Here is an interesting excerpt from a book called “God Exists: An engineer explains why”
Chapter 10 - Why Doesn’t God Just Give Me a Sign?
For people that have doubts about the existence of God, the following is a popular question: “Why doesn’t God just give me a sign? Then I will believe.”. We have become so accustomed to issuing challenges to others when we have questions on the credibility of a matter. We do not hesitate to issue requests by asking that something be proven to us. Our doubts are often satisfied by physical demonstrations that we need to witness with our own senses. There are times when someone tells us of an incredible event. If it is past our threshold for being readily accepted, how often do we find ourselves saying, “I’ve got to see this for myself.”. This may be a gentle way of telling the person delivering the message that we do not totally accept what they are telling us as being factual. Instead, the non-acceptance is disguised under the vale that the event is of such great interest we want to see it for ourselves. This may be true, but a hidden reason is that we have doubts and find the verbal proof too unbelievable.
Are there any references which might promote our belief in God by accounting for past physical observations? In the bible, there have been selective narratives which describe God’s appearance to the ancient prophets. Probably the most widely known example of a person being in the physical presence of God might be that of Moses during the time of the ten commandments. These accounts require us to have faith and to rely on the witnessing of others. For some, this evidence is not sufficient enough and they will not place their trust and faith on records which are several thousand years old. Maybe they have doubts in the ability of the witnesses who are not as discerning as people of today might be. Also, they may have distrust in the written accounts and records which have been handed down generation after generation as well as being translated from one language to another.
Why do we not receive some type of sign that gives us reassurance and confidence in the existence of God? If we have chosen to believe, why must we rely on others to be our first hand witnesses? Previously, we discussed the growth and development that we undergo while we are on the Earth. It is quite possible that our growth and development experiences would be curtailed if we became too overconfident. It may be that the growth of our faith experience is important for us to nurture and advance. Also, the testing of our faith may be an area that is important for us to develop. Imagine if we all walked around with absolute certainty and knowledge that God existed. Might we not become overconfident in our actions and start to act reckless and arrogant. We could potentially use this knowledge to lull us into a false sense of security. How many people have known someone in a position of great power and authority and fallen into the trap where they felt they could do anything and were immune to any repercussions?
One night, while I laid awake in bed for hours unable to sleep, I thought heavily about this topic. I put forward this same question to myself and wondered what would be required to satisfy my doubts. What kind of sign would I need? Various scenarios were considered. Maybe God could allow some miracle to happen that I would be witness to. Would that be sufficient? The more I thought about it, I realized that this would not work. What if someone who is far more skeptical than myself were to be involved instead? This would not satisfy their doubts. They would witness the miracle, but afterwards, when questioned about it, they would state that something indeed incredible happened. However when asked if God performed the miracle, they would coldly, but correctly, state that the event occurred just as described, but they did not see anyone else and they could not attribute the cause the events to God.
I thought about supernatural events that might happen. These too fell into a category which yielded the same net result. Although they might be wonderfully spectacular and cause for great mystery, there would be a faction of people who would focus on trying to find explainable and understandable causes for the events. Picture the biblical description on the parting of the Red Sea. If that were to happen today, how many people would be studying and seeking to describe the rare occurrence through natural or scientific means.
This led me to the determination that the most irrefutable evidence that people would accept would require a personal appearance by God. The doubt would vaporize quicker if the appearance was more spectacular and larger than life, as the expression goes. I started to think of the best circumstances for this to happen. It would be better if there were several witnesses to avoid the burden of proof falling onto a solitary person. Yet, as I attempted to mentally walk the example through, the whole process struck me as having an underlying current of futility. Knowing human nature to be what it is, the benefit of this doubt-breaking event did not seem destined to succeed. However, let us try and the example is set up as follows.
