Does God Exist?

[Meriweather]

Do we bring disaster or does that come from a vengeful or angry God? He made us but destroys us when he doesn't like what we do, that is not very fatherly. I wonder if our sexual behaviors are cause or correlation of destruction?

I know that God is not vengeful or angry. Have you ever given a child something they really wanted--but they mishandled it and it broke? Did your vengeance and anger cause the item to break, or was it how the child mishandled what was given?

I would say our sexual behaviors are not cause, and perhaps not a true correlation (though it might be). Communities and societies seem to become undisciplined without even being aware of it. What are some of the beginning signs that we are becoming less disciplined? Possibly our sexual behavior and mores?

 

[alang1216]

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

The same might be said about science.

When I am studying science, I seek evidence. What I find astonishing is people who expect to find evidence in that which is spiritual. I often comment that is like refusing to believe in water unless water can be squeezed from a rock. We all know there is water, and we all know we cannot squeeze a rock and expect to get water. Same thing with the spiritual and physical.

Faith is not like any consumable. It is like knowledge. How much knowledge would you judge harmful enough to lead to serious problems?

People can become addicted to almost anything, religion and science included.

I don't equate faith with knowledge, in fact is seems like it is the exact opposite.

 

[The Irish Ram]

you must know what chaos was made before, or what chaos is now after changes

.

noun: cosmos ~ the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.

 

[Meriweather]

Someone with faith, by definition, has their blinders firmly in place.

I see it a bit differently. For example, would we say, "He is a great scientist! And therefore quite ignorant of history and languages!" Of course not! We simply note his field of expertise is science because he devotes such a great deal of time and energy to science he simply doesn't make the same exploration of history and languages.

Someone with faith, by definition, is a pioneer into the unknown. And the unknown is so great, one cannot simply dart from place-to-place if they expect to learn well what is directly in front of them. Doesn't mean (like the scientists with history and languages) there cannot be side trips into other unknowns, simply that there is much to learn in one region.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't equate faith with knowledge, in fact is seems like it is the exact opposite.

It is not.

 

[alang1216]

You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.

I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

And yet I presented a logical argument that you have been unable to refute one single point nor even to make an attempt to refute so I am wondering how you can believe what you just wrote.

Sorry, which logical argument are you referring to?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale - like you do - then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument I will use my perception of God because your perception of God is a fairy tale and designed to get fairy tale answers instead of seriously considering the proposition. My perception of God is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us. God exists outside of our four dimension space time. So my premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. In other words, it's not an accident that intelligence arose. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All I have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if you assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

But wait... there's more.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

This is the basis for my belief. So what is the basis for your belief?

I believe you have built your beliefs on a very shaky foundation that does not support your elaborations. You begin with the assumption that there is a God and then you have invented you own language, "no thing". What you're basically saying is that creation was either a natural or supernatural event. That's fine but you can't use semantics to answer that. Your logical framework lacks any real evidence from the real world. I know you cite 'first cause' and thermodynamics but I honestly feel you are working backwards from a belief in God to a proof of God. If you started from we do know, and what we don't know, you might posit a creator but not a Jesus.

My beliefs are based on my knowledge of the natural world. I have never, to my knowledge, seen a supernatural being or event. I believe I can trace an unbroken line from the BB to today. I don't see the need to resort to the supernatural to explain existence.

 

[alang1216]

Someone with faith, by definition, has their blinders firmly in place.

I see it a bit differently. For example, would we say, "He is a great scientist! And therefore quite ignorant of history and languages!" Of course not! We simply note his field of expertise is science because he devotes such a great deal of time and energy to science he simply doesn't make the same exploration of history and languages.

Someone with faith, by definition, is a pioneer into the unknown. And the unknown is so great, one cannot simply dart from place-to-place if they expect to learn well what is directly in front of them. Doesn't mean (like the scientists with history and languages) there cannot be side trips into other unknowns, simply that there is much to learn in one region.

Sorry, not buying it. Science is skepticism, faith is acceptance. Science requires proof, faith does not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I guess I've never quite understood the whole trinity thing and who is who.

Doesn't the holy trinity mumbo jumbo say all three are the same Father Son holy Spirit?

The holy trinity mumbo jumbo is not biblical. You must discuss about it with Catholics.

During the early days of Christianity, there was a great deal of controversy over the exact relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as to whether these were separate individuals, or different manifestations of a single individual, or whatever. There are writing sin the Bible that can be interpreted a number of ways, with regard to this.

Through no divine guidance, but through mortal process of politics, and eventually violence to suppress dissenting views, the Trinity is the view that was ultimately adopted, and is accepted by most Christian sects to this day. As a Mormon , I reject Trinitarianism, and believe something more akin to what is called Arianism, that the three members of the Godhead are three completely separate individuals.

