Why are WE here?

[BrunoMaria]

The really countless times to be heard question about “is God real or inexistent?” - including the question:

Why are WE here?<
is usually challenged by the always same notoriously repeated arguments against God’s existence - couched in questions like this one:

How does your particular sketch of God conform with all loving in face of the ridiculousness of pain?<

These are the mostly used thoughtless anti-God arguments of atheists of all shades. I even heard people say: >God is a criminal, because He admits all that suffering like wars… deceases… murder… and what have you<. The simple reasons so many Christians around the world explain every day to doubters. The answers though, can looked up in the Bible, the Gospel and is our Church’s teaching. But well: - these people who think it’s ever so clever to challenge Christian Belief, simply love to have this excuse for their refusal of God and disbelief. Moreover … they disregard the tremendous mortal sin of leading those off Jesus’ way, who seek God - but are still weak in belief and therefore easy to influence !

God of course does NOT admit nor allow any evil of what so ever kind. But humanity has got its free will -given by God as the one and only reature who’s got that present- to do either. Though: Woe to him who caused it! Luke 17,1.
Take the many born crippled by getting in tough with spoiled environment, wrong food and other causes in their mothers womb. Remember for just one out of many; the thaliomide vitims. If Industry runs wild to make quick money… - is this God’s fault? Definitely not!

Should God stop our failures, our hate that causes wars, our perversity that kills children, the murderers, the hateful, the warlords who avert farmers to cultivate fields in Africa and elsewhere and so cause woefulness and hunger and starvation of countless?

If God would stop them, all would see that of course GOD EXISTS! Then the earth as place of probation wouldn’t make any sense. All would believe anyway, all would be good and loving all others. But it’s not so, as God hides to see if we live in His word or not - without being the obvious seen.

Still the world is ruled by the Prince of this world; Satan, Money, greed and envy. But lo, the world is held together by those who are God’s. For if the continuous prayers in monasteries would not be, and these prayers of the many God’s own people would cease; the Earth would be hell itself.

Those who dare to think >there is not God<, do not exist out of themselves, nobody does. We all are out of the Grace of God, and those who deny God, still are kept for a while; kept by the prayers of those who do believe in God - through God’s grace that gives them another chance (which they did not deserve at all).

Yours
Bruno

 

[wanstronian]

Not the slightest vague in comparison with “I have no idea whatsoever”!

On the contrary, admitting that one doesn’t know the answer is far more definite, not to mention intellectually honest, than pretending one does know the answer when one can’t possibly.

The Being who has far more** knowledge and insight **than those who use their knowledge and insight to proclaim that they have far more knowledge and insight than any other being - and that their knowledge and insight are derived from that which lacks knowledge and insight.

Well, firstly I know of nobody who claims to know more than any other being. Secondly, you haven’t answered my question, you’ve just wrapped it in rhetoric and guff.

So I’m forced to assume you don’t know who, or what, this being is, as you have provided no credible answer.

Your question assumes - without justification - that everything is located in time and space.

You’re right. So let me re-phrase it: how did this being come to exist?

**One **of the reasons why the universe was created is that beings like you can enjoy proclaiming that the universe is purposeless!

How do you know that’s one of the reasons? It seems a bit self-defeating, not much of a reason to create a universe. So what are the other reasons?

By a process analogical to that of a great composer or artist.

Well, I can describe the physical process by which a composer creates a score, or by which an artists applies paint to a canvass, or creates a sculpture. So I assume you can provide the same level of detail for the creation of the universe, instead of having to resort to nebulous analogy. Please enlighten us. Describe the process.

Probably with the Big Bang.

Okay.

With love…

Again, that’s not much of an answer. Can I give my chair consciousness “with love?” No, I think not. So I ask again: “How (by what process) did it give us consciousness?”

Consciousness is eternal.

Yet again, that’s not much of an answer. In what way is consciousness eternal? If every conscious thing died, would consciousness still exist? If we accept your laughable implication that this supreme being of unknown, unknowable origin, created the universe by an unknown, unknowable process for unknown, unknowable reasons (at least, you haven’t been able to provide any explanation thus far); if we accept that this being somehow granted us consciousness, then you should really have a better and more justifiable answer than “Consciousness is eternal.” Would you accept such a woolly answer if you were a juror, for example?

