Arguments against God's existence

[GordonBOPS]

Who said that there wasn’t a cause? I just said the cause wasn’t a being.

See, that takes faith to think that way. I guess no one can say that Athiests dont have faith…

 

[AlmostCatholic]

There is actually a really good reason for it being the only really good proof against God. Claims that God is all-loving, all-merciful, and all-just are really the only claims that anyone could possibly test. They are the only thing that is claimed about God that would have any visible, tangible, or perceivable affects.

But even love is not as clear cut as you’d like. A good father isn’t necessarilly the one who spoils the child and protects him from all evil and pain. But he allows pain to teach and to make the child into something better. I don’t at all claim this as the full answer to the problem. But it answers some parts of the problem, such as why do I as a conscious person suffer- because suffering has meaning.(This was another point well made by Dostoyevsky)
The problem in this logical argument is an ambiguity in the terms. Love is not simply kindness. Many of the other people here have pointed out the crucifixion as an example of that. Consider the Christian point of view when we say that God is all good and all love, and had His Son murdered. So the Christian idea that God is Love, goes alongside the idea that God is a consuming fire.

You know, you seem nice. You really do, but I am so flipping sick of the “God is the universal standard” argument that I wish it was in my power to ban it forever.

Do you really think God is what makes punches hurt and hugs feel good? Do you think he really is some sort of cosmic scale or thermometer? Seriously, even if there were a God deciding right and wrong, he would have to be basing it on something. If he isn’t, it isn’t right or wrong, it is the arbitrary decision of a cosmic despot.

Thank you for your compliment, I will try to live up to it.

I’m sorry you don’t like the cosmic standard argument, but I don’t see a way around it. If there is really right and wrong, then it has to be based on something. When we blame God for the evil in the world, we are really saying something. Evil really is there. Without God, those things we’re saying are only an illusion.

As to the arbitrariness of the universal law, I think that is a good question too. My best understanding of it is that it is co-eternal with God. It cannot be higher and precede God because God is uncaused and eternal. It also cannot be arbitrarilly decided on by God, becasue it is part of God’s nature. As long as God exists, goodness and love exist. It is an eternal consequence of an eternal act of being.

As great a writer as Dostoevsky was, I don’t buy his argument.

But how does it not follow? If there is no ultimate justice, then why shouldn’t I do whatever it takes to live how I want. Why not kill an old man to have some money. If I’m clever enough to not get caught, then so what. Even utilitarianism doesn’t help here. I could kill the man painlessly so that he doesn’t suffer. In fact, why should I care if he suffers? The lion isn’t concerned about easing the pain of the gazelle. Without God, or if you prefer an ultimate standard, then all of my talk about doing good is as empty and meaningless as any other gas coming from my body.

1. I don’t know if there is a universal code, but I suspect not. 2. This doesn’t stop me from living as if there is one. 3. Being somewhat logical and living with other somewhat logical beings, we can construct a somewhat logical set of assumptions about what the moral code, if it were to exist, would be. 4. Using this moral code, I can decide whether God, if he exists, is living according to it.

1. and 3. From your first premise, let’s say there is no code. What could we logically say about something that doesn’t exist? Wouldn’t many atheists say that theologians are wasting there time expounding on an illusion. Wouldn’t they say that all are talk of a non-existant God can be nothing better than nonsense?
2. From your second premise, why should I or anyone at all follow your code? Especially if it doesn’t exist. It is really an empirical observation that no one does that. If I say, you ought not steal from me, you don’t say ‘to hell with your standard’; you argue why this case isn’t stealling or is a misunderstanding. The fact that we all assume this moral code tells us something about its existence.
3. A universal law of good cannot escape a universal or eternal metaphysical source. You don’t have to conclude yet that this is the same God Christians worship, that usually takes some more steps, but it just isn’t avoidable. If there really is a moral law then you really can use it to ague to God. But if not, then this is all sophistry. Lewis said that the problem of pain can only truly be a problem within Christianity. (I’m sorry to quote more C.S. Lewis but I really do like how he says things.)

I wrote too much and I’ll have to post twice…

 

[AlmostCatholic]

I could say the same about compassion or love. Does it exist out there, or is it a human construction? Either way, we can examine what God does, apparently, and decide if it conforms to the definition of love and compassion that we believe in.

