Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris,

Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said "but I am not God, nor can I answer for him."

Fanman wrote:Xris,

Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said "but I am not God, nor can I answer for him."

No I did not miss that part but you have just stated there are hundreds of possible reasons why he does not help those children. You must have considered the reasons to make that claim. You answered for god when you claimed he saved you from death. Or did he actualy speak to you on that occasion? You are representing yourself as the knowledge of god and he has made himself known to you but now you are refusing to answer the simplest of questions. You either know him or you do not. So please just a few possible reasons why he can turn away and let children suffer for thousands of years without even blinking? Especially when you can claim such trivia of reasons for miracles.

Xris, what I actually said was "God could have a myriad of reasons for allowing that to happen, which are deeper than the situation taken at face value." I did not say "there are hundreds of possible reasons why he does not help those children" the latter quotation is your words, and they are two quite different statements. Previously, I merely guessed at the reason that God prevented me from falling, I cannot do the same with regards to why God allows a child to suffer and die. My knowledge of God is based upon the bible and my experiences, I do not think that I am or that I can can represent myself as "the knowledge of God" as you put it - that he has made himself known to me is entirely possible, but I cannot guess at why he would allow a child to suffer and die. I wonder though, have you ever looked at the secular reason for their suffering?

Xris wrote: Fanman as long as you keep refering to your experience as a valid reason to believe in god I will continue to ask the same questions. It is an act of arrogance to believe god saved you for a known reason but you can not logically reply why god allows children to suffer and die. What if I put a child in your arms and asked you watch it die of hunger. What would you do?

Xris,

I am not trying to be quarrelsome against your passionately held beliefs, I am just curious.

In the case of starving children, what do you suggest God should do about it?

Should God intervene in human affairs in a way that is blatantly supernatural?

Should baskets of food magically appear out of nowhere?

Should human bodies suddenly not be subject to the effects of not eating?

I understand that you are not God and therefore are not in possession of God-like powers and wisdom, nevertheless, just give us a few simple suggestions of how you think the situation might be handled in a way...

...(and this is the important part)...

...that does not breach the integrity and order of objective reality.

seeds

Seeds wrote:

Xris wrote: Fanman as long as you keep refering to your experience as a valid reason to believe in god I will continue to ask the same questions. It is an act of arrogance to believe god saved you for a known reason but you can not logically reply why god allows children to suffer and die. What if I put a child in your arms and asked you watch it die of hunger. What would you do?

Xris,

I am not trying to be quarrelsome against your passionately held beliefs, I am just curious.

In the case of starving children, what do you suggest God should do about it?

Should God intervene in human affairs in a way that is blatantly supernatural?

Should baskets of food magically appear out of nowhere?

Should human bodies suddenly not be subject to the effects of not eating?

I understand that you are not God and therefore are not in possession of God-like powers and wisdom, nevertheless, just give us a few simple suggestions of how you think the situation might be handled in a way...

...(and this is the important part)...

...that does not breach the integrity and order of objective reality.

seeds

Objective reality is the fact that god if he exists can stand back and watch dispassionately. Would you excuse me if walked past a child being raped and murdered? I am asking those who believe in him what rational drives this supreme being to allow himself the ability to have no compassion? This is a god that is described as benevolent and cares for his creation. What possible reason could he have to maintain the same pain and suffering for thousands of years? I find it an outrageous insult to expect me to logically believe in this arogant self serving ignorant god. Listen to his followers excusing, playing with words, politics to avoid the truth. I would deny my existance to save a child's suffering would this god deny his rights to save mankind this perpetual misery. No I will not play a silly game of theological excuses.

Xris wrote:
"...I would deny my existance to save a child's suffering..."

Is that true?

You have made it crystal clear that you do not believe in the existence of a higher intelligence presiding over the universe. So, obviously, God is not going to come to the rescue of the children you seem so concerned about.

The point is, stop your incessant ranting about the suffering of children and do something about it!

You don’t have to save all the children of the world.

However, if you took half the energy you spend pointing out how ignorant and uncompassionate God is and invested it into helping just one child (somewhere in the world and not related to you), it would be considered “putting your money where your mouth is.”

You may already be doing that, I don’t know. But if not, then your statement...

“...I would deny my existance to save a child's suffering...”

...is empty and meaningless.

seeds

Seeds wrote:

Xris wrote:
"...I would deny my existance to save a child's suffering..."

Is that true?

You have made it crystal clear that you do not believe in the existence of a higher intelligence presiding over the universe. So, obviously, God is not going to come to the rescue of the children you seem so concerned about.

The point is, stop your incessant ranting about the suffering of children and do something about it!

You don’t have to save all the children of the world.

However, if you took half the energy you spend pointing out how ignorant and uncompassionate God is and invested it into helping just one child (somewhere in the world and not related to you), it would be considered “putting your money where your mouth is.”

You may already be doing that, I don’t know. But if not, then your statement...

“...I would deny my existance to save a child's suffering...”