Your infinite regress is the product of a finite intelligence…

No it’s not. The question is the product of a finite intelligence, but just because the question has the potential to repeat infinitely (or at least until you can provide a satisfactory answer, which you don’t seem able to), that doesn’t make it an invalid question. So - can you answer it?

Consciousness is a gift that cannot be understood by those who do not believe in love.

Well, I believe in love, so I meet your declared criteria for understanding. So please explain to me why this mystical being gave us consciousness.

Consciousness is certainly not a product of electrical impulses which are unaware of what they are doing.

You seem very certain of this. What’s your rationale?

Consciousness is evinced by every form of life with its urge to survive.

Is a tree conscious? Is consciousness a discrete characteristic, or is it a continuum? Are you more conscious than a pot plant? How come?

Evolution by Design is not a mistake but the most adequate explanation of reality.

By what criteria do you judge that Evolution by Natural Selection cannot be true, yet Evolution by Design is a slam dunk? What stand-out evidence shows Natural Selection to be impossible, and what experiments can be performed that prove it wrong, and ID correct? What discovery would falsify ID?

N/A

You can’t answer. Ok.

Within the framework of Design there is an inevitable element of chance.

This just seems like a get-out clause. If a being is able to design an entire universe, it’s hard to see how it would let anything unwanted appear.

Your criticisms presupposes that you can design a superior universe. Please provide a feasible blueprint… without which your objection is worthless.

Yes, you’ve raised this vacuous objection before. But I don’t claim to be able to design a whole universe. Unless you are suggesting that the Supreme Being is a human (and what a paradox that would be!), your objection amounts to a Tu Quoque fallacy.

I can demonstrate this with a simple analogy. I can tell when a professional tennis player makes a bad shot. That doesn’t mean that I could beat him/her in a tennis match, but nor does it magically make the poor shot into a good one. If you are claiming that there exist(ed/s) a being intelligent enough to create a universe, then there is no good explanation for the sheer quantity of design errors it made… errors, incidentally, which are perfectly-well explained by, and only by, the settled science of Natural Selection.

By taking a cursory glance at the marvels of nature and examining the extent to which you rely on reason rather than chance in your daily life…

That’s it? “Think like I do, then you’ll think like I do?” Thankfully, the awesome success of science isn’t based on such limited and uncurious thinking.

 

[wanstronian]

Precisely what is the naturalistic explanation of our existence?

1. What created the universe?

Nobody really knows what caused the big bang. That’s better than making up some incoherent entity and pretending it’s true. It’s call intellectual honesty, and you and it seem forever destined to be ships that pass in the night.

1. What** is** this mysterious source of energy?

As above. Intellectual honesty strikes again!

1. Where did it come from?

As above.

1. Why did it create the universe?

Bad question. No reason to suppose a conscious decision.

1. By what process did it create the universe?

Nobody knows what caused the big bang, so the process beforehand is unknown, and probably unknowable. It’s best to admit when you don’t know something, otherwise you say stupid things that are easily exposed for the idiocy they are. As you have discovered to your cost in this thread, and many others.

1. When did it create the universe?

This universe was created about 13.8 billion years ago, as far as we can tell. There might be other universes; there might have been prior universes. Nobody knows.

1. How did it create consciousness?

“It” didn’t. Consciousness almost certainly came about as a by-product of Evolution by Natural Selection, the only plausible theory for the existence of life. We can’t know for certain, but that’s no reason to make up magical beings in a superficial attempt to provide answers.

1. How did it create the power of reason?

Same question, same answer.

1. How can the rest of us verify your hypothesis?

Quite easily. Make no assumptions. Examine the world about you, and realise that what you can see, measure, test - is all you can know with any level of certainty.

This is a far more reliable process than indulging in make-believe. It may not provide the definitive answers you crave, but at least it prevents the invention of implausible fairy stories.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you mean that you use nothing more than science to make every single decision in your life? Are there no limits to the ways in which science works? Does it solve all your problems? Which textbooks do you use? Is your house full of scientific equipment on which you rely implicitly without ever having to use your own judgment?
If you believe science has no need to explain itself you obviously have never consulted a book on the philosophy of science… How would you justify the principle of induction?

Yes, I believe I use science for virtually every decision I make. Sometimes I act impulsively, and you can substitute “impulsively” with “irrationally” in these cases. I’m not a robot. But that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t work. Nor does it mean that unscientific thought processes can never produce positive results. But when this does happen it’s by coincidence, nothing more.

The fact that you think that science involves test tubes and oscilloscopes demonstrates that you don’t even understand the principles of science!

