What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

I'm talking more about Big Bang cosmology. I'm a big science nerd when it comes to the universe and cosmology. The consensus seems to be that the Big Bang and all the matter in the universe can apparently spring from nothing at the quantum level. Either that or the oscillating universe theory states that there's basically an infinite number of Big Bang's and a corresponding Big Crunch (universe collapsing upon itself once cosmic inflation reverses). So either the universe has always existed or it sprang out of nothing at the sub-atomic level.

 

Either way, doesn't make sense to me.

 

But his fundamental point is still the same.  Just because something can happen due to random chance doesn't say anything about its purpose or the reason it did happen.

6 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

I would phrase it that we all have beliefs that due to our lack of knowledge currently can't be supported.  You attribute that to God, I attribute it simply to that lack of knowledge.  

 

If you believe in natural laws (if you believe that gravity is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today), then you have a belief that can't be supported by science and never can be addressed by science.  Science does not tell you that the past is a good predictor of the future.  That is essentially an assumption made by science

 

More fully, I would argue that simply leaving it at a lack of knowledge is the antithesis of science.

 

If we have a lack of knowledge in science, we come up with possible explanations.  We then make predictions from those possible explanations, and the explanations that make predictions that turn out to be true are more likely to be right than others.

 

In terms of in a belief in God, this "experiment" was done for us by St. Augustine back in the heart of the Middle Ages.

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[HOF44]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But his fundamental point is still the same.  Just because something can happen due to random chance doesn't say anything about its purpose or the reason it did happen.

 

If you believe in natural laws (if you believe that gravity is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today), then you have a belief that can't be supported by science and never can be addressed by science.  Science does not tell you that the past is a good predictor of the future.  That is essentially an assumption made by science

 

More fully, I would argue that simply leaving it at a lack of knowledge is the antithesis of science.

 

If we have a lack of knowledge in science, we come up with possible explanations.  We then make predictions from those possible explanations, and the explanations that make predictions that turn out to be true are more likely to be right than others.

 

In terms of in a belief in God, this "experiment" was done for us by St. Augustine back in the heart of the Middle Ages.

I would argue that sciences failure to predict future events based on current understanding is lack of knowledge not proof of god.  Science is FAR from completely understanding gravity as a force.  Also any scientist will admit they have many more questions than answers about our universe, again not proof of god.  

 

Also why does the universe need a purpose or reason?

Edited April 10, 2018 by HOF44

[Zguy28]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Again, science doesn't give you reasons why things are consistent.  It assumes things are consistent.  It does not show that true and universal natural laws exist, it assumes they do.

 

There is a long history of people that didn't understand the world understanding that there are part of the Bible that are difficult to interpret and might not be literal, that studying nature would give us a better understanding of the Bible and what parts of the Bible are likely to be literal and what parts are not.

This raises a question however. Why do you interpret sacred text through the lens of nature/science but not the other way around? Especially if one believes in inerrancy and inspiration of said texts, that they are revealed truth. One might object and say you are in a sense saying that Scripture is less authoritative than nature/science which is only as true as the next observation that disproves it.

 

For instance, Old Earth Christians believe "day" (Hebrew "yom" ) Genesis is not referring to 24 hours. Yet, if you take the text as it naturally reads, the best interpretation is 24 hour days.

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

I would argue that sciences failure to predict future events based on current understanding is lack of knowledge not proof of god.  Science is FAR from completely understanding gravity as a force.  Also any scientist will admit they have many more questions than answers about our universe, again not proof of god.  

 

Also why does the universe need a purpose or reason?

 

1.  It does not matter how well science understands gravity.  I just use gravity as an example  Without making assumptions that natural laws exist, science does not predict the future at all.  Period.  Whatever you want to think about that you think will be the same tomorrow as it is today, that belief is not from nor can be validated by science.

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

 

Science assumes that things that are "natural laws".  Essentially, everybody believes natural laws exist.  Essentially, everybody has strong beliefs that are not supported by science.

 

2.  I'm not talking about proof of God.  I'm talking about evidence.  If your requirement for belief or action is proof, you are going to end up in lying in a ball.

 

3.  It doesn't, but just because it could have come from random forces also doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose or really tell me anything about its possible purpose(s).  Science says the universe could have come from random factors and even what those random factors are (quantum mechanics).  It is silent on its purpose or lack there of.

[Zguy28]

14 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

Also why does the universe need a purpose or reason?

As long as you are willing to accept where that leads, from a right & wrong/good & evil standpoint. Namely that they are not real.