...is empty and meaningless.

seeds

Just a bit like your post. Do not be so arogant as to assume what I do or not do. We are debating a god not the ability of man to overcome the impossible. I see your just like all the other defenders of the faith unable to debate the real truths of religion. Unable to answer questions that destroy your description of god as a caring benevolent fellow.

Xris,

For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure do spend alot of time thinking and debating about him? I think that Seeds asked you a perfectly reasonable philosophical question; but instead of answering reasonably and calmly, you responded to him with an angry and indignant rhetoric - as if he doesn't have the right to question you or the things that you say? And then in complete hypocrisy [in my opinion] call him "arrogant" and complain that the faithful don't answer your questions; just because you don't hear what you want to hear from us. I have answered every single question that you've asked me, yet because you cannot get the answer you want it from me, it is as if I haven't answered your questions at all.

Why don't you deal with the arguments and questions that people posit instead of focusing on the person?

God...not the father, nor Jesus...but the Holy Ghost...I guess. Science has already homed in on an almighty ghost. Science calls it dark matter, yet it is not dark nor matter, but to scientists it is indeed, an almighty ghost that is responsible for creating reality as we know it. I guess.

Fanman wrote:Xris,

For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure do spend alot of time thinking and debating about him? I think that Seeds asked you a perfectly reasonable philosophical question; but instead of answering reasonably and calmly, you responded to him with an angry and indignant rhetoric - as if he doesn't have the right to question you or the things that you say? And then in complete hypocrisy [in my opinion] call him "arrogant" and complain that the faithful don't answer your questions; just because you don't hear what you want to hear from us. I have answered every single question that you've asked me, yet because you cannot get the answer you want it from me, it is as if I haven't answered your questions at all.

Why don't you deal with the arguments and questions that people posit instead of focusing on the person?

Arrogance has no relevance. Apart from his own accusations of arrogance, Xris seems to be presenting a variety of arguments of which others are not directly addressing but rather diverting from and expounding other unquestionable notions, unquestionable by the very definition of them. This is not conducive to philosophical discussion.

Fanman, By suggesting Xris' "thinking and debating" about God is indicative of something other of his opposition to your points of view, it seems you are pointing out a predisposition to automatically dismiss any opposing points of view.


Am I right in summarizing the pro-God argument as thus; The reasons for negative aspects of existence cannot be fully understood, and therefore we cannot understand God as the direct cause of these aspects. The reasons for positive aspects of existence cannot be fully understood, yet we can understand God as the direct cause of these aspects.

I might point out there are a variety of assumptions in there including 1. God is omnipotent. 2. Things can be either negative or positive at the summation of their causes and effects.

A variation may be that positive aspects ARE fully understandable, which would negate the next, obvious question.

How do we get different assumptions for the origins of positive and negative aspects under the same pretense?

Dreager,

I think that arrogance does have relevance in a debate, because the arrogant person in the debate will have an overly subjective viewpoint of their own position / perspective; and not fully consider or respect the other person's position / perspective.

As I've stated, I have answered every question that Xris has asked me, but he is not satisfied with the answers I've given. And thus continues to repeat the same questions over and over again. His argument seems to focus on the premise that God cannot be good because he allows children to suffer. His questions are heavily focused upon this perspective.

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make? Xris does not believe in God yet he spends alot of time thinking and debating about God. Why would anyone who doesn't believe in God do so? And his comments are sometimes derogatory towards those who believe in God, referring to us as "deluded." Do think that referring to someone as deluded in a debate in reasonable? To do so is to attack the person and not deal with the argument.

I will complete this comment when I have more time.

Fanman wrote:Dreager,

I think that arrogance does have relevance in a debate, because the arrogant person in the debate will have an overly subjective viewpoint of their own position / perspective; and not fully consider or respect the other person's position / perspective.

As I've stated, I have answered every question that Xris has asked me, but he is not satisfied with the answers I've given. And thus continues to repeat the same questions over and over again. His argument seems to focus on the premise that God cannot be good because he allows children to suffer. His questions are heavily focused upon this perspective.

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make? Xris does not believe in God yet he spends alot of time thinking and debating about God. Why would anyone who doesn't believe in God do so? And his comments are sometimes derogatory towards those who believe in God, referring to us as "deluded." Do think that referring to someone as deluded in a debate in reasonable? To do so is to attack the person and not deal with the argument.

I will complete this comment when I have more time.

I think being arrogant and being unable to understand someone elses point of view are two different things. But acknowledged, arrogance will have an impact on the ability to consider different opinions. Though using it to support or refute a point, I do not see the relevance. I'm not having a dig at anyone. This is an interesting topic, I just don't want it to descend to name calling.

Perhaps you could address my proposed perspective though. Omnipotence and suffering doesn't seem to make sense to me either, would you agree with my pro-God argument, why/why not, are there any other reasonable assumptions to be made, should we be defining God a bit, etc. Although you can probably guess my general perspective by now, I would accept a 'God works in mysterious ways, we cannot understand' argument, but it really means an end to the discussion, so I would prefer to avoid that if possible.