I’ve said some things about love and I think the question turns on this. Love is not the same thing as kindness. We can be kind to a suffering animal and put it out of its misery. But doing that to a family member isn’t necessarilly the most loving act possible.

In the consideration of love, we have to take into acount human freedom. As I’ve said before, I think the problem of pain is very difficult and the emotional weight of it can’t be ignored. So in my understanding, this all really rests on human freedom. Without that in the equation, I think you would be right in calling God a sadist. But it is our freedom (and the freedom of angels- although I know that you may think me foolish to beleive in them) that establishes a possiblity of evil. This is different from the possibility of suffering. Suffering it seems would have to be possible in any world where there is a medium. We have matter and so I can feel pain in my material nerves because of material boulders falling on my foot. If we want to remove the possibility of this kind of suffering then we would have to deny its properties at all moments. God could make the boulder disappear to stop my suffering, but if that was the norm, we wouldn’t have a material universe to trust. It seems that just having a universe makes the possibility of suffering a real possibility. These nerve receptors are themselves a good thing. Imagine the misery of leperousy and the pleasure of a soft caress.

To get back to evil, this is going to be a real possibility whenever there is freedom. If God wants to create loving beings, part of that love has to be chosen. God cannot force someone to love Him and still call it love (God is not a cosmic rapist). With these factors, it would be impossible for God to create a universe where free agents choose to love Him and no one has any pain. This is the minimum answer that we can get. The problem though is that we usually want specifics. Why am I suffering, why does the baby suffer? Why allow a holocaust? Even in the holocaust, Victor Frankl found that suffering is meaningful. It is redemptive. (You are probably familiar with his book Man’s search for meaning.) I cannot say the exact reasons why. Others have already pointed out that we are limited and cannot possibly know the answer. But we trust that there is an answer.

As Christians we are the only faith that has visual evidence that suffering is meaningful. We look at the example of Christ as that. That is God in flesh being flayed and abandoned. But this suffering was meaningful because of the resurrection. This is why Isaiah says that by his stripes we are healed. Only in Christ is the meaning of suffering changed into redemption. (But suffering isn’t only meaningful for Christians.) Now, I don’t expect you to accept all of these things, but I would hope that it at least helps you understand why Christians believe that we have an answer to the question of suffering.

I hope that this helps you.

God bless you in your journey,

-Justin

www.jmjensenart.com
(Is that rude to put my website URL on here?):ehh:

 

[Sideline]

See, that takes faith to think that way. I guess no one can say that Athiests dont have faith…

On that, we agree! :extrahappy:

I’ve posted elsewhere that I think that everyone must have a measure of faith, just as everyone must have a measure of skepticism.

 

[Sideline]

But even love is not as clear cut as you’d like. A good father isn’t necessarilly the one who spoils the child and protects him from all evil and pain. But he allows pain to teach and to make the child into something better.

Perhaps my post gave you the wrong impression of how I perceive love. You might find this hard to believe, but I’ve actually had a relationship or two in my lifetime. I’ve experienced love a few times and I know think I can recognize it when I see it. I know it isn’t all sunshine and light. I’ve also experienced neglect and abuse in my life, and I’m not the slightest bit confused which is which.

Many of the other people here have pointed out the crucifixion as an example of that. Consider the Christian point of view when we say that God is all good and all love, and had His Son murdered. So the Christian idea that God is Love, goes alongside the idea that God is a consuming fire.

Wow, I just have nothing to say to that. Every so often I think that there can be a common ground in these discussions, then we hit points like that. You see white where I see black.

As to the arbitrariness of the universal law, I think that is a good question too. My best understanding of it is that it is co-eternal with God. It cannot be higher and precede God because God is uncaused and eternal.

How would…
Excuse me for a moment.

:banghead:

O.K. I think I’m ready to go on now. Did God have to make a circle a circle? Did he have to decide on that point? Could God have made a non-circular circle? Would you say it is actually a fair statement to say that circles need God like fish need bicycles?

Why should ethics be any different?

But how does it not follow? If there is no ultimate justice, then why shouldn’t I do whatever it takes to live how I want. Why not kill an old man to have some money. If I’m clever enough to not get caught, then so what.

It worries me that the vast majority of Christians I talk to have this strange desire to become sociopaths.

Again, this is one of those points that we are never going to see eye to eye on.

