What Is the Truth About God, and His Purpose for the Earth?

Post Reply New Topic

What exactly can't be proven yet, and how do you know it can't be proven? It's not like scientists know everything. I mean, even if there is something that can't be proven yet, there's no reason why you should think that it will never be proven.

The list is endless,
we can't account for most of the matter in the universe though we know it is 'there',
our best working theories have holes and every new thing we discovers or can explains also introduce new contradictions/


"even if there is something that can't be proven yet, there's no reason why you should think that it will never be proven."
Exactly my stance toward the existence of God question,
Assuming it doesn't exist just because we can't prove it now is stupid
Like u .i believe that given enough time every thing could and would be proved
Including God

Whatever the theoretical possibilities we live in a world that demands pragmatic utilitarian action. The whole complex of religious orientations is so replete with self contradictory idiotic and damned near psychotic concepts that it has negligible if any practical use. I do very well by avoiding it like the plague.

Is there really? One can be responsible for an outcome in either case. Even further, if God created the universe from nothing, then couldn't he rightfully be described as the cause of all things? Doesn't this seem particularly true given notions of God having a plan? After all, if God planned something, and set things up such a manner where this plan had to be fulfilled, then how is this not causing it?


The Father isn't the mastermind behind every event in the cosmos. The very notions being used are false analogies.


No, the analogies fail.

Even further, this is not a strong rebuttal to the problem of evil. After all, it is not as if evils are distributed according to optimal punishment, but rather we see children suffer and die, and all of this in a manner that does not seem reflective of a higher purpose.


That's what theists claim. The issue is that we have seen throughout the history of mankind that millions have suffered horrifyingly, and even deaths that do not seem to have been properly and justly dealt with in the grand scheme.

Even further, this also avoids the problems of hell, which itself is a "bad course", and one that seems monstrous to the conscience. Hell, by its nature, involves more suffering than the total sum of sufferings even Hitler could have performed on Earth. To create a world where this kind of infinite suffering *could* occur seems itself ridiculously evil.


Ok, but the problem is that if the Bible is a document that is "God-breathed"(2 Tim 3:16-17) then how do we know that God isn't himself deceiving us? Would my own word that I am not a liar prove that I am not a liar? Well, no, because the very same statement could be made by that liar. So, the conclusion gotten is not logically arrived at.



Does that include the millions (if not billions) that go to hell? Even further, how can that be done? It is one say to say that "this will be done", but practically how can it be? Our histories and lives, including the wickednesses and sufferings we have endured in part construct who we are. How can "undoing" occur without disrupting our own identities? And if this is done to a person, then how can that person really be said to be the same after a reconstructive surgery of that sort? It seems that even infinite personality alteration would itself be justifiable.



That isn't evidence. Once again, that's a symbol that can be easily faked. In fact, an evil God could say exactly the same thing, and do so because it is much better to degrade and dehumanize lovers of justice than lovers of injustice.



The problem is that if I had the power to end the suffering and injustice in the world(assuming it is possible), I'd have ended it 6000-10,000 years ago, rather than continuing to wait. How then can we really say that God is good(or even exists) if God does not share that intuition? Certainly we can just keep on saying that he has "secret plans", but at what point is this still different than the delusional woman who persists in believing that her husband isn't cheating on her with his secretary? At some point, it is rational to question this theory of a being, particularly given that this theory of a being is not given many properties making it better than others, while it has very counter-intuitive ideas about how reality works.


If it was that simple, then he could have already done that, easily.


So, basically, the theory is that our "honest and decent person", who was in the continual presence of the greatest inspirations, best motivations, and most compelling culture of goodness went uncorrected, and later became the most extremely and nihilistically evil being in existence? If we saw this from anybody else, we would hesitate to believe in any other reason but insanity.


Why would God create a severely mentally handicapped angel? God is apparently an omnipotent and omniscient being, the very idea that Satan could beat him under this intellectual system is actually, literally insane. It is as if a man decided one day that he wanted 1+1 to equal 5, or another person decided that he could fly by just flapping his arms enough. As such, this story is not believable by a sufficiently critical person from the beginning.


Why though? Certainly Adam could have been imperfect, and his offspring could have not had that same imperfection.


The problem is that this is an analogy, not an explanation. We might have a pan used for baking bread. Our pan has, instead of having a dent, instead gotten a weird color on it due to a manufacturing defect. It still makes bread just fine. What does Adam's sin have to do with Adam's procreation? Even further, how is this effect a necessary one?