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  It does not matter how well science understands gravity.  I just use gravity as an example  Without making assumptions that natural laws exist, science does not predict the future at all.  Period.  Whatever you want to think about that you think will be the same tomorrow as it is today, that belief is not from nor can be validated by science.

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

 

Science assumes that things that are "natural laws".  Essentially, everybody believes natural laws exist.  Essentially, everybody has strong beliefs that are not supported by science.

 

2.  I'm not talking about proof of God.  I'm talking about evidence.  If your requirement for belief or action is proof, you are going to end up in lying in a ball.

 

3.  It doesn't, but just because it could have come from random forces also doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose or really tell me anything about its possible purpose(s).  Science says the universe could have come from random factors and even what those random factors are (quantum mechanics).  It is silent on its purpose or lack there of.

Science attempts to and in most cases predicts future occurrences based on past observations.  Could some quantum event we have no understanding of throw that on it's ear?? Sure.  

 

Still doesn't mean natural laws don't exist, just that our understanding of them is incomplete.  And again why the need for purpose?

[PeterMP]

32 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

This raises a question however. Why do you interpret sacred text through the lens of nature/science but not the other way around? Especially if one believes in inerrancy and inspiration of said texts, that they are revealed truth. One might object and say you are in a sense saying that Scripture is less authoritative than nature/science which is only as true as the next observation that disproves it.

 

For instance, Old Earth Christians believe "day" (Hebrew "yom" ) Genesis is not referring to 24 hours. Yet, if you take the text as it naturally reads, the best interpretation is 24 hour days.

 

Fundamentally,  I do not believe in a trickster God.  I do not believe in a God that would have created us with the ability to use logic and reason where those things would lead us away from him.  I believe in a God of the prodigal son that celebrates when those that have been lost to him return (and note, what drove the prodigal son back home was the use of logic and reason in his dark times, not love of his father), and even that of the lost shepherd who goes out and searches for those that have gotten lost.

 

I also think it is clear from the Bible that Jesus and God teach through metaphor, analogies, and stories that aren't true (parables).

 

@AsburySkinsFan Once made a statement about the age of the universe and the light that comes from us from distance stars.  If you believe the universe is less than billions of years old, then you also have to believe in a God that went out of his way to create a universe that based on logic and studying would lead us astray.  To me, that is not consistent with the God that I see in the Bible- that is a God that would go out of his way to create something that would lead us to doubt his existence.

27 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

Science attempts to and in most cases predicts future occurrences based on past observations.  Could some quantum event we have no understanding of throw that on it's ear?? Sure.  

 

Still doesn't mean natural laws don't exist, just that our understanding of them is incomplete.  And again why the need for purpose?

 

It also doesn't mean that natural laws do exist.  Are you agnostic on the existence of natural laws?

 

I specifically said it doesn't have to have a purpose.  "It is silent on its purpose or lack there of."

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[HOF44]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

It also doesn't mean that natural laws do exist.  Are you agnostic on the existence of natural laws?

 

 

 

My belief based on historical discoveries involving our natural world is that if given enough time we will discover the construct and functioning of our universe.  History has shown that most every magical, mystical, godly thing we have observed was eventually explainable.  

 

It's interesting to me that people of faith can feel confident in their being a creator because something had to start all this.  Yet that something that started it didn't have to have anything create it, God just gets a pass.  Either way wether its the universe or God, something always was and was not created.  

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

My belief based on historical discoveries involving our natural world is that if given enough time we will discover the construct and functioning of our universe.  History has shown that most every magical, mystical, godly thing we have observed was eventually explainable.  

 

It's interesting to me that people of faith can feel confident in their being a creator because something had to start all this.  Yet that something that started it didn't have to have anything create it, God just gets a pass.  Either way wether its the universe or God, something always was and was not created.  

 

Again, science can't tell you there are natural laws, and it never will.  Science (essentially) assumes that things like natural laws exist.  You either believe natural laws exist and therefore have a belief that is not supported and never will be supported by science, or you do not.

 

I don't know anybody that believes in God only because something had to be first.  In this thread, I've explained the fact that natural laws seem to exist and science works is in fact evidence that God exist as that was a prediction made by St. Augustine based on his belief in God in the heart of the Middle Ages.  I can give you other reasons, and I suspect if you ask so will others.

 

None of it will be scientific, but that does not mean it is not evidence and even evidence that supports strong belief.