1. and 3. From your first premise, let’s say there is no code. What could we logically say about something that doesn’t exist? Wouldn’t many atheists say that theologians are wasting there time expounding on an illusion. Wouldn’t they say that all are talk of a non-existant God can be nothing better than nonsense?

I’m completely confused about what your point here is.

1. From your second premise, why should I or anyone at all follow your code?

Enlightened self-interest. Actually, why should I follow the code if there is a God? If I only behave because I’m being judged I’m not really all that ethical.

Especially if it doesn’t exist. It is really an empirical observation that no one does that. If I say, you ought not steal from me, you don’t say ‘to hell with your standard’; you argue why this case isn’t stealling or is a misunderstanding. The fact that we all assume this moral code tells us something about its existence.

Yes, it tells us that we all act as if it exists. Just the way that we act as if there are many imaginary things.

You don’t have to conclude yet that this is the same God Christians worship, that usually takes some more steps, but it just isn’t avoidable.

You are kidding right?

If there really is a moral law then you really can use it to ague to God.

I’ve seen it attempted, yes. And the people who tried it seemed to think that they weren’t being completely absurd. Unfortunately, we kind of disagreed on that point.

 

[Sideline]

I’ve said some things about love and I think the question turns on this. Love is not the same thing as kindness. We can be kind to a suffering animal and put it out of its misery. But doing that to a family member isn’t necessarilly the most loving act possible.

I thought Catholics thought that killing their children was the ultimate act of love. Oh right, that only applies to God. Your absolute law confuses me.

Again, this might seem strange to you, but I’ve actually had some first hand experience with love. I’m fairly familiar with it. I’ve been fortunate in love. I know the difference between love and kindness. What did I write that made you think I didn’t?

In the consideration of love, we have to take into acount human freedom.

The whole free will thing just seems like another lame excuse.

Why do people that won’t cut other people any slack at all bend over backwards trying to protect their possibly imaginary friend?

I tell you that I want you to be free to chose. You do something I don’t like. Instead of sucking it up, and being a man, I punish you and your children. I curse you and your decedents for generations.
Then I decide what we need to do is to have a big blood sacrifice. I magically split myself into two, sort of, and let you kill me. As long as you believe the person you killed is me, we’re all good. If not I let an evil of creation of mine torture you for all eternity.

You think the problem with that is that I just don’t get it? That’s just too sophisticated a concept for me to comprehend? Believe me, I get it. Apparently, we’ve read a lot of the same books. You thought they were great, and I thought they blew.

The problem I have with the concept is not that I don’t get it, it’s that I think it’s vile. If God exists, and God is exactly the way that Christianity describes, then I chose hell. I want to be as far away him as possible.

Fortunately, I don’t believe it. I still have hope that there is a God I can accept. I haven’t found him yet. I’m positive that C.S. Lewis wouldn’t know him if he tripped over him, but I believe… well, I hope, he might be out there.

www.jmjensenart.com
(Is that rude to put my website URL on here?):ehh:

Lots of other people do it. Doesn’t seem rude to me.

 

[Sideline]

Sorry, I was in a bad mood yesterday.

Really rough day, very little sleep the night before.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hi there!

First of all… My apologies… I meant to say Eschatology (But my speller had a different idea). I think you got the sense of what I was saying. I also attributed a quote to Paul but he never said this (although others did such as Peter) but this does not changes the argument.

Moral of the story: Don’t blame people because your all-loving God is a sadist…

Actually… that is not the moral of the story, the moral of the story is based on what the people that are supposed to help and console this child do. (Like the moral of my story was based on what you did when confronted with suffering) You see, suffering has a redeeming quality . Only God knows the effects that today’s suffering will have in the future, for the sufferer and for those that love them. Hospices are filled with people in pain that are grateful for all the love they receive. Unlike what you might think not all those in pain suffer and not all who suffer are in pain. Your example fails to take this into consideration. What your example do is to show the extent of your a lack of knowledge on the nature of human suffering. Please do not take this as a personnal critisism this is quite common in our culture.

Er… you are Catholic right? Catholics always talk about God in anthropomorphic terms.