Fanman wrote:Xris,

For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure do spend alot of time thinking and debating about him? I think that Seeds asked you a perfectly reasonable philosophical question; but instead of answering reasonably and calmly, you responded to him with an angry and indignant rhetoric - as if he doesn't have the right to question you or the things that you say? And then in complete hypocrisy [in my opinion] call him "arrogant" and complain that the faithful don't answer your questions; just because you don't hear what you want to hear from us. I have answered every single question that you've asked me, yet because you cannot get the answer you want it from me, it is as if I haven't answered your questions at all.

Why don't you deal with the arguments and questions that people posit instead of focusing on the person?

You never answer a question you make statements of faith that it in a logical world means nothing. I spend my time countering the falsity that is god. Too long have the theists made outrageous claims without question. If you can not answer a question please do not claim you have. I have asked you innumerable times and you simply say he must have his reasons. Do you honestly believe that is a valid response? As I said before, when you stop refering to your personal experience, as if it had value, I will stop asking about gods failure to attend to the dying children.

Dreager,

you wrote:

Am I right in summarizing the pro-God argument as thus; The reasons for negative aspects of existence cannot be fully understood, and therefore we cannot understand God as the direct cause of these aspects. The reasons for positive aspects of existence cannot be fully understood, yet we can understand God as the direct cause of these aspects.

I don't agree with your pro-God argument.

From a believers perspective, there is a force of good and a force of evil in this world who are God and Satan respectively. Satan's purpose in the world is to corrupt people, so that they become evil, or at least do not seek to learn and follow the will of God. Satan also causes suffering to the innocent and is the bane of mankind. Therefore in opposition to your pro-God argument, I would argue that Satan is one of the causes of the negative aspects of existence. That said, Proverbs 3:12 describes how God is a father who corrects those whom he loves. Therefore, the correction that God subjects those he loves to could involve suffering, which is experienced by humans as a negative aspect of existence which God is directly responsible for.

In Isaiah 45:7 God states that he makes peace and creates evil. Therefore he can be held directly accountable for the negative aspects of existence. God also states in Isaiah 55:8 & 9 that his thoughts are not our (human's) thoughts, and that his ways are higher than ours. Therefore, this places us in a position where we may not be able to understand why God does what he does, due to his ways being different to ours. But again, this points to the notion that God can be held accountable for the negative aspects of existence.

I think that the difficulty that arises when negative things happen, is deciding who we attribute them to God or Satan? I think that if the innocent suffer [negative aspect of existence] then it is Satan who is the cause of it. And, if those who God views as guilty of sin suffer, then it is he who is responsible. I genuinely believe that some of God's actions may be beyond our capacity to understand or agree with, but I also believe that God knows best having an infinite amount of wisdom. I mean, God works on a universal scale, from a spiritual platform, whilst we operate on a largely, if not wholly physical platform on an earthly scale.

I find the following perspective useful in understanding suffering in the world - If God permitted his own son Jesus Christ to suffer and die, how much more will he expect the rest of humanity endure?

I believe that God can be the direct cause of positive things that occur, but I also believe that Satan can cause 'good' or pleasing things to occur in people's lives if they worship him. As we are shown in Matthew 4:8 when Satan offers Jesus the glory of all the kingdoms of the world if only Jesus would worship him. I believe that if something positive [the positive aspects of existence] is earned through genuine hard work and natural talent, then it is God who is the direct cause of it. Whereas if something positive is attained through cheating, slighting, not by natural talent or by causing suffering to others then it is Satan who is the direct cause of it. I am not ruling out though, that people can be lucky or have fortunate, chance encouters which benefit them. I would say serendipitously, but I believe that serendipity could be a form of providence.

Fanman:

What evidence can you produce that supports your claim "God is responsible for Good and Satan is responsible for evil".

That type of mentality reminds me of bronzeage men who would sacrafice women in order to please there gods in hopes that they may triumph in there next battle. Have we not moved past asking the question of "why do good and bad things happen"?

What is Good and Evil with out the presence of man? It is nothing more than the possitive or negative consequence of causility. Man just tends to have a problem of carrying the burden of consequence so instead of accepting his own in-signifficance in this world we tend to pass the burden onto agents, in your case God in order to create reason and justify; at the same time it tends to convince Man he comes second only to his creator (who created him in his own image no less).

What explination "backed by evidence" can religion provide that science can't in regards to how the Universe came to be as we observe it today and in regards to the diversity of species, the evolution of man.

Science explains all these things while at the same time forcing religious scripture to either delete thier stories or side step around the issues by stating that the bible shouldn't be taking literally any more; even though it was taken literally for the pass 1900 years.

The Universe is an estimated 14 billions years old, we may find it's older within time, earth is about 4.5 billion years old humans are lucky to have been around for 150,000 years. Were just advanced models of basic cells and organic tissue who have developed brains which allow intelligence. since the bible got these most basic facts so hideously wrong, what makes you think that any other refference you make from the bible, even slightly resembles any bearing of the truth?

Appologies if this appears to be of the attacking nature, I feel that often the most direct approach is the most affective.

Regards TC