Science works. You can’t do anything about that fact.

 

[wanstronian]

What created the universe was the Big Bang. Who created the universe was the omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing Supreme Being

Yet you can’t demonstrate the existence of this being. Which makes it a mere assertion, to which I can apply the Hitchens test.

We call this Supreme Being God.

Okay.

God did not “come” from anywhere. God always existed outside of time and outside of space. I know it’s a difficult concept to grasp. Physicists are still wrapping their heads around it.

No, they’re not. The concept is easy. The demonstration is the thing. And creationists are unable to demonstrate it.

But if you don’t have space, you don’t have time.

Now I think it’s you who are struggling to understand. The absence of space doesn’t preclude the passage of time, it’s just that without space there is no coherent measure of the order of events of things. Time becomes meaningless in the context we understand it. That doesn’t make it non-existent.

And vice versa. If you don’t have time, you don’t have space. And before the Big Bang, there was neither time nor space.

This is just an assertion. The fact is, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang.

Space and time have a beginning; God does not. So it is a moot question.

No it isn’t, you’re just making stuff up - arbitrarily placing God outside the physical so you can claim it exists without being proved wrong. This also succumbs to the Hitchens test.

Personally, I think God created the universe because he enjoys company. He makes friends with anyone and everyone, so I think he must enjoy having us around.

Of course, you’re welcome to your opinion. But I would have thought it was obvious we’re dealing in facts here, not subjective opinion. Tony doesn’t admit that his hypotheses are merely his opinion, he claims they are true facts. So at least you’re honest about this, even if your reasoning is slightly wacky, “He enjoys having us around???”

The Big Bang.

1. When did it create the universe?

Approximately 17.3 billion years ago, give or take a billion years.

Wow - when did the extra 3.5 billion years get added on?

I think consciousness arose out of the process of evolution.

Hooray for you! Some common sense! Follow on question then: Evolution by Natural Selection, or Evolution by guided invisible magic hand?

Back to the point of an eternal being vs. a created being. God was always conscious.

Not good enough. This is just speculation. An invented charateristic of an invented being, as far as any evidence is concerned.

8a. And what gave that consciousness (and so on, ad infinitum)?

Nothing gave it. There’s no regression necessary. It’s only necessary if you exist inside space and time.

Sorry, that doesn’t wash. You can’t just use an unsubstantiated “outside of space and time” get-out-of-jail-free card, you need to provide some evidence for your argument.

I think God designed evolution so that consciousness could evolve because that’s what makes life interesting.

Well, that answers my previous question I suppose. You believe in Evolution by guided invisible magic hand.

It’s pretty apparent God likes things infinite and interesting.

Is it? How come? Even if one accepts your bare assertion that God exists, I can see no evidence that it likes things “infinite and interesting.” Methinks your rationale might be something like, “things are infinite and interesting, therefore that must be the way God like them.” By which token, he also likes the idea of malaria ridden African babies and murdering people by natural disaster.

Also, by having consciousness evolve, it gives God interaction with us, which I think he clearly enjoys.

More of the same? What make you think you could possibly understand the mind of your God?

I think all animals are conscious to some extent. Even an amoeba will try to get away from a bad environment.

No it won’t. It’ll die.

But I think what you’re getting at is what we term “higher consciousness”. That’s a little difficult to answer. But I think any creature that could ask the question, “Why am I here?” would qualify. Since we have yet to cross over into inter-species communication, we don’t know if any other creatures on Earth have come to that point other than ourselves. However, I think it’s possible that dolphins may have and maybe elephants. There could be many more.

Okay. I agree.

Who said it was false? I firmly believe in evolution.

Good.

 

[wanstronian]

And I don’t believe evolution was a mistake.

Oh dear - not so good. So I’ll ask you the same question I asked Tony: How can we tell that Natural Selection is wrong, and ID is right? What experiments can we run? What would prove ID to be wrong?

If you mean, did God sit down and say, "I think I’ll design a human to be a mammal, have binocular vision, walk on two legs, have big brains, etc., etc., then no, I don’t think he did. Did he put things in motion so that an infinite variety of life forms could evolve? Yes, I think he did. But if the asteroid had never wiped out the dinosaurs, I think he would be delighted if we were reptiles debating the existence of God.

Okay. But do you admit that you have no evidence for your supposition?

That all happens because evolution is a very slow and torturous process. Evolution does not “think forward”. It takes something already in existence and adapts it to the new environment.