Again… I do not think you know as much about the Church as you think you do. Catholics do not need to anthropomorphize god. He became human in the Person of His son, Jesus of Nazareth. When he was among us, He showed God’s compassion for the sick and the suffering, but he also challenged us to take care of those that suffer.

your all-loving God is a sadist…

Again I do not think you truly understand the nature of an infinite omnipotent being. (I notice you gave up on your “rock bigger than God” thread, I only hope you understood what I was talking about, you might want to read some good philosophy book so you can get an idea of what we Catholics mean when we talk about God) You keep accusing of God causing extreme cruelty, but I have showed you that in fact accusing God of such things is folly since we do not know what the meaning of suffering is. The only thing we can do is look at the God-man Jesus Christ, see that in fact he cared deeply about those who suffered. But when he was in extreme pain, he did not avoided it but embraced it.

I’m just saying that a God that is capable of understanding human suffering, and decides to ignore it, isn’t loving.

Friend, in this we somewhat agree, by dyeing in the cross God showed us that he truly understands the true nature of human suffering. You accuse him of ignoring it but, on what moral authority can you do this, when you allow suffering happen all around you and do nothing about it? God DID something about suffering, you know what he did? Read John 3:16. The answer is there.

In His love…

 

[Sideline]

Actually… that is not the moral of the story, the moral of the story is based on what the people that are supposed to help and console this child do.

Well, maybe that’s what matters in your world. It must be nice to live in a world where every problem was in your power to fix. Yeah… that would be really, really nice. I’d like to live in that world.

Unlike what you might think not all those in pain suffer and not all who suffer are in pain.

Oh thank-you. Being emotionally stunted as I am, I don’t know anything about the intricacies of life.

Your example fails to take this into consideration. What your example do is to show the extent of your a lack of knowledge on the nature of human suffering. Please do not take this as a personnal critisism this is quite common in our culture.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Except, not so much unaware, as wanting to force the world into the little box that would make you feel good about yourself.

Catholics do not need to anthropomorphize god. He became human in the Person of His son, Jesus of Nazareth. When he was among us, He showed God’s compassion for the sick and the suffering, but he also challenged us to take care of those that suffer.

Hey buddy, you were the one who said I shouldn’t talk about God in human terms. Make up your mind.

Again I do not think you truly understand the nature of an infinite omnipotent being.

And what, you think you do?

(I notice you gave up on your “rock bigger than God” thread, I only hope you understood what I was talking about, you might want to read some good philosophy book so you can get an idea of what we Catholics mean when we talk about God)

If you read back, I say you could be right. Mostly, I could not care less what an imaginary being can or can not do.

Wow, you really remind me of my catechism teachers. I hope I wasn’t like that when I taught it. Acting as if everyone who disagreed with me was incapable of getting it.

You keep accusing of God causing extreme cruelty, but I have showed you that in fact accusing God of such things is folly since we do not know what the meaning of suffering is.

No, what you have shown is an amazing capacity for self-deception in defending an indefensible position. You have fallen into the annoying and silly trap of trying to win an argument by trying to convince yourself that your are smarter than than the people who disagree with you. Don’t worry, it’s really common in our society.

 

[AlmostCatholic]

I thought Catholics thought that killing their children was the ultimate act of love. Oh right, that only applies to God. Your absolute law confuses me.

My point is that the love of God is not the same as what we usually ask for when we want to see a perfect world. We want no death or pain or sorrow. But that isn’t necessarilly the same as the most loved world. Love -as you know- desires the best for the bleoved, not simply to be kind and allow anything to happen. Love doesn’t just let a person make a mess of themselves, it actively changes and works on the beloved. Love does allow death. This seems like something we could agree on. It isn’t the same thing as murder to allow death. And the death of God’s son is the event that changed the meaning of death. It is counterbalanced by the resurrection. So Paul can say, death where is your sting? Death is not the worst thing that can befall any of us. Nor is suffering. Dimitri can find meaning in his suffering. The worst thing that can befall us is sin.

The point I really wanted to make on the other post is that you are saying that we can logically conclude a system of right and wrong about a moral law, even though you don’t think it exists. The moral law isn’t like a black hole, that given the laws of physics, we can deduce what it would be like. Its premise is itself. Why choose to follow the moral law? Simply because it is good. Ultimately at the back of any code you create you have to come to the assumption that something is good. This is the only premise you can build a moral law n, but it itself is what you are trying to establish. Either there really is right and wrong or all of this talk about the wickedness of God is nonsense.

You seem angry about injustice and that’s good. I don’t blame you for that. But if there is no true goodness then justice and injustice are meaningless words. You have to assume that justice is good and injustice is bad. Again, for there to be a problem of pain, you have to accede that there is a real standard. For the good that you do for people to be good, there must be a standard.