The most definitive description of the Trinitarian belief would be what is known as the Athanasian Creed. I present it here,and echoing a statement by Bruce R. McConkie, I invite anyone to read it and judge for himself whether it provides enlightenment and clarity, or only darkness and confusion.

• Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
• Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
• Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
• For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
• But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
• What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
• Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
• The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
• Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
• Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
• Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
• Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
• As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
• The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
• Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
• And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
• Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
• It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
• For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.
• He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother -- existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
• Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
• He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
• He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
• For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
• He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
• He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
• He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
• At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
• Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
• This is the catholic faith.
• One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

​

 

[Hollie]

The history of Christianity suggests that "loving God and loving my fellow man" has largely been ignored. The wars waged by Christians are a less than subtle reminder of that.

Are you suggesting there were no wars before the advent of Christianity? The first war occurred at the dawn of humanity over the very same reasons war occurs today. No war has anything to do with religion. All war has to do with power, wealth, and territorial expansion. Cain wanted territory for his farming; Abel wanted territory for his sheep to roam. One wanted wealth from his crops; the other wanted wealth from his animals.

At the time of your so-called Christian wars, Church and State were inseparable. It was the State that declared war, and instead telling the masses it was about personal wealth, power, and territory for its leaders, they said it was about God. People will fight for God. Not so enthusiastic about fighting to gain more wealth, power, and territory for their leaders.

I’m not suggesting there were no wars before the advent of Christianity because I never suggested that.

Quite clearly all wars are not concerned exclusively with power, wealth and territorial expansion. The Spanish Conquistadors and their decimation of the South American Indians was also about converting the heathens. The European expansion and colonization of the West Indies was much the same.

Chriatianity is a prosyletizing religion and spreading the religion has been, and is, a tenet of the religion. Expansion of the religion is not a materialistic proscription, it's a religious one. My “so-called Christian wars” were not about me but about Christianity. There is a long history of wars that not just coincidently involved Christians and Christianity.

Historically speaking, today's examples as well as during the Crusades serve as well. The conflict in the Middle East is about land and power and wealth but undeniably its source is also that of a divine nature that calls to die and kill for the expansion of the religion.

The general populace as a rule is not likely to die or kill for the idea that they may get more land or power or wealth-- but if they believe their Gods are at stake, they gladly go into the swirling flames of perdition.

 

[Hollie]

Do we bring disaster or does that come from a vengeful or angry God? He made us but destroys us when he doesn't like what we do, that is not very fatherly. I wonder if our sexual behaviors are cause or correlation of destruction?

I know that God is not vengeful or angry. Have you ever given a child something they really wanted--but they mishandled it and it broke? Did your vengeance and anger cause the item to break, or was it how the child mishandled what was given?

I would say our sexual behaviors are not cause, and perhaps not a true correlation (though it might be). Communities and societies seem to become undisciplined without even being aware of it. What are some of the beginning signs that we are becoming less disciplined? Possibly our sexual behavior and mores?

If God is not vengeful or angry, you're going to have to re-write that Genesis fable. Condemning all of humanity for all eternity because of fruit theft is really petty vengeance and anger.

 

[luchitociencia]

I guess I've never quite understood the whole trinity thing and who is who.

Doesn't the holy trinity mumbo jumbo say all three are the same Father Son holy Spirit?

The holy trinity mumbo jumbo is not biblical. You must discuss about it with Catholics.

During the early days of Christianity, there was a great deal of controversy over the exact relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as to whether these were separate individuals, or different manifestations of a single individual, or whatever. There are writing sin the Bible that can be interpreted a number of ways, with regard to this.

Through no divine guidance, but through mortal process of politics, and eventually violence to suppress dissenting views, the Trinity is the view that was ultimately adopted, and is accepted by most Christian sects to this day. As a Mormon , I reject Trinitarianism, and believe something more akin to what is called Arianism, that the three members of the Godhead are three completely separate individuals.

The most definitive description of the Trinitarian belief would be what is known as the Athanasian Creed. I present it here,and echoing a statement by Bruce R. McConkie, I invite anyone to read it and judge for himself whether it provides enlightenment and clarity, or only darkness and confusion.

​

• • Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
  • Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
  • Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
  • For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
  • But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
  • What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
  • Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
  • The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
  • Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
  • Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
  • Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
  • Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
  • As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
  • The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
  • Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
  • And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
  • Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
  • It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
  • For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.
  • He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother -- existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
  • Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
  • He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
  • He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
  • For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
  • He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
  • He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  • He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
  • At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
  • Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
  • This is the catholic faith.
  • One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

​

Great input.

