Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[thinkandmull]

When God completes His creation at the end, all His creatures will feel creature pleasure in sensing that they will never have suffering again, and their suffering in this life brings pity into our hearts

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Divine revelation is abundantly clear. No suffering is random. God has a plan for suffering. For example, he allows it to soften our hearts for our brothers and sisters.

Oh? Here is an example of an unclear revelation from my short time on this forum: I was told that this passage, spoken by Jesus:

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Does not actually mean that “It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Instead, we are supposed to read it as though we are a Jewish person who has become familiar with Jesus’ new teachings, and the fact of the matter is that “It would not be better for him if he had not been born.” If that is “abundantly clear” I think you have never read any good textbooks.

Why should God want to soften people’s hearts? It seems to me that the bible says he hardens people’s hearts:

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

But perhaps the passage is just unclear and there is some other non-literal interpretation.

Also, there are plenty of examples of God inflicting natural suffering on totally innocent people. For example, God made an innocent child suffer for 7 days before dying:

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill… On the seventh day the child died.

But I suppose that the interpretation of this passage might not be clear either, and there is yet another alternative explanation that allows us to salvage the concept of a loving God.

The point is that if God loved us, there would be no reason for him to allow us to suffer because of disease or famine for example. He could prevent it and soften our hearts another way. He does not do this, it is circumstantial evidence against the existence of God.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

I think it’s more rational than believing a random fluctuation is responsible for this “Goldlielocs” kind of universe we find ourselves in. I have a hard time rationalizing a “random” event that gave rise to an orderly cause and effect universe.

In the end I think science will be faced with at least one paradox - the kind of paradox that can be best explained by Christians as the “first cause” which is everything following “And God said…”

 

[miguel]

Oh? Here is an example of an unclear revelation from my short time on this forum: I was told that this passage, spoken by Jesusoes not actually mean that “It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Instead, we are supposed to read it as though we are a Jewish person who has become familiar with Jesus’ new teachings, and the fact of the matter is that “It would not be better for him if he had not been born.” If that is “abundantly clear” I think you have never read any good textbooks.

Why should God want to soften people’s hearts? It seems to me that the bible says he hardens people’s hearts:But perhaps the passage is just unclear and there is some other non-literal interpretation.

Also, there are plenty of examples of God inflicting natural suffering on totally innocent people. For example, God made an innocent child suffer for 7 days before dying: But I suppose that the interpretation of this passage might not be clear either, and there is yet another alternative explanation that allows us to salvage the concept of a loving God.

The point is that if God loved us, there would be no reason for him to allow us to suffer because of disease or famine for example. He could prevent it and soften our hearts another way. He does not do this, it is circumstantial evidence against the existence of God.

You said “perfectly clear instructions”. I assumed you meant the 10 Commandments. Those are abundantly clear. Jesus made them even simpler and clearer. They are boiled down to love God with your whole mind, your whole strength and your whole soul. And love your neighbor as yourself. For example, if I love my brother, I don’t murder him, or steal his wife or steal his property. If I love God, I keep his Commandments. This is pretty clear. As I stated in another post, suffering and death are in the world because of sin…that is our fault, not God’s. God Bless.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You said “perfectly clear instructions”. I assumed you meant the 10 Commandments. Those are abundantly clear. Jesus made them even simpler and clearer. They are boiled down to love God with your whole mind, your whole strength and your whole soul. And love your neighbor as yourself. For example, if I love my brother, I don’t murder him, or steal his wife or steal his property. If I love God, I keep his Commandments. This is pretty clear. As I stated in another post, suffering and death are in the world because of sin…that is our fault, not God’s. God Bless.

Quite right, if you loved your son you would not murder him. But what if you God told you to do something unloving (e.g. in the case of Abraham?)

What if God told you to slaughter an entire tribe of people (e.g. Amalek)? Is “Gott mit uns” a justification for violations of the “love thy neighbor” part of the equation?

 

[Amandil]

Quite right, if you loved your son you would not murder him. But what if you God told you to do something unloving (e.g. in the case of Abraham?)

