I don't believe that there is a God, but I would like to be convinced that I am wrong. (The inverse of minkymurph's thread.)

[truetofaith]

People here just like to argue to show how intelligent they are…and after 10 pages of long posts, there is no agreement at all. :banghead:
I dropped out about 5 pages ago & was surprised to see this still going on.

Bye now!

 

[minkymurph]

People here just like to argue to show how intelligent they are…and after 10 pages of long posts, there is no agreement at all. :banghead:
I dropped out about 5 pages ago & was surprised to see this still going on.

Bye now!

Well truetofaith - someone had to say that - such is the nature of debate. It’s not really about reaching agreement so much as it’s about ‘I can present better arguments than you’ which is why it goes on, and on, and on…

 

[truetofaith]

Well truetofaith - someone had to say that - such is the nature of debate. It’s not really about reaching agreement so much as it’s about ‘I can present better arguments than you’ which is why it goes on, and on, and on…

 

[Bradski]

In perspective, there may be as many as there are people. How I perceived my dad is certainly different from how my siblings perceived him.

I just had one dad, however.

And he was different things to different people (a point about God which I find myself pointing out with some regularity). But he loved you and had your best interests at heart. So (dipping into the subject matter of another thread), if he knew that someone planned to cause you harm, he would prevent it.

Wouldn’t be much of a loving father if he didn’t…

 

[minkymurph]

And he was different things to different people (a point about God which I find myself pointing out with some regularity). But he loved you and had your best interests at heart. So (dipping into the subject matter of another thread), if he knew that someone planned to cause you harm, he would prevent it.

Wouldn’t be much of a loving father if he didn’t…

I would totally concede Bradski the one question Christianity cannot provide is an answer to why God does not intervene to prevent harm to good people. We can justify it in our own eyes, propose explanations that in our own eyes are satisfactory, but through an atheist lens I personally think this is the unanswerable question.

I personally have reached a point in my life where I just accept bad things happening to good people is just the way it is, and I will only know why it is the way it is when I come face to face with God. This is one reason why I want to come face to face with God - to know the answer. Until that happens - I will never know. I am so looking forward to coming face to face with God as then I will have the answer to every question I could ever think of. If on death I find God does not exist - I’ll be dead and none the wiser - but I’ll die in the belief I am about to find out everything.

 

[Bradski]

I would totally concede Bradski the one question Christianity cannot provide is an answer to why God does not intervene to prevent harm to good people. We can justify it in our own eyes, propose explanations that in our own eyes are satisfactory, but through an atheist lens I personally think this is the unanswerable question.

For the life of me I cannot see how anyone can justify it. One must either reject that concept of God (as I have) or you come clean and admit that, yes, it’s not a problem that we can answer. And if you enjoy the sight of atheists rolling their eyes, you can add: Who Can Know The Mind Of God.

Oh, and the claim that we cannot anthropomorphise God. But unless the term ‘love’ means something else when used in the concept of God, that is, some way other than that which we use in everyday relationships, then it doesn’t fit the way that God acts. Or doesn’t act in this case.

 

[minkymurph]

For the life of me I cannot see how anyone can justify it. One must either reject that concept of God (as I have) or you come clean and admit that, yes, it’s not a problem that we can answer. And if you enjoy the sight of atheists rolling their eyes, you can add: Who Can Know The Mind Of God.

Oh, and the claim that we cannot anthropomorphise God. But unless the term ‘love’ means something else when used in the concept of God, that is, some way other than that which we use in everyday relationships, then it doesn’t fit the way that God acts. Or doesn’t act in this case.

I have come clean. I have openly said it’s not a problem we can answer.

No - you can’t justify it. Others can. Reason being they are not looking at the problem through your eyes. This does not mean they are right. What it means is whilst they may fail in terms of providing justification in your eyes, they are not failing in terms of providing justification in their own eyes.

The atheist argument for the existence of God hinges at least to a certain extent if not largely God does not do what the atheist thinks He should. The fact God does not do what the atheist thinks He should do not ‘proof’ God does not exist. The believer characteristically has no issue when God does not do what they think He should do. Not all the time, but frequently. This being the case, does belief in the existence of God hinge not on ‘evidence,’ but expectations of God in terms of how God should fix the world?

I say, we cannot criticize God for making decisions we ourselves would make, and for not intervening where we ourselves would not do so. I would argue if either you or I had God’s power, there is at least a possibility we not have done things any differently. If you were God, would you have created humans that could never under any circumstances have done anything wrong? If I were God, my answer to this question would be no.

 

[Bradski]

The atheist argument for the existence of God hinges at least to a certain extent if not largely God does not do what the atheist thinks He should. The fact God does not do what the atheist thinks He should do not ‘proof’ God does not exist.

I’m going to disagree here, although you might think that I am splitting hairs.