Well, you know acres more about evolution than most of the theists on this forum, I’ll say that much for you!

The hypothesis of Evolution by Design is perfectly consistent with the evidence. But then, it was developed to be so, in order that it couldn’t be refuted on the basis of evidence. But instead, it’s refuted (or at least, not taken seriously) on the basis of its complete lack of scientific credibility.

Unfortunately, you cannot prove the existence of God.

No, you can’t. So er… why believe in it? You can’t prove the existence of unicorns either - do you believe in those? Goblins? Pixies? Fairies? You have no good reason not to believe in them. Or actually, you do - and the same good reason, if consistently applied by a rational thinker, should also be used to not believe in God.

However, I would also point out you cannot disprove the existence of God.

True - however surely you don’t consider that a valid reason to believe in something? Again, by that rationale, why don’t you believe in unicorns et al?

It is a matter of choice which you believe.

Absolutely. And I wouldn’t dream of denying people their beliefs, although I (clearly) don’t share them and frankly, think they’re ridiculous. However, I do have a problem when people go around stating that it’s a fact that God exists, that they can prove it (then they trot out some shallow nonsense like the KCA).

It always amazes me at how vehement people who disbelieve in God are towards those of us who do. It’s still only a belief. I have asked openly for anyone to disprove the existence of God so that a scientist would agree it was proven. So far, no one has taken me up on my challenge.

Of course not. As you say, God is impossible to disprove, just like ID Creationism. But that is NOT a good, rational reason to believe in something.

 

[wanstronian]

Are you kidding me? Michael Shermer? Daniel Dennett? Lawrence Krauss?

This is a search for truth looking at it from many perspectives. It might be a problem though for someone who does not believe in truth. But then you disqualify yourself from any argument then.

You’re right - as my sig states, I’m not interested in any old truth just for the sake of pretending I know the answer to a question that might not even be valid.

With the names you’ve mentioned, it sounds like it might actually be an interesting and balanced set of vids, so I’ll definitely drop by when I’ve got some time. However, are you claiming that it demonstrates that evolution by natural selection didn’t cause consciousness? Because demonstration, not speculation is what I asked for when you made your assertion, remember?

 

[wanstronian]

Please note: the following are personal concepts which help me grow closer to the Christian God of Catholicism. I share them in hopes of you growing closer to the Christian God of Catholicism.

I appreciate your sentiment…

What an excellent challenge, my friend!
Without a doubt, I do not know how He made things happen or how He existed, but…
Here is a simple concept of “what happened” before creation:
Who, or what, is this Supreme Being?

1. God, a person with an image/body, spirit, thoughts, a will which proceeds from the thoughts and image/body, which operates according to the nature of perfect Love: being and “spreading the means to being” in a state of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy through the powers of perfect patience, kindness, motivation, and wisdom*, thought about what He wanted.
   Why did it create the universe?
2. He wanted others, like himself, to freely experience and share the “means to experience” the awesomeness of unbreakable peace and limitless happiness and unstoppable energy (Love). He wanted us to freely choose to be perfectly patient and kind and motivated. For then, not only would we experience awesomeness, He would experience greater awesomeness.
3. He thought about what all is required to ensure that the choice to Love is of pure freedom(The Word), for if it is not of pure freedom, He might as well make robots or do no extra work.
4. After thinking about many intense and extreme circumstances which is generated from this want, He ensured that He was ready to be of perfect judgment, mercy, and punishment.
5. He thought about every small detail of the plan to ensure it would work. (The Word With God)
6. After He was certain the plan would work, He made it happen (The Word was God).

I have thought of a somewhat simple outline for how God guides free-willed beings to the goal without interfering with free-will.

1. He gave His purposeful creations everything necessary to enjoy life, except full wisdom or knowledge. He made us to desire peace, happiness, energy, wisdom, and companionship. He made sure that He could initially only be known through faith because if we know He exists, and we know He is All-Powerful, our will will be limited by various factors such as fear, which would sacrifice free will.
2. In time, we lost focus on Him. From the natural consequence of being free-willed and desiring and lacking full wisdom and knowledge, we hit bottom: A point as to which we were killing unjustly in the name of false idols (money, fame, and power to name a few).
3. At this point, He showed us the way in a very calculated and precise manner as to not forfeit our free-will. He made his image/body* become human. Since His body gained a free mind and will, He is a distinct person from God and He is His only begotten Son.
4. Since He executed the method perfectly, His free-willed creations still require faith to choose to Love Him. This need for faith and demonstration of the way will continue to draw humans closer to Him, but at the same time humans will still be pushing further away from God.
5. At the complete time, God’s Will will become human. His Will will be of a free mind and body, and will be a distinct person. He will proceed from God and His Son. He will become perfected Love, therefore He will be known as the Holy Spirit. At the revelation of the Holy Spirit, The Completeness of His Purpose will be evident to All.