What of the case of Abraham?

What if God told you to slaughter an entire tribe of people (e.g. Amalek)? Is “Gott mit uns” a justification for violations of the “love thy neighbor” part of the equation?

Never mind that the Amalekites promised not to attack Israel and yet came and attacked the Israelites first while they were encamped. That they harassed them all throughout their wanderings, picking off the weakest indiscriminately.

Never mind that the Amalekites also worshipped a god called Molech, which part and parcel to that worship was to take infant children and burn them alive.

Makes perfect sense that you would justify this culture, yet condemn Israel. No double standard at all.

But, hey, who are we to discriminate? At least when the Amalekites wanted to kill infants they at least burned them and made a spectacle of it; after aborting our infants we just throw them away in biological waste bags.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But, hey, who are we to discriminate? At least when the Amalekites wanted to kill infants they at least burned them and made a spectacle of it; after aborting our infants we just throw them away in biological waste bags.

As though burning people was reviled by Israel:
Genesis 38:24

And behold after three months they told a lie, saying: Thamar, thy daughter in law hath played the harlot, and she appeareth to have a big belly. And Juda said : Bring her out that she may be burnt.

I guess the unborn child was not worth worrying about.

 

[Hans_W]

It is a huge problem. Death is a huge problem. We know it came into the world as a punishment for sin. Sin was not God’s intention. God’s intention was free will and for man to use his free will for good. God Bless.

I don’t want to change the direction of this thread into a Creation vs. Evolution debate, but I see evolution of life as the only explanation for death and suffering.

If God created us and all life forms through the process of evolution, then naturally, death and suffering was the only way to get to higher, more advanced life forms.

 

[miguel]

I don’t want to change the direction of this thread into a Creation vs. Evolution debate, but I see evolution of life as the only explanation for death and suffering.

If God created us and all life forms through the process of evolution, then naturally, death and suffering was the only way to get to higher, more advanced life forms.

The Nazis thought they could speed evolution up by ruthlessly getting rid of the weak and infirm and anyone else that didn’t fit their ideals for the master race. It was called eugenics. God Bless.

 

[Hans_W]

The Nazis thought they could speed evolution up by ruthlessly getting rid of the weak and infirm and anyone else that didn’t fit their ideals for the master race. It was called eugenics. God Bless.

Please don’t mix up science with politics. They are really on the opposite ends of humanity.

 

[Amandil]

As though burning people was reviled by Israel:
Genesis 38:24

I guess the unborn child was not worth worrying about.

The above is proof that when it comes to Scripture you really don’t have a clue as what you’re talking about.

All you’ve proven is that you know how to use a concordance or an internet search engine.

 

[miguel]

Please don’t mix up science with politics. They are really on the opposite ends of humanity.

The Nazis are the ones who mixed up science with politics by embracing the then scientific fad known as eugenics. It has since been thoroughly discredited. Please don’t mix up the reason death came into the world and science. God Bless.

 

[miguel]

…Why should God want to soften people’s hearts? It seems to me that the bible says he hardens people’s hearts:But perhaps the passage is just unclear and there is some other non-literal interpretation…

If you’re really interested in softening your heart, Msgr. Charles Pope discussed this recently…made sense to me…God Bless.
blog.adw.org/2014/07/does-god-harden-human-hearts-3/

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But, hey, who are we to discriminate? At least when the Amalekites wanted to kill infants they at least burned them and made a spectacle of it; after aborting our infants we just throw them away in biological waste bags.

The scales have fallen from my eyes. To save the children of Amalek, the only reasonable course of action was to “slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”

Indeed, you have convinced me that there are perfectly loving reasons to commit genocide against a people.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The Nazis are the ones who mixed up science with politics by embracing the then scientific fad known as eugenics. It has since been thoroughly discredited. Please don’t mix up the reason death came into the world and science. God Bless.

I’m not sure what you mean by discredited. I don’t think anyone has proven it to be ineffective, and in fact modern gene sequencing opens the door to all sorts of new possibilities.

