Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[bubbly89]

Hey god, here's an idea, don't be so cryptic, just appear and clearly present your advice.

Well... technically that's what the whole story is about, "bad things happen, its a part of life, and there's not much we can do about it"

This is an explanation of why we suffer according to the Christian/Jew/Islamic God, it is not proof of existance, its provided courtesy of le bible- which most people would consider a slightly bias source

I think God's advice for the most part is set out pretty well in the bible, course the fact that it is written by man screws with it a little, but for the most part its pretty clear.

It is also implied that Job wouldn't have been able to understand if God had told him the truth about the goings on in his head...

I believe for two main reasons
a)personal experiences, which are of course anecdotal and of no use to you guys
b)out of all the explanations/non explanations of why we exist, I believe this one feels right

 

[shut up]

Hey god, here's an idea, don't be so cryptic, just appear and clearly present your advice. Oh thats right, we never actually get to see you or hear from you. We have to read your word through the translations of human beings. Yeah that's totally a sensible way for an all powerful being to communicate.

Anyone remember this guy called Jesus????

 

[jazzbaby]

Yes.

 

[shut up]

Free will ( drum roll)
People are born because they were conceived and raised by their parents - who exercised free will to do so
Our choices, and those of our family/ancestors determine much of our situation in life
God lets us do what we will - He only acts through us when we allow Him to

and again - suffering is only without any benefit in a material sense of the word
also, i remember vaguely a quote about many houses in heaven
People who have had it easy have to do a lot more - as a lot has been given, much is expected, to be close to God, to get to Heaven

im not saying dont help people who suffer, it is in fact our duty to do everything we can to improve their quality of life
but dont dismiss the lives of the said millions simply because its not your life, or assume that they are not loved by God

 

[bubbly89]

Not much we can do about it? He's fucking God! This guy is supposed to be all powerful.

Its part of a plan, WE do not know the plan, WE do not know it, God chooses not to act.

Its fine if you consider this a horrible approach and consider God as a horrible being, or even consider that no being of such power could do this, but I'm just trying to demonstrate what I've been taught. I cannot tell you why these people suffer, because last time I checked I'm not God

I think the Job story is a poor analogy to the examples I have listed of mass starvation and slavery. I challenge you to provide an explaination for the purpose of this immense suffering.

I think its ridiculous to assume that just because there are millions of people in the world who do not have much, this does not equate to unhappiness/suffering.

Yet while these people do experience great suffering many still have faith in God

 

[chicky_pie]

Free will ( drum roll)
People are born because they were conceived and raised by their parents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZccnGspog0

Just look at those kids.

 

[darkliight]

I think you may have mis-understood my point. The point was not that God wants to prevent people from helping those that are in suffering.

Good, I didn't think that is what you meant, though that would still be fucked up. Your assertion, from the last post, that your god maintains a level of suffering by taking into account any help we try and give, says to me you're worshipping a fucked up god.

It was saying that God may have allowed them to stay in suffering knowing that a greater good could be achieved by allowing someone else to help them (or any variety on this). There seems to be an infinite number of possibilities of why God may withhold help from those suffering. That being the case, it is impossible for us to use this as a reason for why God doesn't not exist.

If suffering is the best method your god has for maximising "good", you worship an incompetant god.

 

[DownInFlames]

ie That God allows suffering to exist cannot be used as evidence against his existence. lrn2english

Yeah I get that. I beleive it too. It's just that what he said read as "It can't be used a reason why God does exist." Which is the opposite of what he meant. It's a double negative. lrn2maths

 

[DownInFlames]

If suffering is the best method your god has for maximising "good", you worship an incompetant god.

Would you agree that suffering builds character?

 

[darkliight]

Would you agree that suffering builds character?

Do I really have to link to a picture of some starving children to answer that?

 

[DownInFlames]

Do I really have to link to a picture of some starving children to answer that?

These starving children are trying to survive, though, and they have so much more appreciation for what they do get. Most of us think we're hard done by if we don't have a mobile phone. If we go on the God spiel, their lives on earth are only a part of the plan. So no matter what happens to them here, which is quite terrible, they will be given new life where they will never, ever have to suffer again.