Say that you and twenty of your friends were to stand in a secluded area and God was to appear to the group. Furthermore, God would to speak to the group and briefly demonstrate the impressive powers that were at God’s command. Both the miraculous appearance and the demonstration left you and the entire group without any doubts whatsoever that God did indeed exist. Everyone was so pleased and overjoyed because now their doubts were totally overcome and satisfied. Any burdens or the weight of nagging questions were now completely lifted. There was a combined feeling of relief and joy at this event.
However, the difficulties have only begun. As a group, your skepticism has been totally overcome and you are all overjoyed. The task that lies ahead of you all is to now pass on the wonderful news to others. How do you undertake this? Maybe the first and obvious step is to tell the friends and family members of the group. It would be such a fantastic experience and the group would want to pass along the extraordinary knowledge to the next circle of friends outside the group so that they too could benefit. How would this go over? Quite well is the likely response. Since it is such a rare and incredible event, there would be serious first doubts as the explanation is initially told. However, these doubts would quickly evaporate once the realization of the circumstances and the people involved fully set in. The sincerity and credibility of the people involved in the event would be known and mentally evaluated by their friends. The credibility of the people, combined with the fact that they have a first hand report from the actual participants, would more than likely lead the first circle of friends to conclude the event was quite real. It may even lead to a change in their outlook on believing in the existence of God.
What happens though, when the original group tries to spread the knowledge of the event outside a close circle of acquaintances? For example, let us consider what would happen if the various types of news media were contacted. We will assume that due to the number of people involved, the news media will at least find the report worthwhile and send someone to investigate. Reporters would get dispatched and commence by conducting interviews with all of the first hand witnesses. Always concerned about hoaxes, they would have to determine the credibility of the witnesses and would likely find some ways to perform character checks. Another certain step they would take would be to ask if there was any more evidence of the event. Was there any physical evidence which was left behind and that could be shown. Since there is such an preponderance of news outlets that use visual media, inquiries would be made to see if there were any photographs taken, or, if anything was captured on a video camera. Without hard evidence of some type or any photographic record, the news event would certainly be characterized differently and would even affect the priority and coverage it was given.
How would this news event play around the world? Would it make the headlines and the front page, or, would it be an obscure curiosity article? This is impossible to predict and there are many factors that might affect the outcome. What affect would it have on people who heard the news? One could speculate that there would be a lot of pessimistic people and a many of them would not change their beliefs based on this report. They would continue to doubt as they did not see it themselves firsthand. It is also hard to predict how many different countries around the world would even pick up on the event and communicate it to their people. There are nearly five billion people in the world. How many would actually hear of this within a reasonable period of time?
If you were personally involved in the group that actually saw God and suddenly found the news media decided to go against the group, you would find the whole scenario somewhat disconcerting to think about. You might be hesitant to even be identified with the group for fear of all the attention and potential negative repercussions. If public opinion did not take a positive swing on the matter, there could be a lot of negative labels placed on those involved. Labels might range from being called an all out crackpot to a person who was highly gullible and was easily misled. Instead of being a party to a miraculous event, you suddenly find yourself being highly criticized and constantly defending yourself and your reputation. Although we would like to believe our advanced society is beyond those things, you could suddenly find yourself at the center of a modern day witch hunt. How often have we seen this happen in recent history, where suddenly a tide swells and investigations begin that even include the government and become a quasi inquiry. People and families are led to personal ruin and later it is determined that an ‘error’ was made.
Imagine how uncomfortable the whole scenario could become if there were stipulations placed on the event. The stipulations are completely hypothetical, but let us assume these conditions were issued. As part of your being a witness to God’s existence and benefit this knowledge gave you, you had to undertake with others in the group to spread the word about what you had seen and to positively emphasize that God did exist. In other words, since God had given you all a sign, you promised to tell others. The scenario would not become uncomfortable if the news was received positively. However, imagine how difficult the promise would be to keep if you are met with even an average response which included an air of indifference and skepticism. The task would quickly become very onerous when you realize that you need to inform and convince millions of others.