As stated earlier though, the entire situation is contrived. God, being omniscient, could have proved he was right before this all began by using a simple logical plan/formula. He could have told Satan all of this before he even rebelled. The fight is over nothing.


This is factually wrong though on many counts. Diseases are mostly under control. Wars have basically ceased among powers. Crime rates are falling in first world nations. Life expectancies have shot up, and are mostly challenged by over-indulgence, not danger.


Yes, yes it is, and a reasonable person may recognize that the truth is not what you proclaim it is, and that when you try to present this information, you are either foolish or a liar, particularly for not recognizing the depth of the issues you have to make clear.


And what religious group couldn't or wouldn't proclaim the same? kxmode, I doubt that all of the other groups of the world are lying when they proclaim their experientially known faiths. Because of that, what sets your beliefs above these others? How do *YOU* know that you aren't one of those belonging to a false religion?

kxmode, I do not know if you are reading this, but if the test of each person's reliability is in their fruits(Matt 7:16-20), then certainly, you must recognize that your own reasonableness in evaluating truth-claims is itself a matter to be evaluated in your proclamation. After all, can you blame us for even recognizing the self-evidence of the claim "but test everything; hold fast what is good".(1 Th 5:21) So, are you willing to take our testing of your claims, kxmode, and for us to see whether the fruit you bear in the form of the virtues of intellectual honesty and reasonableness is good? I just ask this because I know that many people of religion often seem to have difficulty with, or run away from intellectual challenge(not meant as an insult), but that this is important in knowing the truth of any claim.

Do you think it will ever be proven that the Earth is cubic, or 1+1=0, given enough time. While there may be no (or little) reason to think that something will never be proven, it is even more irrational to think that a random fairy tale WILL be proven.

Sure,
I do the same,
religion is as far from God as u can get,
Actually it can help u to find God through elimination because whatever religion is, God isn't /

So, if we can build religions around anything, then we can prove that God doesn't exist?

things i know for certain:

it is not possible, with our present knowledge,, to know if 'god' exists or does not exist.

if god exists, then 'god' is not a loving or caring being. a loving or caring being would not have let me suffer the cruelty and abuse i did as a child. (like many others, right here on wp)

if god does not exist , then this is all random happenstance and i just drew a bad hand.

i hope god does not exist. i do not know how to explain a cruel and evil god when i hold a newborn puppy or smell a beautiful and fragrant flower. please, let there be no 'god'.

No,if we can build religions around anything it can serve to proves that God exist because God is anything,
Religion kills your mind,body and soul because it assumes that God is exclusive(our God is better than your God and all that crap).

Exactly! So why get bothered about the matter? It is irrelevant to the practicalities of living.

ruveyn

1) God is not where religion is.
2) Religions are around anything.
3) God is not around anything. (from 1 & 2)
4) Everything must be around something.
5) God does not exist. (something not the member of "everything" must be nothing, AKA non-existent)

I took premise 1 from you. I inserted premise 2. Premise 4 is self-evident. This suggests that your inference that "religions around anything prove God" seems false if God is not where religion is.

I am less concerned with the semi-religious junk, and I don't even care the slightest on your definitions of religion. I think it is bunk.

I never wrote that religions are around anything,it is not,(u should payed attention to the "if we can build" part before u jump )and i too don't give a damn about your reasoning process(at least mine is honest and intellectually sound) or ideas ,so what ?

If you're set on indulging in humor we cannot argue.

God and logic topic

In this thread I have more problems with the concept of religion than the concept of a deity. I can separate the two because I can see that the belief in the supernatural came before the advent of religion.

I find that the human invention of a god and religions is more problematic. This is why I am an atheist. But if an individual derives some comfort of a personal god, expecially in times of need, I can respect that, and would not lecture on what I feel is absurd.

A little old lady whose day is made going to church or meeting the pope once in her life, well, that is for her, though not for me. I would certainly not change her mind with all the well meaning logic and common sense that is in this thread. Since there is no after life anyway, telling her that she will not meet god and long dead relatives is just going to cause anguish. Perhaps it is better that she does not know. For someone in her shoes, ignorance is bliss.

Old ladies, like old men (myself) have minds too. I don't enjoy being patronized.