be best for others? Now, I'm not advocating shooting someone if you believe that it is good for them, but I am saying that if there is nothing directly harmful about Religion X, then what is wrong with wanting other people to convert to it?

 

 

 

Edit: Fixed a typo.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Those were some very touching words Astra. :P

[Guest GhostRanger]

I figured out why Ghost's original example was inaccurate.

 

 

 

Here is the correct example:

 

A mother will have two children. She is a psychic, and she knows that child #1 will become a successful doctor, while child #2 will become a drug addict who is brutally killed by thugs on the street. Why should she even have child #2?

 

 

 

=> Because the mother was aware before child #2's birth that he will ultimately become a drug addict, she is responsible for his suffering because she created him anyway.

 

 

 

You're figured out why I'm wrong? Why thank you!

 

 

 

What if child #2's death inspires someone who knew him to go into addiction counseling. What if the addiction counselor is able to save hundreds of lives because he saw the terrible life his friend led?

[jackalope14]

Those were some very touching words Astra. :P

 

 

 

I have to agree. I havnt been posting here, but I have been reading most of the posts and that was one of the best posts I have read so far.

 

Cool post Astralinre 8-)

[bearofthunder]

I figured out why Ghost's original example was inaccurate.

 

 

 

Here is the correct example:

 

A mother will have two children. She is a psychic, and she knows that child #1 will become a successful doctor, while child #2 will become a drug addict who is brutally killed by thugs on the street. Why should she even have child #2?

 

 

 

=> Because the mother was aware before child #2's birth that he will ultimately become a drug addict, she is responsible for his suffering because she created him anyway.

 

 

 

You're figured out why I'm wrong? Why thank you!

 

 

 

What if child #2's death inspires someone who knew him to go into addiction counseling. What if the addiction counselor is able to save hundreds of lives because he saw the terrible life his friend led?

 

 

 

I think you're referring to the non-believer being a warning/lesson to others. However, the key concept is my use of god as the creator of all. Therefore, anything you add to my example must be born (in other words, created) from the mother. So, in that case, the person who "saw the terrible life his friend led" must be child #3.

 

 

 

To phrase it better: if we are using my example, and we are to acknowledge god as the creator of the universe, then everyone must be "sons" and "daughters" born from the mother. There cannot be anyone who is not from that single family.

 

 

 

So, child #3 sees the terrible life of child #2. He then saves the lives of some of his siblings. However, the mother, before the birth of any of her children, already knew which of the siblings will ultimately be saved (whether by child #3 or otherwise). Therefore, she had the choice to choose which children to have. A choice that she did not take.

 

 

 

 

No one's life is all bad. Even starving, HIV infected orphans in Africa have some simple joys - a kind word or bit of spare change from a stranger, seeing a sunset, finding the tastiest scrap of food ever. Could it be that God believes that if a person is able to experience one moment of pleasure, the pain is worth it? Is it possible that one fleeting glimpse of heaven makes a man's existence worthwhile, even if he is doomed to hell for eternity? Maybe, just maybe, God loves the damned enough that he'd rather them experience a little joy among an eternity of sadness, than to never exist or know happiness at all.

 

 

 

Perhaps this is purely a matter of personal preference. Would you rather experience life and then spend eternity in hell, or not exist at all? Maybe you would prefer the former, but assuming your definition of god and the afterlife are correct, I would choose the latter.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Those were some very touching words Astra. :P

 

 

 

I have to agree. I havnt been posting here, but I have been reading most of the posts and that was one of the best posts I have read so far.

 

Cool post Astralinre 8-)

 

 

 

Yeah seriously, Astra I have to give you mad props. It made me think a lot.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I figured out why Ghost's original example was inaccurate.

 

 

 

Here is the correct example:

 

A mother will have two children. She is a psychic, and she knows that child #1 will become a successful doctor, while child #2 will become a drug addict who is brutally killed by thugs on the street. Why should she even have child #2?

 

 

 

=> Because the mother was aware before child #2's birth that he will ultimately become a drug addict, she is responsible for his suffering because she created him anyway.

 

 

 

You're figured out why I'm wrong? Why thank you!

 

 

 

What if child #2's death inspires someone who knew him to go into addiction counseling. What if the addiction counselor is able to save hundreds of lives because he saw the terrible life his friend led?

 

 

 

I think you're referring to the non-believer being a warning/lesson to others. However, the key concept is my use of god as the creator of all. Therefore, anything you add to my example must be born (in other words, created) from the mother. So, in that case, the person who "saw the terrible life his friend led" must be child #3.

 

 

 

To phrase it better: if we are using my example, and we are to acknowledge god as the creator of the universe, then everyone must be "sons" and "daughters" born from the mother. There cannot be anyone who is not from that single family.

 

 

 

So, child #3 sees the terrible life of child #2. He then saves the lives of some of his siblings. However, the mother, before the birth of any of her children, already knew which of the siblings will ultimately be saved (whether by child #3 or otherwise). Therefore, she had the choice to choose which children to have. A choice that she did not take. quote]

 

 

 

Perhaps this is purely a matter of personal preference. Would you rather experience life and then spend eternity in hell, or not exist at all? Maybe you would prefer the former, but assuming your definition of god and the afterlife are correct, I would choose the latter.