The fact that this is a problem is not a good enough reason to make a decision on whether God exists or not. My point is that I reject the arguments that people use to try to justify their particular concept of God. And it is that particular concept of God that I then reject, simply because it makes no sense. You can’t use the word ‘love’ to describe someone who shows none of the attributes that we associate with the term.

If someone, such as yourself, says: ‘Yeah, it’s something of a conundrum, but I still believe that God exists (for reasons A, B and C etc)’, then there is not much more to discuss and I’ll get the next round in and we can get on to talk about politics or sport.

The believer characteristically has no issue when God does not do what they think He should do. Not all the time, but frequently. This being the case, does belief in the existence of God hinge not on ‘evidence,’ but expectations of God in terms of how God should fix the world?

Maybe God shouldn’t fix the world. Maybe His ‘Plan A’ is just to leave us to our own devices. But that is not the Catholic God, the personal God. That is a God from Deist Monthly. But if He’s a personal God and loves us, then why does He give no inclination to indicate that? There is significant cognitive dissonance here. Someone will say that they believe in God, yet the description they give of that God is entirely at odds with the way that that God acts. Or doesn’t, as the case may be.

I say, we cannot criticize God for making decisions we ourselves would make, and for not intervening where we ourselves would not do so. I would argue if either you or I had God’s power, there is at least a possibility we not have done things any differently. If you were God, would you have created humans that could never under any circumstances have done anything wrong? If I were God, my answer to this question would be no.

I wouldn’t curtail their free will (assuming it exists). It’s not necessary to prevent evil acts. But if you are asking if this is the best of all worlds – could God have done better, then whoa…don’t get me started. Let’s say the fall didn’t happen and we were all living in a wonderful Garden of Eden. And then we were shown another world that looks exactly like this one. You would think it was the work of the devil. You’d think it the work of a madman or a sadist.

 

[minkymurph]

The fact that this is a problem is not a good enough reason to make a decision on whether God exists or not.

OK - I’d accept that

My point is that I reject the arguments that people use to try to justify their particular concept of God. And it is that particular concept of God that I then reject, simply because it makes no sense. You can’t use the word ‘love’ to describe someone who shows none of the attributes that we associate with the term.

I’d accept that as well. Humankind has a tendency to create God in their own image - that is a God that meet their criteria and this God is also a loving God as in accordance with their image God cannot be unloving.

If someone, such as yourself, says: ‘Yeah, it’s something of a conundrum, but I still believe that God exists (for reasons A, B and C etc)’, then there is not much more to discuss and I’ll get the next round in and we can get on to talk about politics or sport…

If someone believes in God and anything they have the capacity to say on the topic God is rejected, there is nothing more to discuss on the topic of God. We cannot offer anything outside of what we know. If what we know is not sufficient, what we know is not sufficient.

Maybe God shouldn’t fix the world. Maybe His ‘Plan A’ is just to leave us to our own devices. But that is not the Catholic God, the personal God. That is a God from Deist Monthly. But if He’s a personal God and loves us, then why does He give no inclination to indicate that? There is significant cognitive dissonance here. Someone will say that they believe in God, yet the description they give of that God is entirely at odds with the way that that God acts. Or doesn’t, as the case may be.

I take it you have now familiarized yourself with Deist monthly. Or were you familiar with it all along and it was not a surprise to you it existed as implied by your post?

From my perspective of your posts you have indicated the existence of God should not be discussed purely from the Catholic perspective. You also indicated the existence of all gods should be given consideration, and I adopted my posts in accordingly. If you are not saying you wish to discuss the existence of God purely from a Catholic perspective, I am a happy to accommodate that.

To Catholics, He has given us an indication He is a personal God who loves us through the person of Jesus Christ. As such, God has given us no indication He is a personal God who loves us will not wash with a Catholic. It is your prerogative to conclude this constitutes cognitive dissonance, but I would say the person who has never experienced cognitive dissonance is either very fortunate, or doesn’t deliberate on major issues to any great extent. That said, in my experience cognitive dissonance concerning anything other than the existence of God is inconsequential to the average atheist. If any other instance of cognitive dissonance concerns the average atheist to the same degree I am happy to be corrected.

I wouldn’t curtail their free will (assuming it exists). It’s not necessary to prevent evil acts. But if you are asking if this is the best of all worlds – could God have done better, then whoa…don’t get me started. Let’s say the fall didn’t happen and we were all living in a wonderful Garden of Eden. And then we were shown another world that looks exactly like this one. You would think it was the work of the devil. You’d think it the work of a madman or a sadist.

By ‘you would think’ do you mean me personally? On what basis did you determine what I think? Your statement suggests you think I interpret the Genesis account literally. Do you know for certain I do? Do you think I should? Do you know for certain I believe the devil exists? If I said I didn’t, would your response be, ‘Aha! Your not Catholic?’ Note the question mark. Used to indicate I am asking you if this is what your response would be and not assuming I know what it would be.