The whole free will thing just seems like another lame excuse.

But a free choice to love is what we’re trying to get at. If God wants to make people who can choose to love Him, then their is the possibility that people won’t love Him. If God is really love and wants loving creatures, then He cannot make a universe of automatons. There must be at least a chance of rebellion. And in the crucifixion, we have the evidence that God can change even the worst acts into the greatest event in history. Even our sins can be undone and made right.

I tell you that I want you to be free to chose. You do something I don’t like. Instead of sucking it up, and being a man, I punish you and your children. I curse you and your decedents for generations.

We talk of the punishment from God, but we could just as well call it justice. You say that we do something that God doesn’t happen to like and it sounds good in the abstract. But you yourself are upset about the evil in the world. We’re not talking about God hoping you pick a mercedes and punishing you for picking the Pinto. We’re talking about people doing wrong and being punished. Would you rather the Hitlers and Stalins of the world have no retribution?
And I don’t believe that the punishment is necessarily so forced as that. Our own sins are our own ruin. An adulterous man ruins his own marriage. The heroine addict destroys his own body. Any sin is like this because it corrodes our being and it is its own punishment. I think of Hell as eternally living with yourself and whatever youv’e become and done. That’s miserable enough of a thought for me.

You seem very upset. I hope you haven’t taken anything I’ve said personally. I believe that you are a thinker and that we are having a thoughtful conversation. But I know it is also very hard to be dispassionate about a conversation like this.

God Bless you on your journey

-Justin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Can someone help me with these arguments against God’s existence? They are taken from Wikipedia’s entry:

Some of these are fairly new to me. I know many of the arguments for God, but I don’t know much about dismantling those against God. A little help, argument by argument?

Thanks and God bless!

• The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

The problem of evil is overcome by the allowance of free-will. In other words, since God is omnipotent, he can actually forego his omnipotence and allow people to freely choose him.

• The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design.

The argument from poor design is overcome by God allowing his creation the freedom to act contrary to his will. The freedom within his creation has existed since well before “the fall” in my opinion, and therefore explains the apparent lack of design.

• The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

There are most likely many who do believe in God and simply do not know it. Whenever someone assists another person according to God’s will (such as saving the life of another for example or feeding the poor), all people unwillingly confess a belief in God regardless of whether they wish to admit this or not.

In this sense, God is “gathering many” as he seeks to transform their experience of actual graces it into a habitual grace-- ultimately a sanctifying grace.

• The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in god,[21] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

This is overcome by the historical witness of those who have observed these events in the past. The more validly historical events that can be produced, the less the claim that these people are merely suffering from “hallucinations” or “delusions” seem valid.

• The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: “Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?” or “If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?”.

The answer is found in the fact that God cannot exceed his own power even though he can willingly limit his own power– because God is unlimited and cannot exceed himself but he can allow someone to experience “a fraction” of his umlimited nature.

The most simple answer to the question of whether God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it is “No”. Consequently, it’s precisely because God cannot make a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it that makes him omnipotent-- nothing can exceed God’s power.

• Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically asking “how can an all-knowing being change its mind?” See the article on omniscience for details.

God “changing his mind” is expressed in the belief that God allowed people the free-will to act according to whichever desire they so choose. In other words, God’s ability to choose is more perfectly manifested whenever humanity chooses that which God already chose in advance to do.

• The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will - or has allotted the same freedom to his creations - by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god.

God already knowing the future does not implicate God in forcing people to choose their own future. Knowing what will happen in advance does not cause the future event to happen-- and this fore-knowledge simply allows the event to happen precisely because God, in his omnipotence, has allowed their freedom to begin with.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Can someone help me with these arguments against God’s existence? They are taken from Wikipedia’s entry:

Continued…

• The Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on this argument seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.[22]

I think more information is required for exatly what’s being contested on this point.

It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the constraints of time and space, and the fact that it cannot be proven if God is in either.

Quantum mechanics, which seems to be the “source” of all probabilities, seems to refute this point alone. And when one notes that God exceeds the potential quantum state, this argument simply disintigrates into quantum foam upon further examination.

• The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre’s phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie’s novel Grimus: “That which is complete is also dead.”

It needs to be noted that God, as a total and complete potential, exists outside of time-space but that those events which happen within the temporal are merely a “finite manifestation” along the “infinite continuum” that God already is.