I am not even sure if better evidence would help you. Say that you had a video tape of the event. Would people now readily believe you? The special effects that are created for today’s film productions are amazingly realistic. How many stares and quizzical looks would you receive as you showed the tape of God’s appearance? Snide comments might be heard such as, “Great special effects!”. Others might still ask for further evidence to see if the tape could be authenticated by experts in some way.
Can you imagine how great the challenge would be if further stipulations were placed upon you? In addition to spreading the news that you were a witness to God’s existence to millions of other people around the world, what if you were challenged that you also had to pass the message on to future generations of humankind? How would you do this in a convincing way? When you look back on the accounting of a historical event that goes back one or two hundred years, how much credibility do you give to the records? Do you not have some doubts that the information was inadvertently altered in a minor way after such a great passage of time, or, that additional and important information might now be missing or lost. Details such as the exact people involved, exact times and dates, or, the precise location and place of the events become vague and somewhat suspect. This speculation occurs for historical events on which we are confident did occur. We just have doubts as to what may have been lost due to the ‘translation’ over time. We do not doubt the event happened it is just that the facts are fuzzy around the edges. What would the situation be generations from now when they look back on the records of such a truly incredible event as the appearance of God? Would future generations just write it off with skepticism as the musings of some antiquated and technologically backward group of people? “Yes, maybe they did witness something astonishing, but they had no idea what they were looking at.” Are those the comments you would hear and do they sound familiar as comments we make ourselves about previous generations?
Yes, it would be a very daunting task if God were to press for something in exchange for satisfying your request - “Just give me a sign”. In exchange for just giving you a sign, you are to just convince several million others and just ensure the message is passed on continuously from generation to generation. You have now been entrusted with critically important knowledge. Think about how you would go about satisfying these requirements.
This is flawed from the start of the first paragraph. It automatically assumes a Monotheist God. An Agnostic does not always have to believe or not believe in Monotheism.
That is such a cop out to the whole debate. That is something that someone like Fisternis would not resort to.
Anyway, for an Agnostic, the possibility of a monotheistic God is always there.
That is what we are debating, anyway.
@F_alk:
I read through the first section, and it was a pain. It hurt, being so full of inconsistencies.
Again, another shameful cop out.
I read through the first section, and it was a pain. It hurt, being so full of inconsistencies.
That’s too much to go into detail, unless you ask politely for it .For the last section, the infinite time argument, i will make up another thread.
Completly agree, it is full of logical fallacies.
I also find it pretty dishonorable from YB, i can give you entire and long text about why god does exist, that you will need a week to refute. This text is not always stupid, but when it come to the conclusion that “god exist”, it is incoherent. Also the guys clearly lack some knowledge in physics, when he say everything is caused, he lack some basic understanding of quantum physics. When he say the argument about intelligent desing, he is completly incoherent with himself; the simple exemple of a Star can disprove most of his claim about desing and why physical law cannot be the disigner. Also he is making a very poor fallacies when stating that the cause of the universe must be god. And the morality thing is clearly funny, when he say “morality” exist, then god exist, he only refer as evidence the fact that morality exist.
If you want to use his text to help you make argument against me; it’s ok, but don’t throw at me text like that; it will never finish and if you are unable to formulate an argument yourself even with text; you will have problem in university.
@F_alk:
you try to “win by overwhelming postings”
No, I try to “win by overwhelming logic”
Crypt, Horten, Moses, Moses’ Sister, Mini Phreak, Fisternis, Dezert Fish, City, note that Falk has thrown in the towl.
And Falk, about your post about Sine, I could say that the universe is like a popsicle, it is very cold, and it equals you saying, the universe is like Sine, it has no begining.
physical law cannot be the disigner
Where do you think physical law came from? Physical law is just one more example of intelligent design.
I read through the first section, and it was a pain. It hurt, being so full of inconsistencies.
That’s too much to go into detail, unless you ask politely for it .For the last section, the infinite time argument, i will make up another thread.
Completly agree, it is full of logical fallacies.