Still those points evade the most important point which covers the position of man with respect with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You, as a believer, think about it.

There is something missing that Catholics evade to recognize in their Trinity.

And this part that they evade has been preached by the Son.

 

[Meriweather]

Sorry, not buying it. Science is skepticism, faith is acceptance. Science requires proof, faith does not.

The reason I love both is that both depend on exploration, hands on effort, and depend on truth.

If science is skepticism, then you must truly admire young earth creationists and those who will not even consider the theory of evolution.

 

[Meriweather]

If God is not vengeful or angry, you're going to have to re-write that Genesis fable. Condemning all of humanity for all eternity because of fruit theft is really petty vengeance and anger.

Which verse(s) do you see God condemning mankind?

 

[alang1216]

Sorry, not buying it. Science is skepticism, faith is acceptance. Science requires proof, faith does not.

The reason I love both is that both depend on exploration, hands on effort, and depend on truth.

If science is skepticism, then you must truly admire young earth creationists and those who will not even consider the theory of evolution.

They are not skeptical, they are convinced by their faith and refuse to see the world as it is, as opposed to how they would like it to be.

 

[Blues Man]

or what some mere mortal interpreted as your god's promises

Let's return about what I said about the Bible being mostly about how to guide and assist us through our present life on earth. Have applying the Commandments and the Beatitudes, has loving God and loving my fellowman, worked? Yes, it has.

And all that worked before the bible was ever written.

But why are you so sure the Commandments are the actual word of god and not simply a code of ethics derived from some other philosopher?

How about the 10 Commandments or the seven deadly sins?

Personally, I do much better following the Ten Commandments and avoiding the seven deadly sins.

How do you feel about the Commandments and the seven deadly sins?

Are those the actual words of your god or were those made up by some mere mortal?

 

[Blues Man]

Do you believe God knows my fate? Would it be unreasonable to expect that if I follow the rules of my faith I'll get the reward that is promised me? If you took a poll and believers answered honestly, not 'humbly', I'd be a majority think they're a shoe in for the Good Place.

BTW, yes it would be unreasonable because you are conflating religion with God.

Everything I know about God comes to me from one religion or another. Where do you get your info?

Many places. Primarily the study of our surroundings which includes the study of ourselves. Using our experiences as creators who know and create as a proxy. Using reason and logic to see the forest instead of the trees. It’s pretty obvious to see how begets work in nature. It’s pretty easy to see how everything is connected and works together for good. It’s pretty easy to see our inclination to good. It’s pretty easy to see how subjectivity clouds the picture and objectivity leads to seeing reality.

If there were no people you'd be right.

With people we have air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, accelerated species extinctions, millions of tons of plastic in the oceans, etc etc

We really do fit the definition of a plague on the earth

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth

Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

www.telegraph.co.uk

You have to look at the full picture. If you want to criticize man for the bad shouldn’t he also be credited for the good?

The bad outweighs the good

Just for you.

REally?

Prove me wrong

Sure. The overwhelming vast majority of people who have walked this planet did not choose to kill themselves and actually did everything in their power to continue living.

So they must see something worth living for. Hence the good vastly outweighs the bad.

Fear of dying is not equivalent to doing good.

You said the good outweighs the bad

So what good?

Slavery, murder, genocide, human trafficking, the wanton destruction of the planet, the poisoning of water supplies,

How about those great monuments. How many slaves died building the great pyramids?

How about how we treat our fellow humans?

How many centuries were women subjugated and treated as chattel?

How many have been tortured, maimed and killed ?

Human beings have committed more atrocities than I can name in a lifetime.

We ain't that great.

 

[luchitociencia]

If God is not vengeful or angry, you're going to have to re-write that Genesis fable. Condemning all of humanity for all eternity because of fruit theft is really petty vengeance and anger.

The bible narrates cases when God was piss off and send plagues, diseases, etc.

Besides, God sent Adam out of the garden of Eden, and Adam was then exposed to the wilderness.

His descendants were also exposed to the wildeness because the garden of Eden was not and still is not available anymore.

Living in the wilderness each one of the descendants committed their own faults, then, wasn't God condemning all humanity but this is the case of having that each human who disobeys God condemns himself.

 

[ding]

I believe you have built your beliefs on a very shaky foundation that does not support your elaborations. You begin with the assumption that there is a God and then you have invented you own language, "no thing".

Incorrect. I begin my analysis with two possibilities which are irreducible and mutually exclusive.

And no, I do not assume God is no thing, matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the presence of matter and energy creates space and time. Hence, whatever God is he can't be matter and energy as we know it. Not to mention that matter and energy cannot be a first cause which has always existed because mater and energy will equilibrate.