It’s not much different than picking the number “3” out of all numbers that simultaniously exist.

• The “no reason” argument tries to show that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God’s Debris.

God has created all things in love in the hope that his Son would be bourne among us and draw us back toward him. This hope that God “feels” is expressed when we are drawn toward God, a “feeling” that we may freely suppress if we so choose-- but a feeling that God “feels” through us as he indwells us and believes on our behalf. God’s grace is God’s life within you-- and if we willingly suppress this then we will ultimately “feel” nothing toward God. In short, we love because God first loved us.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hi there!

After reading your response I was only able to rescue just a few points worth commenting on.

Well, maybe that’s what matters in your world. It must be nice to live in a world where every problem was in your power to fix. Yeah… that would be really, really nice. I’d like to live in that world.

Friend, you can enter that world anytime you want, you just have to accept that you have a spiritual dimension and that it is in this spiritual dimension that you can find a being that is larger than you, and that is willing to help you make sense of all the longings of your heart. In my world I do not have power to fix every problem, but I have power to ENDURE and find SENSE of every problem. The meaning of suffering lies in your reaction to it.

Oh thank-you. Being emotionally stunted as I am, I don’t know anything about the intricacies of life.

My apologies, I do not know you… It was never my intension to imply you were emotionally stunted or that you didn’t know anything about life. I beg your forginess.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Except, not so much unaware, as wanting to force the world into the little box that would make you feel good about yourself.

How believing in an infinite, eternal, omnipotent being, finding sense of life problems, and realizing that there is more of myself than what I can experience with my own senses, is like you said “forcing the world into a little box”? It seems to me that this expands my world, since now I understand myself and others better, I understand I have an eternal destiny, Now the question for you is, can you say the same of YOUR world?

Hey buddy, you were the one who said I shouldn’t talk about God in human terms. Make up your mind.

You should not talk about God the eternal, infinite being in human terms. If you want to do this then you must refer to what this being has revealed about Himself in the form of His son Jesus the Christ. He did this so we could understand that which we can never understand by our limited minds.

No, what you have shown is an amazing capacity for self-deception in defending an indefensible position. You have fallen into the annoying and silly trap of trying to win an argument by trying to convince yourself that your are smarter than than the people who disagree with you. Don’t worry, it’s really common in our society.

Actually I think I’ve done quite well presenting and defending my points but I do not consider myself smarter than anyone in this forum. If I have answers to your points is not that I’m smarter is that perhaps I have studied and thought about these points longer, this is why I can point to errors in the assumptions behind your statements. Another question for you Do I annoy you or do my arguments annoy you? There is a very important difference there.

In His love…

CatholicDeacon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But even love is not as clear cut as you’d like. A good father isn’t necessarilly the one who spoils the child and protects him from all evil and pain. But he allows pain to teach and to make the child into something better. I don’t at all claim this as the full answer to the problem. But it answers some parts of the problem, such as why do I as a conscious person suffer- because suffering has meaning.(This was another point well made by Dostoyevsky)
The problem in this logical argument is an ambiguity in the terms. Love is not simply kindness. Many of the other people here have pointed out the crucifixion as an example of that. Consider the Christian point of view when we say that God is all good and all love, and had His Son murdered. So the Christian idea that God is Love, goes alongside the idea that God is a consuming fire…

This is very well said - that last bit especially.​

C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in (IIRC) “Till We Have Faces”. IOW - we have no right to to take for granted that God’s Goodness & Love do not take severe, terrible, forbidding forms. Why shouldn’t it ?

If the fourth gospel were not in the NT, I wonder how many of us would think that “God is Love” ? The Jesus of the first three gospels can be very severe.

The trouble with language about God is that it is necessarily analogical, indirect - “Father”, “love”, “kindness”, “goodness” are none of them used of God in quite the same way as of human fathers.

 

[Sideline]

Hi there!

After reading your response I was only able to rescue just a few points worth commenting on.

Wow, I’m really impressed you answered at all. I figured you would either just drop it or just answer to say you are putting me on your ignore list. Not that I thought I won, I just thought you would have had enough of responding to me. I admire your tenacity is what I’m trying to say.