Regarding the other questions, I do not know. I do encourage you to consider, what purpose is served in knowing those answers? For as you stated, one can always ask, “But what happened before that?” ad infinitum. In other words, faith is a requirement for beings which “come into existence.” Since you came into existence, why not have faith in Jesus Christ?

what is the evidence for your responses to the above?
Recognize that you are a free-willed being who is learning about the Son(Jesus) and God (the Father), therefore you are somewhat proceeding from the Father and the Son. Which means you might be the Holy Spirit we are waiting for, so go and use all your body, thoughts, will, and spirit to become One in Patience, Kindness, and Motivation for God towards others and yourself as Jesus did according to His Church!

How can the rest of us verify your hypothesis?
Here are a few methods:

1. When you are filled with peace, happiness, and energy, recognize how you are being, respectively, patient, kind, and motivated in body, thought, will, and/or spirit.
2. When you are not filled with complete peace, happiness, or energy, recognize how you are not either patient, kind, or motivated…
3. When you learn more about scientific discoveries, and you choose to credit something other than God, recognize how much greater your free-will is apparent.

Thoughts?

… but I’m interested in knowledge, not speculation. The things that you claim about your God here, are the same things that people from other religions claim about theirs. In other words, they do not amount to knowledge, they amount to faith. It’s not the same thing. And given that there are other faiths and they can’t all be right, there’s no good reason to suppose that yours is. In fact, there’s no good reason, from a rational point of view, to suppose that *any *of them are right. If your belief gives you comfort, then false though that comfort might be, I do not begrudge it to you.

 

[wanstronian]

He, who asks such questions, will never understand why Christians know the answers in a deep contentedness and joy in belief. So, any further explanation would be a waist of time, as he anyhow refuses any comprehention. One day he will see anyhow.

Obviously, I think that he will NOT see.

The significant characteristic in which such fools establish their foolishness, is the continuous appellation of others, as being ignorant, stubborn and their explanation they name as “Argument from Ignorance”. So what?!

“So what???” You think that the Argument from Ignorance is a good argument? You think that not understanding a phenomenon is a good reason for disbelieving it?

I would say that the significant characteristic in which fools establish their foolishness, is in the arbitrary belief of an arbitrary supernatural being for which no good evidence exists.

Let them be - let them see for themselves when they are judged, and let them spoil their present life in emptyness.

That’s just the thing - we atheists don’t spoil our present lives. We realise it’s the only one we get, and instead of wasting it worshipping a man-made concept, we live it. Atheism sets you free!

Any answer is useless, for even when the fool walks on the road, he lacks sense, and he says to every one that he is a fool. A fool multiplies words, though no man knows what is to be, and who can tell him what will be after him? Ecc 10,3-14

Righto.

 

[StarSapphire]

Ooooh, that’s going deep…

True, most religions have faith in the divine, and that theirs is the one true faith. But it’s not something you can judge empirically. Therein lies both its strength and its weakness. Ultimately it’s up to your own personal faith, and that’s something you can explore by asking questions like you did, but that no one else can give you.

But it does make for a fascinating discussion! I really missed being able to talk about this stuff, I am so glad I found this forum!

 

[tonyrey]

I wonder why you are so vituperative, when it is not called for. Can’t you refute a point without descending to diatribe or without being insulting? But to answer your question:

You say this is a simple question, but it is not simple at all. And then you give forth a set of circumstances that are clearly painful, unfair, uncalled for, and probably out of your control. Well, I have personally lived through that.

When I was married for 13 years, my husband wanted to throw me away like the piece of trash he thought I was. He wanted me to leave and he would get the house and the kids and everything else. When I asked what he thought I deserved, he said the clothes on my back. Well, I said that wasn’t acceptable and I didn’t leave, although we did live separate lives for approximately six years. I cried from a broken heart at least two hours every day for an entire year. And I remained a warm and loving mother to my children, and I was civil to my husband, even when he wasn’t civil to me.