I also find it pretty dishonorable from YB, i can give you entire and long text about why god does exist, that you will need a week to refute. This text is not always stupid, but when it come to the conclusion that “god exist”, it is incoherent. Also the guys clearly lack some knowledge in physics, when he say everything is caused, he lack some basic understanding of quantum physics. When he say the argument about intelligent desing, he is completly incoherent with himself; the simple exemple of a Star can disprove most of his claim about desing and why physical law cannot be the disigner. Also he is making a very poor fallacies when stating that the cause of the universe must be god. And the morality thing is clearly funny, when he say “morality” exist, then god exist, he only refer as evidence the fact that morality exist.
If you want to use his text to help you make argument against me; it’s ok, but don’t throw at me text like that; it will never finish and if you are unable to formulate an argument yourself even with text; you will have problem in university.
i have to admit - i didn’t have the time (or inclination) to read the post(s). YB - you’d have to form a more cohesive, substantially whittled down post - i’m a product of the 90s and have a short attention span
Also FinsterniS - i noticed that you use the orderlyness of Stars and galaxies in a way of refuting intelligent design. I think that the orderlyness of the universe is in a-not-quite-unrelated concert with the orderlyness of the earth - both possibly forged by intelligent design.
At any rate, i’m kind of out of this one, so don’t take me too seriously FinsterniS (not that i really give you a good reason too . . . :))
Crypt, not to discourage you, but this is more between me and Fisternis.
Fisternis, you asked me for arguments. I admit that it is a tad long, however, it is only a 10-15 minute read. At a University, where the point is me writing a paper, I would write a paper. In this case, they (there are 3 different authors, like College professors) say it the most succintly.
Nothing causeless happens.
He certainly know nothing about Quantum physics…
And all the other argument for Desing can be not only correctly and logicaly apply to the “physic’s law”, they can be apply without any disruption of the occam’s razor nor any disruption of anything. YB, i won’t take time to counter evey argument in it; and the “prime factor” argument is for me enough, if god is exluded from the creation of the universe, he is excluded for a lots of things… I explain my view on it lots of time, Falk too, god can hardly be a valid “prime factor” to the universe, you are, as an answer, only showing us your inhability to conceive another creator than your god. The text you send is a well formulated one, but it is still not very scientific in it’s reasonning (the morality part is very funny).
Also CC, by poiting Star, i am pointing out a big desing, that can be explain only by laws without any mythological help. You cannot prove any theory about a desinger with in hand a desing that we understand. If we take life; we put a “desinger” in it because we don’t understand everything, when we will religion will as always retreat. That’s why i am repeating that to prove god; you need ignorance. That is the basis of the god explanation…
Just an exemple about order; n(2^.5) mod1 for n = 1 to 30. While there is no order in 2^.5 modulo 1, there is an order when we look at the graphic of it when multiply by n 30 times, it’s an equipartial, very strange… If this phenomena where in our physic world; like the “earth is perfect place for life” argument of your little PhD, it would have been god ! When there is a strange order somewhere; it is god…
This is flawed from the start of the first paragraph. It automatically assumes a Monotheist God. An Agnostic does not always have to believe or not believe in Monotheism.
there isn’t more than one God and I can assure you. The idea of it is too conjured up by man wanting to expalin is multiple surroundings. If there is a God, he is of words we cannot explain, and numbers we cannot count. To say you can is arrogant because if God is supreme (even that too light a word) then what can a lowly man compare him to what he already knows? Furthermore throughout time man thought he kn ew everything knowable. 500 years from now physcisit (sp.) can prove in ways we cannot imagine that there is no good and that the Universe is eternal because the spped of light this divided by time that and who knows.
"There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration. "
The Universe is finite according to our math (if the vo9lume of open space around earth was infinite, density cannot exist because M/V, would nopt be able to be performed. There has to be an end to that logic, yet this logic can be outdate in the future.) Where did it began and how? Is it really important to know, we obviously can’t figure it out now. I believe God started the unvierse and existance, but that is only because I have no better answer. That and becauser someone always tries to spite me…it is either ghosts or God!
