But no one with any sense tries to “explain away evil”. On the contrary, we believe that evil is personified in Satan. We also believe in hoardes of fallen angels that engage and foment evil. One way this is done is through tempting humans to do evil, of which there is plenty.
That is also explaining away the existence of evil. Why does God “allow” Satan to roam freely and corrupt us, gullible humans? And, as we can see from the book of Job, God and Satan are good buddies, playing “chess” with human pawns, sacrificing Job’s family, children, etc… What a “loving” game.
Clearly your skepticism is immune from such interventions.
Clearly? You declare yourself a “scientist”, and yet you make far too many unsupported assumptions.
The laws of physics can, and are, changed. They are just descriptions of how the material universe functions, but the spiritual realm is more powerful.
So that spiritual realm can change the speed of light (in vacuum) to whatever it pleases? That would be another interesting miracle.
I think not. It seems clear from your posts that there is no acceptable manner in which God can prove Himself to you.
Clearly? Again? Let’s see. An unknown nun asserts that she had some incurable disease. She asserts that she prayed to the freshly passed away JPII. She asserts that due to JP’s intervention the disease went away. This story was declared a “miracle” and was used as a supporting evidence sufficient for JP’s canonization. You swallow this “miracle” hook, line and sinker. But you try to find excuse to the hypothetical scenario I presented to prove that it would not be a miracle. Interesting “standards”.
The rules and standards are appaling and unreasonable.
The rules and standards are always the same. I reject the concept that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. ALL claims are kept to the same standard. It is the believers who wish to create a different standard for God. The problem is that they also want to use the same word and attach to it a different meaning. That is appalling and unreasonable.
God has presented Himself in such a way that those who wish to believe are able.
That is the ultimate hubris. If God WOULD care about us, then the revelation WOULD be tailored to the person’s necessities. One size does not fit all.
God is our creator, and He is above our standards and judgements. You have replaced God with yourself, and reserved the right to define what is “loving” and “caring”.
Another example of trying to “explain away”. After all you reserve the right to call God “good” and “loving”. I merely hold you to the same standard. There is no separate definition of “love” when you speak of God and when you speak of humans. God’s “love” could be much better, but not FUNDAMENTALLY and DIAMETRICALLY different. What would be the adjective you would use to describe a human parent, who would behave like God does?
True freedom includes the freedom to disobey, and rebel.
No, it does NOT. As Winston Smith said: “Freedom is the freedom to say two and two makes four. If that is granted, everything else follows” (1984)
Your statement reflects the fact that you do not understand what love is.
Another condescending remark.
It does not work that way. True freedom means that a person has a choice. A choice means that what is unwanted also exists. You do not understand freedom either.
Another condescending remark. You guys just never run out of those.
I will try again: “The unwanted choice exists, EVEN if no one ever makes that selection”. Just like in my utopia, where everyone is free to make those unwanted choices.