 

[Gay Captain]

Would you agree that suffering builds character?

Well God watched us suffer throughout the entire paleolithic and neolithic eras where we lived to be about 20 and died of hunger and disease and knew nothing about the world

Until 6k or 2k years ago he sent us a message via some guys in the middle east

So he must be a fan of it

 

[DownInFlames]

Well God watched us suffer throughout the entire paleolithic and neolithic eras where we lived to be about 20 and died of hunger and disease and knew nothing about the world

Until 6k or 2k years ago he sent us a message via some guys in the middle east

So he must be a fan of it

nicely done.

 

[Gay Captain]

If we go on the God spiel, their lives on earth are only a part of the plan. So no matter what happens to them here, which is quite terrible, they will be given new life where they will never, ever have to suffer again.

Unless they live in Islamic parts of Africa say in which case they'll burn for all eternity

Or if they were too young to know about religion when they die they may or may not go to Limbo depending on whether or not you're Catholic although even if you are Catholic you wouldn't be sure because the Pope recently said actually they don't go to Limbo but maybe they do or maybe Limbo doesn't exist after all

 

[darkliight]

These starving children are trying to survive, though, and they have so much more appreciation for what they do get. Most of us think we're hard done by if we don't have a mobile phone. If we go on the God spiel, their lives on earth are only a part of the plan. So no matter what happens to them here, which is quite terrible, they will be given new life where they will never, ever have to suffer again.

It's attitudes like that that make me glad I'm an atheist. I wouldn't ever dismiss someones life so easily.

 

[sam04u]

oh you mean that guy mentioned in the koran?

Jesus is mentioned in the Qur'an. Quite extensively actually.

 

[bubbly89]

Or if they were too young to know about religion when they die they may or may not go to Limbo depending on whether or not you're Catholic although even if you are Catholic you wouldn't be sure because the Pope recently said actually they don't go to Limbo but maybe they do or maybe Limbo doesn't exist after all

If you die before you've had a chance to learn about God then you also go to heaven, this also goes for people who practice some random tribal religion but have had no exposure to the Christian God. As long as you're not a psycho killer of course...

So basically new born babies, tribal, and random religious people are covered in terms of going to heaven.

 

[Gay Captain]

Yeah but until recently the official line was they went to Limbo

but then the Pope changed his mind

so did they ever go there or not? Or did they all go to heaven when the Pope said they did, lol

 

[BradCube]

Oh my goodness, this thread has exploded with new people and opinions. I'm still working through replies from a few pages back so bear with me.

It is important to realise that Ockham's Razor is not about what is true, but is about what we are justified in believing is true. It does not say that all the other hypotheses are wrong. Indeed one of them may, in fact, be right! Nonetheless, unless they can garner acceptable empirical (or logical) support which makes them essential in our explanation, or scientific coherence, we cannot be (epistemically) justified in accepting them.

Excellent explanation KFunk. I thank you.

I suppose the problem arises when we hear people say that Ockham's Razor shows that something is not true - therefore not even worth testing or investigating. This dismissal seems to happen often and I feel is an irresponsible use of Ockham's Razor.

On another note, I forgot to mention that I started to work through the paper on evolution of reciprocity. I didn't make it very far for 3 reasons:

1. I was extremely tired
2. The explanations were quite wordy and required a great deal of concentration
3. It seemed to be making assumptions about a few things (ie the benefit of giving is greater than that of receiving)

Now, obviously point (1) + (2) don't hold any weight, but they do explain why I may have misunderstood (3). So with that, would you be able to explain to me where this assumption came from and if it was anything more than intuition on their part?

 

[BradCube]

i am asking if god knows if we will choose to follow his purpose or not. if he knows exactly who will, why "make sure" by putting us on earth in the first place? (read more about this below) if he does not, he cannot withhold good from people over a certain time period for true good as he wont know if we will suddenly choose to reject his purpose, thus suddenly leading to no true-good outcome.