All of that being said, I’m not going to respond right away. I’m not ignoring it, I just don’t want to keep arguing back and forth. I’m going to take some time, read over all of our posts, make sure I haven’t misread your position, and then explain mine. Hopefully, taking some time on it, will clarify it in such a way that you will see that it isn’t as ill-informed as you seem to think it is. If you decide to dismiss it after that, so be it your loss. But at least I will know that I did my best to explain it.

So… until I write again hope you enjoy the lead up to Christmas.

 

[Sideline]

You seem very upset. I hope you haven’t taken anything I’ve said personally. I believe that you are a thinker and that we are having a thoughtful conversation. But I know it is also very hard to be dispassionate about a conversation like this.

God Bless you on your journey

-Justin

Wow, I just finished writing to CathoicDeacon saying I was surprised he actually responded to my posts, and I have to say I’m even more surprised that you did. I’m pretty sure that my posts to you were among the most snide, sarcastic and snotty that I’ve ever written and here your have responded without being so.

Well, one good turn deserves another, so I’m going to actually hold off for a bit before I respond. I want to make sure that I am calm and feeling reasonable for when I respond so that if even if we don’t agree, you get a better sense of why I don’t agree. As opposed to just getting the message, “Your religion annoys me.” Which isn’t really constructive.

Merry Christmas

 

[steveandersen]

I should really never use sports metaphors. I almost always mess them up. I thought it meant winning easily.

that is what it means I just had misunderstood your context

I have a feeling that this might be the only point on which we agree, so let me take a moment to celebrate.
:extrahappy: :clapping::extrahappy:

Of course I’ll celebrate
Today is the Feast of Stephen after all

Existence of God? Nothing. The existence of an all-loving God. A lot. How can an all-loving God turn his back on suffering? On the suffering he actually created.

Once again you are equating suffering with evil.
They are not the same thing.
being eaten by a lion may not be the best thing for the rabbit but it is a great thing for both the lion adn all that grass that didn’t get nibbled

No, I took the short route. Then you asked me what untold suffering was, then I did a longer explanation.

and it was what I expected
the world is not what you want it to be, therfore it is God’s fault

Sometimes he told us not to. Sometimes he told us to do exactly that. He has been pretty wishy washy on the whole murder and rape thing.

queue the Byrds
To everything there is a season….

God may be many things; wishy washy is not one of them.

If you have questions about the older portions of scripture remember that revelation was done in stages over time.

He also made the hungry and diseased. Let’s not forget that.

Sounds like an old Monty python song
Hunger and Disease are part of life. Life could not exist without them.
Once again you are equating natural functions with evil.

Are you going to say “It’s not fair” next?

Or a simpler explanation is he doesn’t really exist in the sense that most people think he does, and we should try and end suffering as best we are able.

End suffering?
We can try to alleviate it, mitigate it, maybe even forestall it but to end it? Easier to stop the world from turning

Siddhartha spent a long time under a tree contemplating the nature of suffering. His solution was renouncing desires.

Catholics take a different path.

That would pretty much be the image that God would have of the world and decide to ignore.

Ignore?
Sending your only son doesn’t seem like ignoring.

No… evil does cause suffering though. And besides all it takes for evil to flourish is for good gods to do nothing.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.

Are you saying that you want to sit back and let “daddy” take care of it all? What then would be the point of life?

Really? You believe that God has no control over the natural function of the world?

The world is as He willed it.

Sure volcanoes and earthquakes can cause distruction but without tectonic plate motion there would be no renewal of the soil and life would end.
Without dead plants and animals where would soil come from? Life would end.
Without disease and mutation how would life adapt to its surroundings?
Floods and fire also replenish the soil.

Name a natural process that isn’t needed for the continuation of life.

Kind of blows that heaven, everlasting life thing, out of the water doesn’t it?

How so?
Everything does die. get over it. Eternal life is for your soul… until the resurrection of the body at end of the world but that is outside of the natural function of things

Do pay attention 007

Oh wait, are you arguing for reincarnation?

Hardly,
My soul is my own.

 

[wildleafblower]

God may be many things; wishy washy is not one of them.

The world is as He willed it.

My soul is my own.

Hi Steve Welcome back! I missed you. I hope you don’t mind but I picked three of your sentences that speaks volumes to me. Absolutely beautiful. Thank you. Hope you had a wonderful XMas.

I’m spreading the word today. . . There is a wealth of information found within the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship issued by USCCB , November 14, 2007, A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States:
usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf