Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Gerald10]

I'll dissect this one. While yes, under Christianity one characteristic of God is his omnipotence. This doesn't allow him to do things which are logically incoherent (such as creating square circles). I regard this in much the same sense, as God simply allowing people to go to heaven when it is not logically compatible with his sense of justice and opposition to evil.

edit: seems I was beaten, although with a pretty different answer

Lol Ive had them tell me God can make square circles too don't worry. Justice is probably the answer I can most identify with. He took the heat for everyone's sin because if noone did there would be no justice in the world. Ive been told that before... but I was hoping to get another perspective from different people.

 

[boris]

It's not a punishment, please would you stop referring to it as such. Death and disease entered the world as a consequence of Adam and Eve's original rebellion. There are certain rare instances in the Bible where God personally punishes people by striking them down with death or disease (e.g. Ananias and Sapphira in Acts) but in general that's not how God operates. We all have to live in a fallen world.

Furthermore, pobody's nerfect. Not me, not the Pope not even Mother Teresa. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"- if we tried make ourselves right with God by our actions we'd all still fall hopelessly short. Fortunately, God provides Jesus as the perfect sacrifice so we can be made right with God.

A consequence is a form of punishment, no?

 

[*TRUE*]

A consequence is a form of punishment, no?

mmmm...
Well, a punishment can be a consequence.
But also , if you jump in the water , u get wet.
If you dont drink water , you get thirsty.
A consequence is a result of an occurance of something.
A spiritual law states that the wages ( consequence) of sin is death.
Its not so much a punishment , as a result of a spiritual law.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Man I answered all of these questions way better when I was pretending to be a fundie earlier.

The thing is that they flat out don't believe this stuff, Chadd's theory is right. They're convincing themselves that they believe it but they don't.

u don't really believe in science then! >=[

 

[P_Dilemma]

So God has a special plan in store for us and we are too puny and insignificant to understand it.

Human - so, what's the plan?
God - It's a secret... teehee
Human - C'mon, we don't even know if you exist or not. Just come down and give us a hint. That's gotta help, doesn't it?
God - Nope. My plan is too awesome for your puny mind to comprehend.
Human - ...

Hmm... in that case, whether or not God exists, you could probably put this issue on the same level as the problem of whether or not we're in a simulated universe. Since we're not going to find out the details anyway, might as well keep on living our lives and have some fun.

So now what i don't get is why ppl keep going to them temples and praying to God... Are they looking for some cheat code (go on, give us a hint) or do they seriously enjoy waking up early and trekking to an old building to pray to a guy who doesn't respond directly back?

And WYD is so going to screw up public transport... ick, off topic...

p__D

 

[xeuyrawp]

Like God, I propose that inasero is a figment of our imagination and, in due course, ignoring him will produce grandchildren free from intellectual torture.

Staaaaarrrtiiiiing now.

 

[inasero]

A consequence is a form of punishment, no?

If I put my hand in the fire and expect not to get burnt, then whose fault is it if I end up in ED with third degree burns?

 

[inasero]

I'll dissect this one. While yes, under Christianity one characteristic of God is his omnipotence. This doesn't allow him to do things which are logically incoherent (such as creating square circles). I regard this in much the same sense, as God simply allowing people to go to heaven when it is not logically compatible with his sense of justice and opposition to evil.

edit: seems I was beaten, although with a pretty different answer

I read this really great explanation in a book once- God is a just God, and therefore we need to pay the price of our sins. But, God is also loving (in fact the Bible says that God is love), and so it's difficult for Him to dish out the punishment we rightly deserve- therein lies the seeming paradox, how does God reconcile these two aspects of himself? Sending Jesus as the perfect sacrifice into the world was the only way.

 

[boris]

If I put my hand in the fire and expect not to get burnt, then whose fault is it if I end up in ED with third degree burns?

Yeah okay, but that is because fire is hot, and if we want to we can sit here and dissect the components of fire to explain why you'd get burnt.

It doesn't translate across to what you're trying to explain to me. Putting your hand in a fire is cause and effect.

Disease was put upon man by God, and you can say that it's just a consequence of man disobeying God, but a consequence is a form of punishment.
How can a God who is not vengeful impose this punishment on all humans, even those that aren't born yet. What sin has a foetus committed? Surely newborns are the most innocent and free from sin, and yet they're often struck down with disease too.

Unless God has intended for all humans to be susceptible disease as a direct consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience ... in which case I reaffirm my idea that God is vengeful.

And you can say that 'well yes disease and pain is a consequence, but it will all go when Jesus returns'. I don't think that is a pay off. I think that is pretty weak. I can't believe people are satisfied with a life of pain and loss, because they cling on to the idea that maybe one day when Jesus returns, it's going to be replaced with eternal bliss.

You'll excuse me if I find that a bit hard to accept.

 

[inasero]

I'll dissect this one. While yes, under Christianity one characteristic of God is his omnipotence. This doesn't allow him to do things which are logically incoherent (such as creating square circles). I regard this in much the same sense, as God simply allowing people to go to heaven when it is not logically compatible with his sense of justice and opposition to evil.

edit: seems I was beaten, although with a pretty different answer

While God does act in an overall logical manner, I don't think we can use our "logic" to totally understand why he does what he does. There are some things that we can't explain like resurrection from the dead, turning water into wine, creation. We shouldn't try to use our limited knowledge to explain God, nor do I think it's possible.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts

 

[inasero]

Yeah okay, but that is because fire is hot, and if we want to we can sit here and dissect the components of fire to explain why you'd get burnt.

It doesn't translate across to what you're trying to explain to me. Putting your hand in a fire is cause and effect.

Disease was put upon man by God, and you can say that it's just a consequence of man disobeying God, but a consequence is a form of punishment.
How can a God who is not vengeful impose this punishment on all humans, even those that aren't born yet. What sin has a foetus committed? Surely newborns are the most innocent and free from sin, and yet they're often struck down with disease too.

Unless God has intended for all humans to be susceptible disease as a direct consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience ... in which case I reaffirm my idea that God is vengeful.

And you can say that 'well yes disease and pain is a consequence, but it will all go when Jesus returns'. I don't think that is a pay off. I think that is pretty weak. I can't believe people are satisfied with a life of pain and loss, because they cling on to the idea that maybe one day when Jesus returns, it's going to be replaced with eternal bliss.

You'll excuse me if I find that a bit hard to accept.

That's alright, I understand you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. This is actually one of the most common questions people ask which seemingly contradicts God's nature, but even alot of Bible-believing Christians can't answer it fully- I think a bit of theology is in order.

When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, as I understand it, everything was meant to be perfect. They were at complete ease with each other and with God (as symbolised by their nakedness) and there was no disease.

However, once they sinned they had to be banished from the Garden of Eden because God is Holy (meaning completely opposed to evil) and couldn't (not wouldn't) allow Adam and Eve to live there any longer. Outside of the Garden of Eden, it's no surprise that things weren't as rosy looking since Adam and Eve effectively banished God from having authority over them. That's reflected in the natural world as well as we see things like thorns and thistles, and animals beginning to devour each other.

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

From the above it's clear that creation was subjected to frustration. God didn't send disease as a punishment, but it came about of it's own accord when sin entered the world, just as we became spiritually separated from God and need to make the individual decision to come back to Him.

From the above, I hope it's clear that suffering comes about because we individually and collectively reject God. Even in the case of newborn infants, as harsh as it sounds they're also born into sin- but God is just and I don't think He would condemn those who are truly saved to eternal damnation just for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" (the school of Christianity I follow says that God has to specifically call us to salvation).

There are heaps of other reasons too, outlined on this website:
http://www.carm.org/questions/suffering.htm

 

[KFunk]

A theory is clearly different. It is a... coherent collection of proven facts.

The definition you provide actually says otherwise:

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

Theories are constructed around facts/observations, but they are not constituted by them. They are abstract, theoretical frameworks which aim to explain and make sense of facts and observations. For example, we haven't observed all of the theoretical objects posited by quantum field theory (at least, not in the way in which we might observe a falling apple) but the theory can none the less be used to explain observations and make testable predictions.

Also, the contents of theories commonly aren't empirically verifiable (though, importantly, they should be falsifiable). In particular, most theories make universal generalisations - i.e. with the very rough form of for every object x, satisfying some set of conditions Y, some description/outcome z will apply/occur. Absolute empirical verification of this involves observing every such instance and confirming that the rule holds. However, we are but limited beings (spatiotemporally) and so we have to make do with more approximate methods. Thus we form theories which are consistent with our observations and attempt to find further confirmatory evidence and, more importantly I feel, we also test whether they can be falsified.

 

[KFunk]

how so? some things are laws (like the law of gravity)...others are theory until proven otherwise (e.g. theory of evolution).

There's a fine line between the two. Most laws are simply theories which have been tested so rigorously that we deem it reasonable to accept them as fact (note that Newton's law of gravity is now viewed as only an approximation).

As far as I know we don't have a systematised way of deciding when a theory becomes a law. Really it seems to be something of a social phenomenon (taking place within the scientific community) and so, given the arbitrariness inherent in such things, I wouldn't place too much weight on the distinction between the two. Also note that scientific practice doesn't take place in isolation from other social forces. Powerful bodies like 'The Church' can, and as far as I can tell have, influence(d) what is accepted as a law or fact.

 

[emytaylor164]

the reality of it is science is full of theory's that can not or can not yet be proven. I think that in 100 years there will be a bunch of other theories.

 

[KFunk]

It's important to understand what proving a theory involves. We're not going to obtain absolute proof. However, evidence in favour of theories can still be obtained.

It's not as simple as - 'we don't have absolute proof, so we can't accept them'. To be fair, we don't have 'absolute proof' (whatever that amounts to - irrefutable, say, in a roughly mathematical sense?) for much at all. Thus we need to introduce the notion of warrant/justification. Even if we can't demonstrate the conclusive truth of certain beliefs, mightn't we still be able to judge between different beliefs and decide which are most warranted on the basis of our observations? The scientific method helps us to make such decisions.

 

[emytaylor164]

oh i am aware of that, however i am trying to say that very little can be proven.

 

[boris]

oh i am aware of that, however i am trying to say that very little can be proven.

like what?

 

[HalcyonSky]

oh i am aware of that, however i am trying to say that very little can be proven.

you say scientific theories can't be proven, what about your beliefs? aren't you being completely hypocritical?

 

[emytaylor164]

we were talking about scientific theories, they are utimatly theories that come and go.

 

[boris]

we were talking about scientific theories, they are utimatly theories that come and go.

So you believe that the germ theory of disease is unsubstantiated?