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[Zguy28]

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Fundamentally,  I do not believe in a trickster God.  I do not believe in a God that would have created us with the ability to use logic and reason where those things would lead us away from him.  I believe in a God of the prodigal son that celebrates when those that have been lost to him return (and note, the what drove the prodigal son back home was the use of logic and reason in his dark times, not love of his father), and even that of the lost shepherd who goes out and searches for those that have gotten lost.

 

I also think it is clear from the Bible that Jesus and God teach through metaphor, analogies, and stories that aren't true (parables).

 

@AsburySkinsFan Once made a statement about the age of the universe and the light that comes from us from distance stars.  If you believe the universe is less than billions of years old, then you also have to believe in a God that went out of his way to create a universe that based on logic and studying would lead us astray.  To me, that is not consistent with the God that I see in the Bible- that is a God that would go out of his way to create something that would lead us to doubt his existence.

 

Don't you think that puts you in the same way of thinking as the skeptic who balks due to the existence of evil? You are putting your own limited reasoning before God's unlimited reasoning. Essentially, you are saying "I believe X, therefore God Y." Historic Christian faith seems to be "God Y, therefore I believe X." Do you believe the bible is true?

[PeterMP]

54 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Don't you think that puts you in the same way of thinking as the skeptic who balks due to the existence of evil? You are putting your own limited reasoning before God's unlimited reasoning. Essentially, you are saying "I believe X, therefore God Y." Historic Christian faith seems to be "God Y, therefore I believe X." Do you believe the bible is true?

 

Well, I wouldn't use the same way of thinking.  Clearly, evil exist, and I believe in God.  If I used the same way of thinking, then things would be different.

 

I don't believe the story of Genesis as written is literally true.  Does that mean I don't believe the Bible is true?

 

I would also disagree with your order of things for many important Biblical figures.  Abraham didn't believe in God without reason.  God talked to him so he believed in God.  The Apostles didn't just come to Jesus and believe in him.  They met, saw, and heard him and then believed.  I guess, if you'd like, you can consider me a doubting Thomas.  In the end, Thomas believed, but only with what he saw as sufficient evidence.

 

Paul comes to his belief from his vision of the risen Jesus.  Clearly, you wouldn't say God Y, therefore I believe X for Paul.  Paul was: I believe Y (he believed his vision to be true), therefore God X (these things that have been revealed to me by this special vision).

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

@Zguy28

 

I sort of let @TheGreatBuzz 's post slip, but since you brought it up too, I think it should be pointed out.

 

The fact that bad things happen and there is suffering in this world, etc, isn't really evidence that a god doesn't exist.  We could have a god that sees us as irrelevant specs and created us to be toy things and there would certainly be suffering.

 

There are really two separate questions:

 

1.  Does a god exist?

2.  What kind of god is it?

 

Suffering and the like is evidence that a certain kind of god doesn't exist.  @TheGreatBuzz's post is really full evidence that the kind of God that he'd like to see (one that doesn't allow for suffering) doesn't exist.

 

And I think he acknowledges that at the end of his post.  He just doesn't believe in God in his heart.  He is almost sure of something without really much good evidence of it.

 

People that lay out the argument that you've laid @Zguy28 aren't actually being very logical.  My way of thinking is at least logical (and hence, I am not thinking the same way they are.)

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[thinwhiteduke]

23 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

@Zguy28

 

I sort of let @TheGreatBuzz 's post slip, but since you brought it up too, I think it should be pointed out.

 

The fact that bad things happen and there is suffering in this world, etc, isn't really evidence that a god doesn't exist.  We could have a god that sees us as irrelevant specs and created us to be toy things and there would certainly be suffering.

 

There are really two separate questions:

 

1.  Does a god exist?

2.  What kind of god is it?

 

Suffering and the like is evidence that a certain kind of god doesn't exist.  @TheGreatBuzz's post is really full evidence that the kind of God that he'd like to see (one that doesn't allow for suffering) doesn't exist.

 

And I think he acknowledges that at the end of his post.  He just doesn't believe in God in his heart.  He is almost sure of something without really much good evidence of it.

 

People that lay out the argument that you've laid @Zguy28 aren't actually being very logical.  My way of thinking is at least logical (and hence, I am not thinking the same way they are.)

 

It's definitely  proof the god of the Christian  bible doesn't exist. He loves us but creates a world full of suffering  and sends us to eternal hell for not doing things his way is complete rubbish. Your post here is just pseudo intellectual sillyness. The bible was simply written to subdue man to be mental.and emotional slaves. 

