sorry if i offended anyone
- Nov 26, 2008
This is a meaningless statement. How does the existence of humans bring glory to god? By creating tiny, flawed, insignificant little creatures, this "brings glory" to an all powerful being? Really? And for whose benefit is the glory being brought? Does an all powerful god need to create insignificant little creatures to feel good about himself? To earn the esteem of angels in heaven? Why on earth would he do that?For brevity, short answer - humans exist to the glory of God. Refer to the quotation at the bottom of this post
No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that humans can literally will beliefs into existence. There is no evidence of this, and it contradicts the experience of virtually everyone on earth. And even if I can only know that this is true of myself personally, that would be enough. I know I cannot choose what I believe, so it absurd to treat my belief or disbelief in a certain thing as a moral failing.2. Firstly the burden of proof is on you. You have made a claim that is unsubstantiated (in the context here). I'll respond below to this...
If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe in the easter bunny, can you do it? Can you choose to sincerely, truly, genuinely believe that the easter bunny exists? You can want to believe it exists, you can say you believe it exists. But whether you actually believe it exists deep down is something entirely out of your control.
The burden of proof is on you because its not even clear what consciously deciding to change your mind even means.
Everything we think or feel consciously comes from our unconscious brain as the product of some neurophysiological events that can be functionally described as performing some sort of information processing. Which is to say, our conscious experiences are an effect that arises from unconscious causes. To consciously choose what we believe would mean that an effect, conscious thought, is driving unconscious information processing, a cause; that is, an effect is controlling the thing causing it. This is nonsensical and necessarily cannot be the case.
1. I'm not saying god is a moron, I'm saying that a god which holds us morally accountable for things we cannot control is nonsensical.4B. God is a moron to expect us to believe in him on the basis on "no evidence".
2. My criticism is more fundamental than belief without evidence. If you show somebody evidence and they still don't believe, this is still not a decision. Their brain either finds it compelling or it doesn't. To say we can consciously decide these things is nonsensical.
Morality is fundamentally how we FEEL about a subject. We cannot choose how we feel about something. I do not have a "moral" aversion to murder because I decided there are reasons why murder is wrong. There are logical reasons I think it is wrong, but fundamentally I have an aversion to it for non-conscious reasons.Even if we grant you (1), how we would even begin to validate or justify your claims of innate morality absolutes such as (3)?
These reasons may not necessarily be innate, though some almost assuredly are. But even if they are the result of 'society' or something, how is that under my control? It's not. And god made our brains capable of having a certain moral viewpoint, and he KNEW when he created us that at least some us of us would helplessly end up having this moral viewpoint. And then he punishes us because of this moral viewpoint which we have no control over?
1. What you're saying isn't actually proof against what I'm arguing. Whether or not we can hold terrorists responsible for their actions is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. It's either true or or isn't, the societal impacts of it being true do not affect its truth value.From (2), if our behaviour, thinking, belief e.g. what an extremist Muslims believe, is fixed and predetermined by brain chemical makeup.
(I'd like to see the science behind this); then logically you cannot (consistently) complain that for e.g. a extremist Muslim being consistent with their internal wiring is violent nor demand that he be held accountable for his actions; we cannot hold him responsible; because it would be immoral for us to expect him to do something he is unable to do; he is simply doing what his predetermined brain. This is basically (3) applied to a different situation.
2. I'm not saying they're morally responsible. I'm saying they're doing harm, so its rational to get away from them or stop them from doing harm. Punishment makes no sense as a strictly punitive measure. It makes sense to remove people from society to stop them doing harm, to dissuade others from doing harm, or to rehabilitate people (if possible) so they do not do harmful behaviours again.
This is merely presupposing that people are "supressing the truth by their "wickedness" ". There is no basis for this.Why are we held accountable for unbelief? For those who accept what God has to say on this matter:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
But it HASN'T been clearly seen. Some people saw something that their unconscious minds found compelling. How can something "invisible" AND "clearly seen"? Its a contradiction of terms.since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
Yeah, no, this is moronic. I do not know of god anymore than I know of the easter bunny. I'm not being facetious , this is literally true. I have never seen god and I cannot make myself believe in god.For although they knew [of] God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened..."
No, this is absolutely, 100% false.(Basically the existence of God should be self-existent from certain things in nature understood correctly; e.g. the concept of logic)
This is even more nonsensical. I cannot "love and accept" that which I do not believe in, and I cannot choose what I believe in. Which makes punishment for not "accepting god" completely nonsensical.If we reject (2) (and consequently (4A), then (3) is not as much a problem. Because we can definitely conclude that belief is something impossible.
But this is where we hit a slight problem, what is belief?
Belief is not merely accepting the existence of God, it is the idea of love, commitment, trust and acceptance of a person; the antithesis being hate, dischord, rejection. Some of theses involve decisions some involve convincement.
We are left with (4B) we then ask the question about evidence. The Christian worldview presents it like this:
Says who? Where is the evidence that god commands this? There is none.'Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
For the hundredth time, god calling humans ignorant makes no sense. He made us the way we are. He knew how we would turn out. We have no control over what we what think or believe. It is god's fault if we do not turn out as he wants us to. He is punishing us for his own actions.So the proof that God will judge the world for their ignorance
I have no reason to believe that the resurrection happened. I have no reason to believe the alleged writings of the alleged experiences of alleged historical figures written in dead languages I don't understand, any more than I do the various other goofy claims of millions of other people throughout history which you also reject.which has previously overlooked; is by the resurrection.
Again, I literally CANNOT CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT HAPPENED. I CANNOT MAKE MYSELF BELIEVE IT HAPPENED, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I WANTED TO. It is not something I have control over.Christians are those who believed a particular non-fungible event in history happened, and that event has significance/relevance.
Christians are those who particular the word of Christ in what he says about God.
I do not even know if Christ even existed in the first place. I sure as shit have never heard anything this potentially non-existent person ever said.If you look closely at your posts, you actually give the actual reason for why you don't believe: because you reject the word about God from Christ.