What you're basically saying is that creation was either a natural or supernatural event. That's fine but you can't use semantics to answer that.

Yes, that is what I am saying even though your first comment contradicts your statement here. But I am not using semantics to evaluate these two propositions I am using observations of what was created by studying the physical, biological and moral laws which exist.

Your logical framework lacks any real evidence from the real world. I know you cite 'first cause' and thermodynamics but I honestly feel you are working backwards from a belief in God to a proof of God. If you started from we do know, and what we don't know, you might posit a creator but not a Jesus.

Actually the discussion discusses all the evidence. Specifically the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. For the record you still haven't refuted one single statement I provided. Not one.

My beliefs are based on my knowledge of the natural world. I have never, to my knowledge, seen a supernatural being or event. I believe I can trace an unbroken line from the BB to today. I don't see the need to resort to the supernatural to explain existence.

That isn't actually evidence.

I can trace the creation of existence to spirit and prove it.

 

[ding]

Do you believe God knows my fate? Would it be unreasonable to expect that if I follow the rules of my faith I'll get the reward that is promised me? If you took a poll and believers answered honestly, not 'humbly', I'd be a majority think they're a shoe in for the Good Place.

BTW, yes it would be unreasonable because you are conflating religion with God.

Everything I know about God comes to me from one religion or another. Where do you get your info?

Many places. Primarily the study of our surroundings which includes the study of ourselves. Using our experiences as creators who know and create as a proxy. Using reason and logic to see the forest instead of the trees. It’s pretty obvious to see how begets work in nature. It’s pretty easy to see how everything is connected and works together for good. It’s pretty easy to see our inclination to good. It’s pretty easy to see how subjectivity clouds the picture and objectivity leads to seeing reality.

If there were no people you'd be right.

With people we have air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, accelerated species extinctions, millions of tons of plastic in the oceans, etc etc

We really do fit the definition of a plague on the earth

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth

Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

www.telegraph.co.uk

You have to look at the full picture. If you want to criticize man for the bad shouldn’t he also be credited for the good?

The bad outweighs the good

Just for you.

REally?

Prove me wrong

Sure. The overwhelming vast majority of people who have walked this planet did not choose to kill themselves and actually did everything in their power to continue living.

So they must see something worth living for. Hence the good vastly outweighs the bad.

Fear of dying is not equivalent to doing good.

You said the good outweighs the bad

So what good?

Slavery, murder, genocide, human trafficking, the wanton destruction of the planet, the poisoning of water supplies,

How about those great monuments. How many slaves died building the great pyramids?

How about how we treat our fellow humans?

How many centuries were women subjugated and treated as chattel?

How many have been tortured, maimed and killed ?

Human beings have committed more atrocities than I can name in a lifetime.

We ain't that great.

You have a serious cynicism problem, bro, if all you see is the bad.

 

[Blues Man]

Do you believe God knows my fate? Would it be unreasonable to expect that if I follow the rules of my faith I'll get the reward that is promised me? If you took a poll and believers answered honestly, not 'humbly', I'd be a majority think they're a shoe in for the Good Place.

BTW, yes it would be unreasonable because you are conflating religion with God.

Everything I know about God comes to me from one religion or another. Where do you get your info?

Many places. Primarily the study of our surroundings which includes the study of ourselves. Using our experiences as creators who know and create as a proxy. Using reason and logic to see the forest instead of the trees. It’s pretty obvious to see how begets work in nature. It’s pretty easy to see how everything is connected and works together for good. It’s pretty easy to see our inclination to good. It’s pretty easy to see how subjectivity clouds the picture and objectivity leads to seeing reality.

If there were no people you'd be right.

With people we have air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, accelerated species extinctions, millions of tons of plastic in the oceans, etc etc

We really do fit the definition of a plague on the earth

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth

Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

www.telegraph.co.uk

You have to look at the full picture. If you want to criticize man for the bad shouldn’t he also be credited for the good?

The bad outweighs the good

Just for you.

REally?

Prove me wrong

Sure. The overwhelming vast majority of people who have walked this planet did not choose to kill themselves and actually did everything in their power to continue living.

So they must see something worth living for. Hence the good vastly outweighs the bad.

Fear of dying is not equivalent to doing good.

You said the good outweighs the bad

So what good?

Slavery, murder, genocide, human trafficking, the wanton destruction of the planet, the poisoning of water supplies,

How about those great monuments. How many slaves died building the great pyramids?

How about how we treat our fellow humans?

How many centuries were women subjugated and treated as chattel?

How many have been tortured, maimed and killed ?

Human beings have committed more atrocities than I can name in a lifetime.

We ain't that great.

You have a serious cynicism problem, bro, if all you see is the bad.

And you deny it.