A being that lives outside time and space, created a world where the people that like him the most or acknowledge  his existence  are the ones who suffer the most? Definitely  a made up story by human hands lol. It's so basic and so simple to understand and yet people are dumb ass lab rats, who fall victim  to believing  something, just because it was repeated to them enough times.

Money is the root of all evil.... but yeah, I'll create a world who's entire system is based on it.....

Don't  Bother with the dumb ,childish argument  that money itself isn't evil. It was invented by the wealthy to make others poor and them rich. Money is evil-period. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by thinwhiteduke

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, thinwhiteduke said:

 

It's definitely  proof the god of the Christian  bible doesn't exist. He loves us but creates a world full of suffering  and sends us to eternal hell for not doing things his way is complete rubbish. Your post here is just pseudo intellectual sillyness. The bible was simply written to subdue man to be mental.and emotional slaves. 

A being that lives outside time and space, created a world where the people that like him the most or acknowledge  his existence  are the ones who suffer the most? Definitely  a made up story by human hands lol. It's so basic and so simple to understand and yet people are dumb ass lab rats, who fall victim  to believing  something, just because it was repeated to them enough times.

Money is the root of all evil.... but yeah, I'll create a world who's entire system is based on it.....

Don't  Bother with the dumb ,childish argument  that money itself isn't evil. It was invented by the wealthy to make others poor and them rich. Money is evil-period. 

 

I've already addressed some of your issues previously in response to one of your other posts:

 

 

Please, go back and see that post.

Edited April 10, 2018 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Don't  Bother with the dumb ,childish argument  that money itself isn't evil. It was invented by the wealthy to make others poor and them rich.

I’m unclear on how that would work. Money was invented by the wealthy to make others poor and themselves rich? Were they already wealthy before they invented money or only after?

[thinwhiteduke]

7 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I’m unclear on how that would work. Money was invented by the wealthy to make others poor and themselves rich? Were they already wealthy before they invented money or only after?

 

they were wealthy through power before. They made people kneel to their armies. They couldnt keep killing people so they needed to give a carrot to chase. A carrot they owned and held on a string = taxes, banks, labor..thats what you kneel to now.

 

the central character in the bible is a Jew.. Zionists wrote the bible or people affiliated with zionists. They are mocking believers with their own bible.

Christian/Catholic/ Jewish.. were all started by Zionists = separate and conquer.

theres nothing wrong with your Jewish neighbors/ regular people. Its the Zionists that are the problem.

what do you think the star of David looks like? its a hexagram for a reason. Just like the American Pentagram.   

there is no literal hell because these people that have been the aggressors for thousands of years wouldnt keep doing it if they were actually worried about an eternal hell.

I would still like to believe there is some good force out there but the confined idea that is the god of the Christian bible does not exist.

every stupid slogan that a Christian chants when confronted by an existence question .. mysterious ways/ only he/ only god knows / its up to him etc.

how/why does an all knowing being constantly need excuses to not show up?

petermp is doing the worst job he possibly could, trying to defend a religion. Just a bunch of circular gobbeldygook.

 I said the same stupid crap for years till i finally started listening to basic common sense and reason and not seeing any prayers answered for years.

oh youre sinning, oh you didnt pray hard enough, oh you prayed wrong. oh do you really believe?

in god's time..god has his ways... he constantly has an out, not to help you. Is the love unconditional or not.

 no petermp, you dont have a single answer for any of it.

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, thinwhiteduke said:

they were wealthy through power before. They made people kneel to their armies. They couldnt keep killing people so they needed to give a carrot to chase. A carrot they owned and held on a string = taxes, banks, labor..thats what you kneel to now.

Hmmm... what's more likely is that people realized the barter system was inefficient and created currency in order to have a standard unit of exchange.

 

I'm gonna let the folks who don't think I should be rude try to politely reason with you about the anti-semitic parts of your post.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[techboy]

 

2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I'm gonna let the folks who don't think I should be rude try to politely reason with you about the anti-semitic parts of your post.

 

There's a handy button in the upper right hand corner of every post. Rather than ineffective (or even counterproductive) bullying, I'd suggest trying an approach that might actually yield results.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

 

they were wealthy through power before. They made people kneel to their armies. They couldnt keep killing people so they needed to give a carrot to chase. A carrot they owned and held on a string = taxes, banks, labor..thats what you kneel to now.

 

the central character in the bible is a Jew.. Zionists wrote the bible or people affiliated with zionists. They are mocking believers with their own bible.