On top of that, I was in immense pain for over five years, to the tune of taking 8 vicodins a day and it would just barely touch the pain. And the pain did not go away because it was my birthday, or because I was studying for a test, or because it was Christmas, etc., etc.

And yes, it did make me question if there was a God. How could God let this happen to me? I didn’t deserve what happened to me. Etc. But a very wonderful man, Father Aidan O’Donovan, was Christ for me. He helped me to turn my life around by showing me that I could accept my life as it was instead of pining away for what I think I was owed. And once I accepted that, then I could work on the areas that I thought needed improvement. So I started with being thankful for my children and my job. I had always wanted a library in my house, so I started one by buying The Iliad and The Odyssey. It was a huge step for me because I actually bought something for one of my goals without asking my husband’s permission. And, in fact, I quit asking my husband’s permission for most of my actions, and learned to think for myself. And when he attacked me (verbally), I would say, “I’m sorry you feel that way. But I have to do what I think is best.” And I wouldn’t engage him.

And now we’ve been married 28 years and we have a wonderful marriage. And we finally addressed my medical problems (another thing my husband thought was frivolous), and now I’m pain free most days and don’t take Vicodin any longer except very, very occasionally.

So that is the very, very brief version of my story. And I would like to paraphrase Virgil in his Aeneid. (I would quote, but I don’t have it here and I don’t remember it exactly.) But he said something like: “It is easy to fall into the pits of hell. But to climb back out again and to breathe the clear, sweet air…ahhhh, that is the hard part.” And it sure is. But with God, all things are possible. And He brought me through it all.

The second point I would like to address is your attitude that Christians have “vague minds with a simple sketch of God”. I would refute this claim quite strongly. In fact, it seems to me that you are the one with the simple sketch of God. You seem to envision Him as some sort of Santa Claus who gives us whatever we want or whatever we deserve whenever we demand it. And if He doesn’t, then it’s time to throw a temper tantrum. That is not belief. That is magic. And it’s the basis for all of the ancient (I mean really ancient) religions. The gods had to be propitiated with sacrifices and gifts. And when things went wrong, you went to the shaman, or the witch doctor, or the priest, and they prayed on your behalf, they said magic words, they performed magic rites, etc., to get the gods to be benevolent to you again. Because it’s in our human nature to want to control everything.

But true belief is not about controlling God; it’s about knowing He is there to help, to comfort, and to guide us through all the bad stuff and to rejoice with us during the good times. Belief is so simple…and yet it is so hard. It’s hard because we don’t want to admit there are things beyond our control. It’s simple because it only takes one little prayer: “Lord, please come into my heart and make me whole.”

The third point I would like to make is a comment when you said “go ahead push this baby under the carpet and encourage man that all is well”. No, all is not well. That’s why we need a Savior–Someone who is both the Way and who can show us the Way.

Bravissimo, Elizabeth! A very moving post which exposes shallowness for what it is…

 

[wanstronian]

Excellent and Challenging questions my friend! I would like to embrace the challenge of this question. I would first like to offer a scenario to demonstrate that the righteousness vs ridiculousness of pain lies in perspective.

First, why are we here? To prove to God that we are worthy of living in His Kingdom.
How do we prove that we are worthy? By demonstrating in this lifetime, that we will freely choose to be patient and kind and motivated for God for the sake of greater peace and happiness as a society, as well as self, even in the face of unjust pain and suffering.

To attempt to recognize how the pain can be righteous, please consider the following scenario:
You have been appointed team captain. You have to pick a team of free-willed people of the world which will achieve the greatest level of peace, happiness, and energy as a team, as well as individuals. You know the only way to achieve this is by each player of the team desiring the goal and being and spreading the means to being unconditionally patient and kind.
Before selecting who will be on the team, you have a few options, do you…
A) Allow everyone of the world on the team, without consideration of what, how, and why they desire and do.
B) blindly and randomly pick and reject people.
C) watch and study the wills of each person to see how truly desiring of the goal they are; to see how unconditional they are; and to see whether they work for the greater good of themselves or the team or both, even in the face of pain and suffering.
There is one rule though: Although you will know at various points in the life of the persons, how truly dedicated to the goal, how unconditionally patient and kind they are, and what greater good they truly serve, you cannot place them on the team prior to natural death, for that would sacrifice the free-will of the other people of the world.