But to get back on topic, the point I originally raised was that random natural suffering is circumstantial evidence against God. Why would we even think up eugenics in the first place? Why would God predestine children to suffer for their entire lives by giving them some genetic disease? If he loves them, there is no reason for every child to be born healthy.

 

[Amandil]

The scales have fallen from my eyes. To save the children of Amalek, the only reasonable course of action was to “slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”

Indeed, you have convinced me that there are perfectly loving reasons to commit genocide against a people.

So the “loving” course of action from the atheist/secularist system is to do nothing while a nation commits genocide not only against itself but others, apathy and a nondiscriminatory indifference being the hallmark of secular thought.

This coming from the same person arguing for indiscriminate preternatural abortion of anyone if, according to God’s omniscience, they would choose hell and incur eternal torment there.

Apparently when it comes to you the double standards really don’t end.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So the “loving” course of action from the atheist/secularist system is to do nothing while a nation commits genocide not only against itself but others, apathy and a nondiscriminatory indifference being the hallmark of secular thought.

This coming from the same person arguing for indiscriminate preternatural abortion of anyone if, according to God’s omniscience, they would choose hell and incur eternal torment there.

Apparently when it comes to you the double standards really don’t end.

Perhaps we have arrived at the root of the issue. Maybe God’s imagination is as poor as yours and so he can’t come up with any better ways to use his omnipotence than genocide. If I were omnipotent I would have just prevented Amalek from inventing such a cruel religion in the first place.

The obvious state of affairs, though, is that you have no answer to this problem and so you are looking for some sort of tu quoque justification for dismissing my points. God wouldn’t be committing genocide by not creating hell-bound people because you can’t do anything to people that don’t exist in the first place.

 

[Amandil]

Perhaps we have arrived at the root of the issue. Maybe God’s imagination is as poor as yours and so he can’t come up with any better ways to use his omnipotence than genocide. If I were omnipotent I would have just prevented Amalek from inventing such a cruel religion in the first place.

Yes we all know clearly that you’re a more wise and benevolent “god” and we should all bow down and worship you.

If God was as "omnipotent "as you demand that he must be there’s no possible what that you’d be able to make such a statement.

That your “best possible world” is one where you are a genocidal tyrant the likes that surpasses anything Europe has never seen definitely is proof that God not only has a better imagination, but also a much greater respect for our freedom, than you do.

The obvious state of affairs, though, is that you have no answer to this problem and so you are looking for some sort of tu quoque justification for dismissing my points.

The “obvious” state of affairs is that you’re trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth. Thus your “tu quoque” fails.

You began complaining and basically indicting God in that God “slaughtered”(a term definitely carrying undertones of moral abhorrence) the Amalekites through Israel.

Then you shift to calling it “genocide”.

Then when I pointed out that you just got done advocating preternatural genocide , you come back with, “well that’s not the same”.

God wouldn’t be committing genocide by not creating hell-bound people because you can’t do anything to people that don’t exist in the first place.

Again, your lack of understanding doesn’t disappoint.

 

[oldcelt]

Perhaps we have arrived at the root of the issue. Maybe God’s imagination is as poor as yours and so he can’t come up with any better ways to use his omnipotence than genocide. If I were omnipotent I would have just prevented Amalek from inventing such a cruel religion in the first place.

The obvious state of affairs, though, is that you have no answer to this problem and so you are looking for some sort of tu quoque justification for dismissing my points. God wouldn’t be committing genocide by not creating hell-bound people because you can’t do anything to people that don’t exist in the first place.

Or maybe God has nothing to do with any of it. Events regarding humanity may just be human events. Dismissing points is the mo of the defeated.

 

[Hans_W]

The Nazis are the ones who mixed up science with politics by embracing the then scientific fad known as eugenics. It has since been thoroughly discredited. Please don’t mix up the reason death came into the world and science. God Bless.

I would love to know how you envisage the 3-billion-year history of life without death.