I read the first one and it was enough.
Now time to prove that Jesus is lord! That’s going to be hard to do!
Ok, time for me to help out the good people here.
90 percent of Religions in the history of the world have been Polytheist. However, the conquerers of the world, the Muslims and Christians, just happen to be the ruling Religion at this time. There are still incredibly popular Polytheist religions (Hinduism) and in fact incredibly popular Religions where no god is featured (Buddism).
Why should I believe in a philosophy so alien to almost all past cultures? People believed the Earth was flat 600 years ago, should I take that as true now?
Your “Jesus” has nothing to back up his claims but far fetched stories and a legend about himself. In fact, the three major Monotheist Religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islaam) cannot even agree on who Jesus was. How are you to say one Religion is right and one is wrong here?
You could argue that we’re the most successful society on earth, its because we believe in God. Canada and Japan have a better quality of life than the United States. In fact, we’ve gotten to our Superpower status through Science, but also through Greed, Violence, and the lives of millions. God isn’t reponsible for this, if you want a true Religion look into yourself.
The Polytheistic Religions of the Ancient World were as successful as we were. The Egyptians built great Pyramids, which rival any structure we can put together today. The Greeks jumped in leaps and bounds in the fields of Science and Art, and Democracy. The Romans ruled the world, made an incredible amount of advancement in almost every field of science, engineering, and military force. In fact, the fall of the Roman Empire is often attributed to the disorder of Christianity.
Why should I believe in a “Heavan” and “Hell”. I don’t think this all mighty god really cares about what I did during my life. In fact, all three Monotheist Religions cannot agree on what Heavan and Hell is.
Let me just express my opinion about life after death.
I dont care!
I’ll find out when I die.
I’d like to weigh in here…
Religion is dumb… :lol:
Its has some cool aspects to it, but I dont belive.
If there are creators out there, by the conditions of our planet, it is probably some alien from the dark corners of time, straight out a of H.P. Lovecraft book.
That would be tight.
“I defend the Good God against the idea of a continuous game of dice.”
-Albert Einstein
do you know what it mean ?
(These quotes refer to the Dr.’s Postings)
“If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What caused the Universe?”.”
This assumes that a necessary whole cannot be made of contingent parts. It also assumes that a Necessary Being must have all of the attributes of God.
“1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
3. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
A. Either matter or mind is eternal.
B. Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
C. Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists.”
Atheism is not materialism. Although some atheists are materialists, atheists are not committed to this view. For example, atheism is compatible with various forms of mind-body dualism. Also, using the argument “in the past, atheist…” is not a strong argument.
“Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause.
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding.”
The Kalam (Time) Argument:
Muslim philosophers argued: If the universe had a beginning at all, the beginning cannot rest on nothingness but God. If the universe had, instead, an infinite past and is without beginning and uncreated, then it is impossible to have arrived at the present moment, in the same way as it is impossible to jump out of a bottomless pit.
The key here is the concept of infinity. Surely, if we have to go back infinitely without arriving at
a beginning, there could be a great problem with having arrived at the present moment. Without a definite starting point in time, this is simply impossible.
“There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.”
I will try to answer these statements at the same time. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, “out of nothing.” Several cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible. To say that everything does have a cause is a lack of modern science and physics (come on, I’m Californian. Compared to the rest of the world, I have a 4th rate education). It must be noted, that the universe is “all there is.” It is not a thing. A God would certainly be a part of “all there is,” and if the universe requires an explanation, then God requires a God. Who made god? The major premise of this argument, “everything had a cause,” is contradicted by the conclusion that “God did not have a cause.” If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe. There is one important difficulty that I want to mention briefly with the Kalam and Cause argument. If there is no time prior to the beginning of the universe, then the main argument for saying that the universe must have a cause is considerably weakened.
“Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met “just by accident”?”