How does this scenario conform to an all loving God? The following are only some of the ways:
When a person desires peace, happiness, and energy for the society and the self, they are teachable. Therefore God knows He can teach the poor in spirit and the mourners, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.
When a person is fully obedient to even oppressive authorities, they are teachable. Therefore God knows He can teach the meek because He is the Supreme Authority, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.
When a person desires to understand patience/peace, kindness/happiness, and motivation/energy better, they are teachable. Therefore, God knows He can teach those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.
When a person is forgiving of others because they know the others know not what they do, they are teachable and helpful to the cause. Therefore, God knows He can teach and count on the merciful to extinguish strife, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.
When a person is fully dedicated to the goal and has achieved unbreakable peace in the self, they are teachable and helpful to the cause. Therefore, God knows He can teach and count on the pure in heart to begin spreading the means, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.
When a person is spreading and spreading the means to peace, s/he is a child of God. Therefore, God knows He can teach and count on the peacemakers to make peace in His Kingdom, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.
When a person, who does not fully understand the Word or how to spread the Word, gets persecuted for the sake of spreading the Word, they are teachable. Therefore, God knows He can teach them and count on them to do His Will, so He welcomes them with open arms into His Kingdom.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Well, my thoughts are that this kind of mealy-mouthed excuse-making on the part of your god, is an utter logical failure.

It’s invention of the most frivolous kind. You make up a scenario, that for some reason some people have to suffer in order to get into heaven. What’s your justification for this scenario? None whatsoever, it’s just speculation. It’s a way - the only way - of reconciling the fact of human suffering with the obviously contradictory concept of a kind, loving and omnipotent god. It fails horribly, and is merely indicative of the lengths that theists will go to to sustain and justify their belief in a god which, if it really does exist, is at best disinterested in its creation.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony doesn’t admit that his hypotheses are merely his opinion, he claims they are true facts.

A false statement about a member of this forum is an infringement of Conduct Rule 1…

 

[tonyrey]

Do you mean that you use nothing more than science to make every single decision

For deciding what to believe, what your values are, what your purpose in life is, who will be your life partner and friends, which job you will take, where you will live, which house or furniture or books you will buy, which music you will listen to?

Sometimes I act impulsively, and you can substitute “impulsively” with “irrationally” in these cases. I’m not a robot.

Those statements taken in conjunction seem to imply that you are a robot except when you behave impulsively!

But that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t work.

Irrelevant. I have not stated or implied that science doesn’t work.

Nor does it mean that unscientific thought processes can never produce positive results.

Irrelevant. I have not stated or implied that unscientific thought processes can never produce positive results.

But when this does happen it’s by coincidence, nothing more.

So you are in effect a biological machine?

The fact that you think that science involves test tubes and oscilloscopes demonstrates that you don’t even understand the principles of science!

A false assertion which infringes Forum Rule 1.

Science works.

An irrelevant platitude.

You can’t do anything about that fact.

An irrelevant statement intended to be provocative.

Are there no limits to the ways in which science works?

No response!

Does it solve all your problems?

No response!

Which textbooks do you use (to solve all your problems)?

No response!

Is your house full of scientific equipment on which you rely implicitly without ever having to use your own judgment?

No response!

If you believe science has no need to explain itself you obviously have never consulted a book on the philosophy of science…

No response!

How would you justify the principle of induction?

No response!

 

[tonyrey]

Ooooh, that’s going deep…

True, most religions have faith in the divine, and that theirs is the one true faith. But it’s not something you can judge empirically. Therein lies both its strength and its weakness. Ultimately it’s up to your own personal faith, and that’s something you can explore by asking questions like you did, but that no one else can give you.

But it does make for a fascinating discussion! I really missed being able to talk about this stuff, I am so glad I found this forum!

I still share your delight two years after making the same discovery.

 

[tonyrey]

I would say that the significant characteristic in which fools

 

[Lui]

So at least you’re honest about this, even if your reasoning is slightly wacky, “He enjoys having us around???”

I have to admit that I had to laugh out loud when I read this. If there is a God who spent 14 billion years creating the whole Universe with billions of stars and planets, a complex life on earth from the first single-cell organism to dinosaurs and the wide variety of life that exists on our planet today, the only explanation for the existence of humans the last 200000 years is because he wanted some friends???

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary, admitting that one doesn’t know the answer is far more definite, not to mention intellectually honest, than pretending one does know the answer when one can’t possibly.