 

 

 

I wonder why you are under the impression the creating the potential for evil and creating evil are the same thing.

[pianofrieak2]

Those were some very touching words Astra. :P

 

 

 

I have to agree. I havnt been posting here, but I have been reading most of the posts and that was one of the best posts I have read so far.

 

Cool post Astralinre 8-)

 

 

 

Yeah seriously, Astra I have to give you mad props. It made me think a lot.

 

 

 

Boy, I have to agree. I had NEVER thought of it that way!! :D

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

I think you're referring to the non-believer being a warning/lesson to others. However, the key concept is my use of god as the creator of all. Therefore, anything you add to my example must be born (in other words, created) from the mother. So, in that case, the person who "saw the terrible life his friend led" must be child #3.

 

 

 

To phrase it better: if we are using my example, and we are to acknowledge god as the creator of the universe, then everyone must be "sons" and "daughters" born from the mother. There cannot be anyone who is not from that single family.

 

 

 

So, child #3 sees the terrible life of child #2. He then saves the lives of some of his siblings. However, the mother, before the birth of any of her children, already knew which of the siblings will ultimately be saved (whether by child #3 or otherwise). Therefore, she had the choice to choose which children to have. A choice that she did not take.

 

 

 

I wonder why you are under the impression the creating the potential for evil and creating evil are the same thing.

 

 

 

As I said, the mother knew, before the birth of any of her children, which ones will ultimately be good and which ones will ultimately be evil. If the above sentence differs from god's situation, please correct me.

 

 

 

Because of the mother's sentient capability, evil is no longer a potential. Evil will exist if she decides to have the evil children, and evil will not exist if she decides not to have the evil children. There is no uncertainty or possibility involved. Before she made her decision, she was already aware of the ultimate, final, end result.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

I think you're referring to the non-believer being a warning/lesson to others. However, the key concept is my use of god as the creator of all. Therefore, anything you add to my example must be born (in other words, created) from the mother. So, in that case, the person who "saw the terrible life his friend led" must be child #3.

 

 

 

To phrase it better: if we are using my example, and we are to acknowledge god as the creator of the universe, then everyone must be "sons" and "daughters" born from the mother. There cannot be anyone who is not from that single family.

 

 

 

So, child #3 sees the terrible life of child #2. He then saves the lives of some of his siblings. However, the mother, before the birth of any of her children, already knew which of the siblings will ultimately be saved (whether by child #3 or otherwise). Therefore, she had the choice to choose which children to have. A choice that she did not take.

 

 

 

I wonder why you are under the impression the creating the potential for evil and creating evil are the same thing.

 

 

 

As I said, the mother knew, before the birth of any of her children, which ones will ultimately be good and which ones will ultimately be evil. If the above sentence differs from god's situation, please correct me.

 

 

 

Because of the mother's sentient capability, evil is no longer a potential. Evil will exist if she decides to have the evil children, and evil will not exist if she decides not to have the evil children. There is no uncertainty or possibility involved. Before she made her decision, she was already aware of the ultimate, final, end result.

 

 

 

Just because evil WILL exist does not mean that God created evil. It means he created (by giving free choice) the potential for evil. Just because he knows that it will exist, doesn't make him responsible for creating it. Those who created it are responsible for their own actions.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Just because evil WILL exist does not mean that God created evil. It means he created (by giving free choice) the potential for evil. Just because he knows that it will exist, doesn't make him responsible for creating it. Those who created it are responsible for their own actions.

 

 

 

He knew since the beginning which of his people will use their "free choice" to choose evil. He could have eliminated those people from the start.

 

 

 

Edit:

Those were some very touching words Astra. :P

 

 

 

I have to agree. I havnt been posting here, but I have been reading most of the posts and that was one of the best posts I have read so far.

 

Cool post Astralinre 8-)

 

 

 

Yeah seriously, Astra I have to give you mad props. It made me think a lot.

 

 

 

Boy, I have to agree. I had NEVER thought of it that way!! :D

 

 

 

As I said before, the prospects of eternal damnation do not seem very touching to me. If I were given the choice between experiencing life and then spending eternity in hell, or not existing at all, I would choose the second option.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

Just because evil WILL exist does not mean that God created evil. It means he created (by giving free choice) the potential for evil. Just because he knows that it will exist, doesn't make him responsible for creating it. Those who created it are responsible for their own actions.

 

 

 

He knew since the beginning which of his people will use their "free choice" to choose evil. He could have eliminated those people from the start.

 

 

 

But that wouldn't be just. That would be eliminating free will by not allowing them to live. If it's not just, it certainly isn't good. That's what I said earlier, you are making up your own definition of good to EXCLUDE being just, which you can't do.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

He knew since the beginning which of his people will use their "free choice" to choose evil. He could have eliminated those people from the start.