In conclusion - ‘Yeah, it’s something of a conundrum, but I still believe that God exists (for reasons A, B and C etc)’, then there is not much more to discuss and I’ll get the next round in and we can get on to talk about politics or sport.’ This comment tells me all I need to know.

 

[Bradski]

By ‘you would think’ do you mean me personally? On what basis did you determine what I think?

‘One would think’ conveys the meaning more accurately.

 

[minkymurph]

‘One would think’ conveys the meaning more accurately.

Ok - some people do say ‘you’ when they mean ‘one.’

*We cannot criticize God for making decisions we ourselves would make, and for not intervening where we ourselves would not do so. *

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

If you were God, would you have created humans that could never under any circumstances have done anything wrong?

Yes or no answer.

 

[Bradski]

*We cannot criticize God for making decisions we ourselves would make, and for not intervening where we ourselves would not do so. *

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Agree. But I think almost all Christians would say that you cannot criticise God at all. Period. But if He allows evil, then what should our response be? A shrug of the shoulders? Who Can Know The Mind Of God? There must be some greater good?

Maybe I’ll be up before Him when my time comes and He’ll give me a pat on the back for not trying to make excuses for His lack of action.

If you were God, would you have created humans that could never under any circumstances have done anything wrong? Yes or no answer.

No.

 

[minkymurph]

Agree. But I think almost all Christians would say that you cannot criticise God at all. Period. But if He allows evil, then what should our response be? A shrug of the shoulders? Who Can Know The Mind Of God? There must be some greater good?.

They may say you shouldn’t but they all do.

It’s not normal not to.

No - we shouldn’t shrug our shoulders and say who can know the mind of God when confronted with evil. That’s no good enough. God cannot expect us not to question why He permits evil, and I don’t believe He does not expect us to. The only answer I have ever come up with - and it’s not a very good one - is on another thread.

Maybe I’ll be up before Him when my time comes and He’ll give me a pat on the back for not trying to make excuses for His lack of action.

I have a theory when we come face to face with God He will be absolutely nothing like our Image of God. Dave Allen once said God was Irish and I think he was right. :irish2:

No.

This is the honest answer.

 

[HelenRose]

Convince me, please.

A desire to believe is a good beginning. No one can convince you to believe any more than someone can convince you to love. Belief is a personal decision between you and God. Trite as it may sound it is a leap into the unknown.

 

[Vonsalza]

I would totally concede Bradski the one question Christianity cannot provide is an answer to why God does not intervene to prevent harm to good people.

I genuinely and sincerely believe that God does not intervene because He values the exercise of free moral agency in the course of human life. Perhaps more than human life itself.
It’s as good an explanation as any for the “why are we here” faced by the Christian. Moreover, I think it fits pretty darn well.

The tears of the suffering and the deeds of the evil will be divinely repaid, but not in this life. This one is largely “sacrosanct” from direct, physical, divine “meddling”, imho.

Think of it as a divine social experiment where the Lead Researcher doesn’t want to overly interfere with the results.

For those offended, please be gentle in your retorts.

 

[reggieM]

I genuinely and sincerely believe that God does not intervene because He values the exercise of free moral agency in the course of human life. Perhaps more than human life itself.
It’s as good an explanation as any for the “why are we here” faced by the Christian. Moreover, I think it fits pretty darn well.

The tears of the suffering and the deeds of the evil will be divinely repaid, but not in this life. This one is largely “sacrosanct” from direct, physical, divine “meddling”, imho.

Think of it as a divine social experiment where the Lead Researcher doesn’t want to overly interfere with the results.

For those offended, please be gentle in your retorts.

Suffering is the result of sin.
It is either our sins, or someone else’s.
Usually, as adults we have sins to suffer for.
For the innocent and children, they will receive a reward that goes far beyond what this life entails, and they also have a mission from God which can involve suffering.
St. Therese of Lisieux never committed a moral sin (according to her confessor).
She suffered tremendously. She gave a very profound teaching on this matter also.
I have to assume that many Catholics are totally unaware of what the mystical union with Christ entails.
We are in love with Christ - who suffers for sinners. We are actually in union with Him - and receive His Body and Blood as our food.

 

[Vonsalza]

Suffering is the result of sin.

With ya 100%

 

[minkymurph]

I genuinely and sincerely believe that God does not intervene because He values the exercise of free moral agency in the course of human life. Perhaps more than human life itself.
It’s as good an explanation as any for the “why are we here” faced by the Christian. Moreover, I think it fits pretty darn well.

I totally get where are you coming from. That said, when conversing with an atheist you are conversing with someone who will not find this line of argument sufficiently persuasive, and this line of argument leaves us open to the counter argument yes there is a God but He just left us to get on with things. I know that’s not what you mean, but I can see how your line of argument may be interpreted.

I think there is more to it. I think is about learning and openly embracing using our free will only for good in process of becoming God like.