Probability estimates are meaningful only given certain assumptions. The probability estimates to which he refers seem to be based on the classical theory of probability: the ratio of the possibilities favorable to life to all possibilities. However, this theory can only be applied if we have good reason to suppose that the possibilities are equally likely. But we have no reason to make this assumption in this case. On the other hand, the frequency theory of probability cannot apply either. On this theory, probability is the frequency in which a type of event occurs within a class of events. However, let us grant one could make the probability estimates consider above. There are several hypotheses cosmologists have constructed to explain life that have nothing to with supernatural beings. For example, cosmologists have developed a model in terms of so called “wave existence.” They have conjectured that our world–our galaxy and the other galaxies–may be one among many alternative worlds or universes existing at the same time. On this view the universe as a whole is composed of a vast number of such worlds or universes, the overwhelming majority of these are lifeless since the various demands that are required for life, as we understand it, are not met in them. However, given enough universes it is very likely that in some of the complex conditions that are necessary for life would be found. We happen to be in such a universe.
“…Although many have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity of functions of the human body (the eye, for example), there is no obvious designer” (1986, p. 191, emp. added). The only people who “have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity” found in the Universe are those who have “refused to have God in their knowledge””
This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to “explain” anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the “complex universe” is simply to demand a “higher universe.”
“…IS THERE ULTIMATE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY?
A crucial question that must be addressed is this: “Is there any ultimate consequence to immorality?” Atheists are fond of saying that one should not be unethical because of social sanctions, i.e., society’s disapproval, legal punishment, etc. The implication is, unethical conduct is only “bad” because you might get caught!…”
Atheism is not committed to ethical relativism or subjectivism. Ethical absolutism is compatible with atheism, and more recently other philosophers have argued for ethical realism in purely secular terms. Atheism is not committed to the view that life is meaningless, absurd, or valueless.
“Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving.”
No good evidence is given for this claim and, in any case, an unintelligent universe is compatible with other hypotheses beside theism, for example, polytheism.
“1. Human moral responsibility is based upon the fact that God is our Creator (Psalm 100:3), and that we have been made in His spiritual image (Genesis 1:26). Just as a potter has a right over the clay he is fashioning, so our Maker has the right to obligate us morally and spiritually to right living (see Romans 9:21).
2. Since morality is grounded in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6; 1 Peter 1:15), it is absolute—not cultural, not relative, not situational.
3. God’s will for human behavior is not a matter of subjective speculation that every man figures out for himself; rather, Jehovah has spoken (Hebrews 1:1), and His Mind is made known in objective, biblical revelation (1 Corinthians 2:11ff.; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
4. Though the Lord possesses an unchanging nature, His revelatory process was progressive and adapted to man as he developed spiritually in those times of antiquity. Accordingly, in ages of the past Jehovah tolerated, and even regulated, certain acts that are not permissible in the Christian era. This, of course, does not mean that God vacillates in His morality; it simply means that He dealt with man as he was in that infantile state (Matthew 19:8; Acts 14:16; 17:30-31). Today, the New Testament stands as the Lord’s final and ultimate standard of morality.
5. Though the New Testament is the “law of Christ” (Romans 8:2; Galatians 6:2), it is not a “legal” system in that each aspect of human conduct is prescribed with a “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not.” Yes, there are both positive and negative commands in the New Testament, but they do not spell out every specific activity. The inspired document contains many rich principles that challenge us to develop a greater sense of spiritual maturity and to soar to heights that are God-honoring.
6. One must recognize also that New Testament ethics does not deal merely with actions, but addresses motives as well. For instance, what if one accidentally runs down with his automobile (and thereby kills) a careless pedestrian? He is not held accountable before God, for his act was unintentional. On the other hand, one can be guilty (in disposition) of both adultery and murder (cf. Matthew 5:28; 1 John 3:15).
7. It is imperative that men recognize that ethical activity (i.e., right relations with one’s fellows) is not the totality of a person’s obligation before God. The centurion Cornelius certainly learned this truth (Acts 10). There are spiritual responsibilities that the Lord has prescribed as a test of true faith, and yet men frequently ignore such divine obligations.