Again, that’s not much of an answer. Your cursory dismissal reveals how little significance you attach to the most important aspect of reality.

Can I give my chair consciousness “with love?” No, I think not. So I ask again: “How (by what process) did it give us consciousness?”

Only a fool would claim to know…

In what way is consciousness eternal? If every conscious thing died, would consciousness still exist?

The Source of consciousness would still exist.

If we accept your laughable implication that this supreme being of unknown, unknowable origin, created the universe…

A gratuitous assertion…

… if we accept that this being somehow granted us consciousness, then you should really have a better and more justifiable answer than “Consciousness is eternal.”

Can you suggest a more plausible brute fact? If not why not? To take refuge in sheer ignorance is unscientific and nihilistic.

Would you accept such a woolly answer if you were a juror, for example?

A juror accepts the fact that innocence or guilt is based on the fact of consciousness. He would certainly not accept a plea of** total ignorance**.

The question is the product of a finite intelligence, but just because the question has the potential to repeat infinitely (or at least until you can provide a satisfactory answer, which you don’t seem able to), that doesn’t make it an invalid question.

So - can you answer it?

Only a fool would claim to know…

So please explain to me why this mystical being gave us consciousness.

If your concept of love were valid you wouldn’t ask that question.

Consciousness is certainly not a product of electrical impulses which are unaware of what they are doing.

What’s your rationale?Have you ever witnessed and understood the process by which electrical impulses have become aware of what they are doing?

Is consciousness a discrete characteristic, or is it a continuum?

Degrees of consciousness do not explain how it originated.

By what criteria do you judge that Evolution by Natural Selection cannot be true, yet Evolution by Design is a slam dunk? What stand-out evidence shows Natural Selection to be impossible, and what experiments can be performed that prove it wrong, and ID correct?

Set up an experiment with a Big Bang to prove Natural Selection is possible… The more absurd a hypothesis is the more difficult it is to disprove - but it doesn’t cease to be absurd because natural selection is supposed to have produced intelligent selection which has yielded natural selection as the sole explanation of all development in the entire universe…

What discovery would falsify ID?

If you could be shown to be a biological computer!

If a being is able to design an entire universe, it’s hard to see how it would let anything unwanted appear.

Omnipotence doesn’t entail inconsistency.

Yes, you’ve raised this vacuous objection before.

To use the term “vacuous” doesn’t alter your inability to do so.

But I don’t claim to be able to design a whole universe.

In that case your objection is worthless.

Unless you are suggesting that the Supreme Being is a human (and what a paradox that would be!), your objection amounts to a Tu Quoque fallacy.

Omnipotence doesn’t entail inconsistency.

If you are claiming that there exist(ed/s) a being intelligent enough to create a universe, then there is no good explanation for the sheer quantity of design errors it made… errors, incidentally, which are perfectly-well explained by, and only by, the settled science of Natural Selection.

Blind selection is clearly inferior to rational selection. Moreover Design does not entail a degree of perfection that cannot be attained in a finite system.

Thankfully, the awesome success of science isn’t based on such limited and uncurious thinking.

The awesome success of science is based on the power of reason that you cursorily reject as a set of electrical currents which are totally unaware of anything - including your faith in their ability to produce your power of reason…

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

I have to admit that I had to laugh out loud when I read this. If there is a God who spent 14 billion years creating the whole Universe with billions of stars and planets, a complex life on earth from the first single-cell organism to dinosaurs and the wide variety of life that exists on our planet today, the only explanation for the existence of humans the last 200000 years is because he wanted some friends???

At least it’s better than your lack of explanation of why you have anything whatsoever!!! You can make fun of people’s belief in God but can you make fun of your own failure to make any** positive **contribution to this discussion?

 

[tonyrey]

The things that you claim about your God here, are the same things that people from other religions claim about theirs. In other words, they do not amount to knowledge, they amount to faith. It’s not the same thing. And given that there are other faiths and they can’t all be right, there’s no good reason to suppose that yours is. In fact, there’s no good reason, from a rational point of view, to suppose that *any *of them are right. If your belief gives you comfort, then false though that comfort might be, I do not begrudge it to you.

There’s no reason whatsoever to believe your faith in your power to determine that **all **religious claims are false is justified - particularly in view of the fact that you have **no **explanation at all and even pride yourself on having no explanation as if it proves your view is superior to the dominant interpretation of reality throughout the world from time immemorial by those who believe in the **reality **of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love…