 

 

 

But that wouldn't be just. That would be eliminating free will by not allowing them to live. If it's not just, it certainly isn't good. That's what I said earlier, you are making up your own definition of good to EXCLUDE being just, which you can't do.

 

 

 

But these people would have no chance of being saved. If they are allowed to live, then they will definitely go to hell.

 

 

 

Being in that situation doesn't seem just or good.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

He knew since the beginning which of his people will use their "free choice" to choose evil. He could have eliminated those people from the start.

 

 

 

But that wouldn't be just. That would be eliminating free will by not allowing them to live. If it's not just, it certainly isn't good. That's what I said earlier, you are making up your own definition of good to EXCLUDE being just, which you can't do.

 

 

 

But these people would have no chance of being saved. If they are allowed to live, then they will definitely go to hell.

 

 

 

Being in that situation doesn't seem just or good.

 

 

 

It's not a matter of letting them live. If they were NOT allowed to live that would eliminate free will which is unjust.

[bearofthunder]

 

It's not a matter of letting them live. If they were NOT allowed to live that would eliminate free will which is unjust.

 

 

 

That would mean we have a god who sends people into the world knowing he will punish them. This might fit your definition of just, but it certainly doesn't seem right to me.

[Astralinre]

Thanks for all your encouragement, guys. :)

 

 

 

 

It's not a matter of letting them live. If they were NOT allowed to live that would eliminate free will which is unjust.

 

 

 

That would mean we have a god who brings certain people into the world with the acknowledgement that he will punish them. This might fit your definition of just, but it certainly doesn't seem right to me.

 

 

 

Well, perhaps we could resolve this problem if you told us your definition of just?

 

 

 

The way I see it, how can anything God does with His creation be unjust? Assuming the Bible as truth, God is the creator of everything; apart from His will, nothing is able to exist. Therefore, since what is created owes everything it is, including its very existence, to God, is it not fitting that God has full rights to do with it what He wishes?

 

 

 

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅI will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[bearofthunder]

Thanks for all your encouragement, guys. :)

 

 

 

 

It's not a matter of letting them live. If they were NOT allowed to live that would eliminate free will which is unjust.

 

 

 

That would mean we have a god who brings certain people into the world with the acknowledgement that he will punish them. This might fit your definition of just, but it certainly doesn't seem right to me.

 

 

 

Well, perhaps we could resolve this problem if you told us your definition of just?

 

 

 

The way I see it, how can anything God does with His creation be unjust? Assuming the Bible as truth, God is the creator of everything; apart from His will, nothing is able to exist. Therefore, since what is created owes everything it is, including its very existence, to God, is it not fitting that God has full rights to do with it what He wishes?

 

 

 

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅI will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Astralinre]

Thanks for all your encouragement, guys. :)

 

 

 

 

It's not a matter of letting them live. If they were NOT allowed to live that would eliminate free will which is unjust.

 

 

 

That would mean we have a god who brings certain people into the world with the acknowledgement that he will punish them. This might fit your definition of just, but it certainly doesn't seem right to me.

 

 

 

Well, perhaps we could resolve this problem if you told us your definition of just?

 

 

 

The way I see it, how can anything God does with His creation be unjust?

 

Assuming the Bible as truth, God is the creator of everything; apart from His will, nothing is able to exist. Therefore, since what is created owes everything it is, including its very existence, to God, is it not fitting that God has full rights to do with it what He wishes?

 

 

 

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅI will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[pianofrieak2]

 

As I said before, the prospects of eternal damnation do not seem very touching to me. If I were given the choice between experiencing life and then spending eternity in hell, or not existing at all, I would choose the second option.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, bear, but I simply do not understand how you can say that statement. For one thing, you are not omniscient. You CAN say, "based on my life so far, I would choose the latter." However, you don't know what it's like to not exist.

 

 

 

In that light, I would argue that God, in his sovereignty (as Astra has so wisely pointed out), decided to give them joy and happiness in this life, even if that means that their end result is in hell. You just have to trust his omniscient and just judgement.

 

 

 

And then, of course, look at that scripture.

 

 

 

(Astra, that's a weird translation. What translation is it?)

[bearofthunder]

The point of the passage is not that God is hypocritical in doing this

 

 

 

I don't think you read through my post. In it, I agreed with you completely. I can no longer accuse god of being hypocritical because your quote from the bible shows me that his actions of bringing bringing non-believers to earth in order to punish them and show believers how fortunate they are match up with his holy text.

 

 

 

Before, I said that Christianity doesn't support the part I underlined, but because of your bible quote, I admit that I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, bear, but I simply do not understand how you can say that statement. For one thing, you are not omniscient. You CAN say, "based on my life so far, I would choose the latter." However, you don't know what it's like to not exist.

 

 

 

To borrow from your last sentence: If the latter option came true, I wouldn't know what it's like not to exist because I wouldn't exist. In fact, to take it further, I wouldn't know anything because I wouldn't be anything.

[pianofrieak2]

Precisely? :)