Christian/Catholic/ Jewish.. were all started by Zionists = separate and conquer.

theres nothing wrong with your Jewish neighbors/ regular people. Its the Zionists that are the problem.

what do you think the star of David looks like? its a hexagram for a reason. Just like the American Pentagram.   

there is no literal hell because these people that have been the aggressors for thousands of years wouldnt keep doing it if they were actually worried about an eternal hell.

I would still like to believe there is some good force out there but the confined idea that is the god of the Christian bible does not exist.

every stupid slogan that a Christian chants when confronted by an existence question .. mysterious ways/ only he/ only god knows / its up to him etc.

how/why does an all knowing being constantly need excuses to not show up?

petermp is doing the worst job he possibly could, trying to defend a religion. Just a bunch of circular gobbeldygook.

 I said the same stupid crap for years till i finally started listening to basic common sense and reason and not seeing any prayers answered for years.

oh youre sinning, oh you didnt pray hard enough, oh you prayed wrong. oh do you really believe?

in god's time..god has his ways... he constantly has an out, not to help you. Is the love unconditional or not.

 no petermp, you dont have a single answer for any of it.

 

Then why don't you try and actually respond to one of my posts and explain why it is circular gobbelygook.

 

As I've pointed out before, "common sense" and thinking about things has a bad history of solving problems.

 

And I have to ask, isn't a pentagram different than a hexgram?  How can they be "just like" one another?  (And why does that matter).

[Zguy28]

 

16 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well, I wouldn't use the same way of thinking.  Clearly, evil exist, and I believe in God.  If I used the same way of thinking, then things would be different.

 

What I meant was about relying on human reasoning. Maybe you just came to a different conclusion? I'm not saying you shouldn't believe God exists by using reason, after all "the heavens declare His glory" and all that.

 

Quote

I don't believe the story of Genesis as written is literally true. 

I didn't ask you if you did.

 

Quote

Does that mean I don't believe the Bible is true?

Not what I asked. I asked if you did in general.

 

Quote

I would also disagree with your order of things for many important Biblical figures.  Abraham didn't believe in God without reason.  God talked to him so he believed in God.  The Apostles didn't just come to Jesus and believe in him.  They met, saw, and heard him and then believed.  I guess, if you'd like, you can consider me a doubting Thomas.  In the end, Thomas believed, but only with what he saw as sufficient evidence.

Theophany, Scripture, and the incarnation/resurrection of Jesus Christ are Special Revelation (applies directly to your examples of Abraham, Apostles, Paul, and Thomas). That's different than General Revelation which is nature. You are conflating belief in God through the latter with faith in Christ through the former.

 

Quote

Paul comes to his belief from his vision of the risen Jesus.  Clearly, you wouldn't say God Y, therefore I believe X for Paul.  Paul was: I believe Y (he believed his vision to be true), therefore God X (these things that have been revealed to me by this special vision).

Christ revealed himself to Paul, therefore Paul believed what was revealed specially. Do you not think that your way perhaps puts reason above faith?

 

And by the way, I am not against reason.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Zguy28

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

 

There's a handy button in the upper right hand corner of every post. Rather than ineffective (or even counterproductive) bullying, I'd suggest trying an approach that might actually yield results.

@Sacks 'n' Stuff  is at least trying though not to be an asshole his last two posts, I would've figured if the mods were responding to people flaging Dukes posts they would've done something by now.  There is one way to test this theory:

 

 

2 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

 

 

the central character in the bible is a Jew.. Zionists wrote the bible or people affiliated with zionists. They are mocking believers with their own bible.

Christian/Catholic/ Jewish.. were all started by Zionists = separate and conquer.

theres nothing wrong with your Jewish neighbors/ regular people. Its the Zionists that are the problem.

what do you think the star of David looks like? its a hexagram for a reason. Just like the American Pentagram.   

there is no literal hell because these people that have been the aggressors for thousands of years wouldnt keep doing it if they were actually worried about an eternal hell

 

 

@TK  @Destino  @Jumbo  @MartinC  @PCS  @thesubmittedone  @zoony

 

Ya'll need to decide what kind of board you want going forward, because if you don't stop this more of him will eventually show up.  This isn't the worst thing he's posted, but at some point a line needs to be drawn (or at least I thought these were lines):

 

 

5. Your default position is to be respectful of your fellow members in your posts.

 

12. No trolling. Beware of making baiting posts.

 

We've seen this over and over again, and he's even admitted in this thread taking glee in his responses getting a reaction out of us. You can get mad at me for tagging ya'll like this if you want, ban me if you want, but ban him, too.