Simple answer is that I don't know. Essentially what you are asking me, is that if God knew we would turn away from him, why create us in the first place. I mean essentially if he knew we would turn away then he is the one condemning us to hell by creating us right? One explanation I have heard is that this theory implies that the being is already created. I however find it hard to follow this line of thought since it says that an omnipotent God is incapable of pre-conceptualization. It's an issue definitely worth investigation and I would be open to hear anyones thoughts or possible explanations for this.

this is an answer to a different question which i wasnt asking. the whole reason for "life on earth" (and not heaven) is because adam and eve sinned (according to my interpretation of the bible). we are born separated from god, which was why god sent jesus- to "save the world". our only purpose on earth as humans is to "get back" with god (seems to me), and its this which is our choice... once this is achieved, what is the purpose to still be left in a sinful world; whats left to do which cant be done in heaven? save others? .. but god already knows exactly who you would save, who would end up believing in him, since * leaving such a purpose non-purposeful.

This again ties pretty closely in with the above problem so there is not much worth debating about here.

of course it will still be our choice, however the point is that god already knows the outcome. its like god has a mathematical formula which he knows is true... why then test it in experiment when he doesnt need verification? ... god already knows our choice... whys he therefore testing it on earth?

I would pose that it is so the people that make up that formula also know that it is true.

i guess i just have trouble understanding what god exactly wants us to do on earth. could not our free-will still exist being born straight into heaven?

Sure it could exist being born in to heaven, but it would end up with the same result as that on earth. Much in the same way I would guess that Satan became Satan (as we briefly discussed earlier in the thread).

wiping out "all human life" is completely different to wiping out "all life" (as quoted from the bible). there would be no point for noahs ark to facilitate animals if god was just wiping out human life?

There would be no point for the ark to hold animals if it included wiping out all of them too would there? I would think the most accurate interpretation of this story would come by looking at Gods intention for wiping out life - to eradicate the overwhelming majority of people that had turned from God and were living completely in sin. Unless you believe that animals have the ability to turn from God and live sinful lives, then I don't think it would be in His purpose to eradicate them.

check out genesis 6:17 "i am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it..." or specifically, 7:21-24 "...only noah was left, and those with him in the ark" (NIV). doesnt sound like it was local at all.

I'm guessing that you didn't read the link I attached in the last post. That's okay . The article dealt with this towards the end. I'll quote it for simplicity:

A universal flood can be local if humanity is local, he says. The Bible also has many examples in which “the whole world” is used to describe a local area. For instance, kings and queens supposedly came from throughout the entire world to hear of Solomon’s wisdom.

“They actually came [from] as far as Ethiopia,” Mr. Ross says. “In 1 Kings 10, the Queen of Sheba came the farthest, and she only had to travel 1,500 miles, roughly. In the New Testament, Paul says the faith of the Roman Christians has been heard throughout the whole world. He meant throughout the entire Roman empire.”

im not saying he "wants you to go to hell" (lamentations 3:33 - for he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men.) im asking what if he told you he's sending you to hell (unwillingly) for the good of a bigger purpose? if this question still doesnt make sense... what if god told you to kill someone for the good of a bigger purpose?

I doubt God (at least the christian God) would tell me to kill a person 1 on 1 simply because I can't think of any cases that type of thing has been documented (in the bible that is). Not only that 1 on 1 murder are usually for malicious reasons. Certainly if God had asked me to go to war for a greater purpose - I would consider it.

god commanded murder. he commanded the killing of children and animals. he commanded the complete annihilation of villages without mercy. its like saying "oh it was just killing... all the children and animals had to die, its not like it was slaughter or anything..."

The difference here is that the people carrying out the act aren't doing it maliciously.

also, what reason would god have to kill anyone? because they are sinners?

Again this goes back to the argument before that we do not have sufficient knowledge (ie that of Gods) to know what Gods reasons are for killing someone or allowing suffering. I could take a guess however that it is as you said because they are sinners and God is passing on his judgment upon them. A hard proposition to stick to I realise (), but nevertheless there it is.