Thal59:
You just can’t seem to figure it out. If life isn’t pain-free, easy, and fully enjoyable, then there cannot be an omnibenevolent God.
Well, that is not exactly what I propose, even though your scenario would be the
most logical one to an
omnibenevolent being. What I was asking is that how can an omnibenevolent being allow the
senseless pain and suffering we see arond us. Simple pain-avoidance is not what I am suggesting.
As for the rest, please take time to read post #40 above. Still, I will explain it detail.
Thal59:
All you keep proving is that your sense of logic is insufficient to quantify who or what God is. Certainly if you cannot understand a specific and complex scientific field, you accept the testimony of those who are experts in that field. In other words, you accept their testimony on faith.
It depends on what you mean by the word “faith”. Yes, you are correct, I trust the so-called “experts” - but only to a degree, not absolutely. First, the experts must prove that they are worthy of this title. But that is not all, they have to prove it, over and over again, that they are still worthy. Einstein could not accept quantum mechanics in his old age, even though he was an “expert”. If a doctor would give me a diagnosis, which I find suspicious, I would immediately go ask another one. This “faith” as you call it, is vey tenuous, and must be reinforced all the time.
Thal59:
Now, if a saint performs a miracle, why can you not take their testimony of God on faith also? Of course, even if medical records are offered to show that a miracle, say of healing, had occured, you would fight the proof with some argument or another, wouldn’t you?
Of course I would. When the famous “Fermat’s last theorem” was finally proved, no one accepted it unquestioningly. All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it. So far they failed in their attempts, but they keep trying. In science there is no trust, no faith, only facts and experiments. No one accepts anything on “faith” alone.
If and when a “miracle” will occur in a proper double-blind experiment, conducted by atheist stage magicians, then and only then will I take this miracle seriously.
Thal59:
Do you see the dichotomy? You accept science on the testimony of others if you understand the particular science, and on faith of the testifier if you do not. You do not accept God on the testimony of others, whether you understand the particular aspect of God or not.
There is no dichotomy. I am skeptical about the experts of science just as much as I am skeptical about the “experts” of religion.
Thal59:
Thus, there is no efficacy in debate with logic, sense, or reason. The simple truth is, the one called Hitetlen simply does not want to believe in God.
Sigh I explained it so many times before. “Want” has nothing to do with it. To believe or to doubt are not subject to volitional control. One either believes or not.
Thal59:
Now, if you can put your faith in fallible men whom you have never met, why is it so hard for you to understand how we can put our faith in an infallible God whom we have met in a spiritual manner?
In the post (#40) above I said that I
can understand your trust in God. I find your trust a reasonable one. Once someone accepts the premise that an omnimax God exists, that is the logical next step. But to accept that such a being exists, only ironclad proof is sufficient, hearsay, old books, testimonials are not enough.
)
) and I do feel compassion toward others. That is how I was brought up.