 

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

 

What I meant was about relying on human reasoning. Maybe you just came to a different conclusion? I'm not saying you shouldn't believe God exists by using reason, after all "the heavens declare His glory" and all that.

 

I didn't ask you if you did.

 

Not what I asked. I asked if you did in general.

 

Theophany, Scripture, and the incarnation/resurrection of Jesus Christ are Special Revelation (applies directly to your examples of Abraham, Apostles, Paul, and Thomas). That's different than General Revelation which is nature. You are conflating belief in God through the latter with faith in Christ through the former.

 

Christ revealed himself to Paul, therefore Paul believed what was revealed specially. Do you not think that your way perhaps puts reason above faith?

 

And by the way, I am not against reason.

 

1.  Obviously, I believe parts of the BIble are true and parts are more allegorical or like parables, and then there are parts that I don't really know about  (What you asked is do I believe the Bible is true.  Generally, believing is something true like that to me means believing the whole text is true, and given that if pushed, my answer would be no.  I do not believe (all of) the Bible is literally true, but that isn't an uncommon opinion held by Christians even historically.)

 

2.  "You are conflating belief in God through the latter with faith in Christ through the former."  I am not quite sure what you mean by this, especially in the context of Abraham.  (I guess you could argue that Paul believed in God, but did not have faith in the Christ.)  At the more general level of "evidence", I'm not sure why the distinction between general and special revelation maters.  Thomas' evidence was a special revelation, but it was still evidence.

 

3.  I do not consider reason and faith to be the same thing that it would it make sense to put above the other.  Reason (logic) is a reason to have faith.  Needing to travel is a reason for cars.  To say I put a car above needing to travel or the other way around seems nonsensical to me.

 

I reject the idea that we are asked to believe without reason or evidence.  In that context, the existence of the Bible doesn't make sense.

 

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

@Zguy28 Both special and general revelation can help people have faith.

Edited April 11, 2018 by PeterMP

[techboy]

3 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Zionists wrote the bible or people affiliated with zionists.

 

Leaving aside the anti-semitism (which you might not even realize you've engaged in, I guess), this is just historically silly, not least because zionism didn't become a movement until the late 19th century. We could also discuss the authorship of the various texts that made up the Bible, the fact that historically Jews have been an oppressed minority without the power to keep their Temple from being razed or their property being stolen, let alone setting up a vast criminal government conspiracy, but given that your methodology appears to be emotional rather than factual, that's probably pointless.

 

In terms of your other objection, you are basically stating what philosophers call the Problem of Evil.

 

grego touched on it earlier, but generally, there are two ways people arrive at this objection: emotional and intellectual.

 

People that emotionally object to God are people that have been hurt, or seen others hurt, and are angry at God for allowing it. No intellectual argument or message board post is going to salve that pain, I actually suspect this is where you fall, and I'm sorry.

 

From an intellectual perspective, there are two approaches philosophers have taken historically.

 

The first is that evil is not compatible with God, i.e. it is a direct disproof. This one has fallen out of favor because it doesn't work.

 

For example, the goal of the God of the Bible is to save the maximum number of people. It is reasonable to think that a world with suffering and evil is also the world where the most people freely choose to be saved, and so this is the best possible world. The skeptic would have to prove that this is not the best possible world given that perspective, and it's just not possible to do that.

 

The trickier version of the argument is to suggest that suffering and evil make the existence of God less likely, which is a point that is harder to directly refute. 

 

The above theistic objection works here too, to some extent, but this is also where we would weigh the other proofs and evidences of the existence of God, which I would argue outweigh this.

 

This is where Bayesian probablility calculations can come in as well, but not being a professional philosopher, I have never taken the time to work on that stuff. 

 

21 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@Sacks 'n' Stuff  is at least trying though not to be an asshole his last two posts, I would've figured if the mods were responding to people flaging Dukes posts they would've done something by now.  There is one way to test this theory:

 

I had assumed that no one had reported him yet, or at least not enough.

 

You could be right, though... perhaps there are no mods, and everything is subjective and without purpose.

[TK]

36 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I would've figured if the mods were responding to people flaging Dukes posts they would've done something by now. 

Couple things here. There's always a method to our madness, even if we don't share it with you.   You have no actual idea how many have or have not been flagging these knuckledragging posts. And you already know that all of us have lives & jobs off the board so if no one immediately pops up when you rub the lamp, then the genie is taking care of something else.   

[twa]

Wait....is TK god?