8. Finally, even though the Almighty has called His human creation to a high moral level, we must recognize that He is aware that we are but frail, dusty flesh (Psalms 78:39; 103:14). And so His marvelous grace has been revealed in the unspeakably wonderful gift of His Son. Those who in loving faith submit to Him (Hebrews 5:8-9) can know the pardon of their moral blunders (Acts 22:16), and are challenged to live righteous and godly lives in this present world (Titus 2:11-14).”
These are classic examples of theist free will defense (FWD), to try and prove moral evil is not to be blamed on God but is the result of human’s misuse of their free will. However, there are several flaws. The FWD assumes that the exercise of free will is worth the price of millions of deaths and untold suffering. This is a doubtful assumption. The FWD takes for granted contra causal freedom (CCF), in other words that human decisions are not caused by any events in our brains or nervous systems. However, there is no scientific reason to suppose that CCF is true. Although God is not directly responsible for evil on the FWD defense, He is indirectly responsible. Presumably He has foreknowledge and knows that His creatures will misuse their CCF. In this case, God is reckless and if He does not have foreknowledge, He knows at least that this misuse is possible and yet took no safeguards to prevent it. In this case, God is negligent. Moreover, it makes no sense to suppose that a rational God would create human beings in His own image and yet expect them to believe in Him without strong evidence, that is, to be irrational.
“Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halley’s Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett once observed:
This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God.”
A natural law is a description, not a prescription. The universe is not “governed” by anything. Natural laws are merely human conceptions of the way things normally react, not behavioral mandates, as with societal laws. If the design argument is valid, the mind of a god would be equally “governed” by some principle of order, requiring a higher lawgiver.
Word to the wise – can you please trim in down YB? I don’t like the author referring to this “source,” when I can’t even see it with my own eyes.
Anyways, I find it tough trying to answer all these questions, since I am (in many ways) a theist myself. At any point, I am not atheist. But you know me, never back down from fight.
(Quotes from Forum Posters)
Horten said, “there isn’t more than one God and I can assure you. The idea of it is too conjured up by man wanting to expalin is multiple surroundings. If there is a God, he is of words we cannot explain, and numbers we cannot count. To say you can is arrogant because if God is supreme (even that too light a word) then what can a lowly man compare him to what he already knows?”
The argument squashes itself, because God can be conceived to have infinite mass, which is disproved empirically. And it is comparing apples and oranges to assume that existence in conception can somehow be related to existence in actuality. Even if the comparison holds, why is existence in actuality “supreme” (whatever that means) than existence in conception? Perhaps it is the other way around. Another flaw in this reasoning is to treat existence as an attribute. Existence is a given. A good way to expose this reasoning is to replace “God” with some other words. You could prove the existence of a perfect “void,” which would mean nothing exists.
Mr Ghoul said, “Religion is dumb…”
No, I believe my religion is pretty “smart.” Other religions such as Buddhism or Taoism are very complex.
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for our exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
“Maybe im dumb?..…uh no”
No, I wouldn’t say so at all. You play Axis and Allies. Only smart people play Axis and Allies. :wink:
@Mr:
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for or exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
i actually do not worship a higher being to give reason to my life. I’m sure there are a lot of religious people who do. I wonder if i was even more active in worship if the reason to my life would become more clear, or a greater purpose might stand out.
no, i worship because i know i should. Because i’m told to in a way that the bible and my parents don’t tell me to.
@cystic:
@Mr:
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for or exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
i actually do not worship a higher being to give reason to my life. I’m sure there are a lot of religious people who do. I wonder if i was even more active in worship if the reason to my life would become more clear, or a greater purpose might stand out.
no, i worship because i know i should. Because i’m told to in a way that the bible and my parents don’t tell me to.
You “should” worship?
If you dont mind my asking, why should you worship God or anything at all?
Is God asking for your worship?
My life is my life. I live it for myself, not for anyone else. I won’t be told its all just a sham because some “higher being” says so.
