Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Ifreann]

Are slaves just a dime a dozen in your model? And the economy completely unaffected by 12 massive plagues? As well as the sudden loss of the vast majority of the workforce? Which was then followed by, what appeared to be, the leader of the whole country deciding to invade the red sea and then realising that he can't breathe water? There are a lot of factors there that should have been recorded, and with literally any other Pharaoh, they would have been.

You’d think that the Pharaoh after that would have decided not to record that horrible fiasco, which shames his dynasty. Egyptians are not above historical revisionism if they have to. Any record may have been destroyed either by time or by the Pharaoh’s orders. Though there are sources still, as someone else here has said.

Egypt, devastated by plagues, deprived of its workforce, mourning the loss of every first born son, somehow rallies and scours the entire known world to destroy all evidence of the catastrophes that beset them, and succeeded completely, aside from the Jews, who were taking the scenic route to Israel.

[Aglanen]

So in the Christian framework, you treat calamity as an independent factor to God. Which again, makes no sense because nothing is independent of God.

Thirdly, in Christian moral framework, you're already doomed for hell. You're ransomed to heaven from hell. The "don'ts" don't get you sent to hell, rather they push away the salvation to heaven.

What a needlessly convoluted way of saying the same thing. Also, again, makes no sense. Because Hell and the concept of "damnation" is also not independent of God. He created the entire scenario.

Except it doesn't. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. God's knowledge is reactive not prescriptive. God knowing doesn't make you do something, you still have the capacity to choose.

Then he's not omniscient. There are things he doesn't know, such as the future. He's also not independent of space-time in that case. You dug yourself into that hole.

[New Legland]

I can't wait to tear this to shreds I mean, give constructive feedback...

you should bloody well listen to his argument before tearing it down.
It is honestly insulting how little you all regard from any religious arguments put forward, which mainly do have the same level of historical evidence and backing as your own arguments, which you can be damn well sure that we read and consider before just automatically putting them down. So grow up, and have a reasonable debate rather than just ignoring what we say. For goodness sake, bloody atheists.

There's plenty of historical evidence for evolution and the Big Bang, but religious people love to deny it.

[Tarsonis]

The epicurean riddle fails because it attempts to construct an extremely diametric paradigm of Good and Evil. This only works within Epicurius's moral framework that good is what ever is pleasing, and evil is whatever is displeasing. It doesn't account for a difference between natural evil and moral evil. ( For instance, a hurricane blowing over a city. This is a calamity, but it's not a moral event. It's not morally good or morally bad, it just is.) It also doesn't fit within a Christian moral framework which makes no correlation between suffering and evil, if anything suffering leads to good in the Christian moral framework.

This where the ultimate failing comes in, that if God is able to prevent "evil" he isn't benevolent. The problem of this is that it 1. only works again if you subscribe to epicurean moral framework, and 2. it in no way includes higher order reason and goals, it leaves no room for complexity. There might actually be a benevolent reason that God doesn't act, that the persistence of evil leads to a higher better good.

And of course, it completely ignores the sanctity of free will.

Epicurus wasn't about actively seeking pleasure so much as he was about freedom for suffering. Despite the fact that "epicurean" has become a word some use to describe indulgent hedonism, Epicurus was not into feasts, wine, and orgies, he was all about avoiding pain and distress. Ataraxia, the Greeks called it. Seeking active pleasures is secondary to the passive pleasure of ataraxia.

I'm well aware of that. But the point still stands, that is his framework and thus the Epicurean riddle only works with such a framework,.

As for calamity, I would agree that such a thing as a hurricane is an amoral event, as are things like getting bit by a snake or getting cancer. However, these can only be considered amoral events if we accept nature as an unconscious, unguided force. But if there is an omnipotent being which designed and guides nature, then a hurricane is a moral event because the deity either deliberately made the hurricane or could intervene against it. And regardless of which one it is, there is little difference.

Unless that hurricane happening is allowed to happen, because the net outcome of the event for the Good.

I'm not at fault for someone's else's kid drowning, but if a kid started drowning I consider that I have a moral duty to jump in and pull the kid out of water. This goes even more so for God because unlike a human saving another person who must weigh the risk to one's self against the duty to help, there is no risk whatsoever for an omnipotent deity to intervene. If a kid's drowning in a riptide I have to consider whether I want to risk my own death, but God does not face this dilemma, so there is no excuse.

The difference is your moral duty stems from both an empathy of similar humanity, and what we would call the natural law which states love thy neighbor. You're morally compelled to act out a moral obligation to care for your fellow man. God however is bound by neither, being not human, and not bound by the laws that govern creations. Further, his moral parameters are ordinated toward a good that transcends the moment, and the perception of the mere mortal. For instance, say that kid is baby Hitler (Godwin be damned)? We would still be bound morally to save baby Hitler, as baby Hitler is just a kid and how would we know that he's going to grow up to be Hitler. God having full knowledge of not just the main outcome but all outcomes, would be morally obligated to allow Baby Hitler to die would He not? We would never know, and family would suffer, but the net good would vastly outweigh the emotional suffering of a few humans would it not? This is not to say that every kid that accidentally drowns is a veritable stalin, but point is human perception is considerably narrow in comparison to God's. We don't know everything God knows, and thus we can't adequately pass moral judgement on God without it. (Or at all in the Christian framework as that wouldn't make logical sense to begin with.)

Christianity does indeed make a correlation between suffering and evil because most Christians hold that calamity only came into the world after "the fall." That before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, no one got cancer, there weren't any hurricanes, and lions were vegans. Further, scripture gives numerous examples of inflicting suffering as punishment for sins, both in the Old Testament in which God wipes out Sodom and Gomorrah and commands the Israelites to execute one third of their enemies, as well as in the New Testament in which Jesus is made to suffer to pay for mankind's sins.

Yes suffering was brought about by sin, but suffering also serves the purpose in pointing people back to God. Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out, but the purpose was less to punish them for their sins and more akin to purging cancer from the human body. In the case of the Israelites being conquered and dispersed, again this is brought about by their inequity but the point is to return them to covenant.

I would also ask, what higher good relies on suffering? In which case is suffering necessary? If someone who witnesses a kid drown goes on to become a lifeguard and saves hundreds of lives, you could call that a higher good except that higher good wouldn't be necessary if no one ever drowned. Every example of a higher good that I've seen involves someone doing something to prevent or alleviate suffering. These higher goods only matter because of suffering. If no one suffered, no one would need to aspire to a higher good.

The question then is what is the necessity of death? In the Christian framework death is necessary for Salvation. We can argue about potentially ways we might have done it but it's frankly a moot point as this is the way it was done.

[Tarsonis]

you should bloody well listen to his argument before tearing it down.
It is honestly insulting how little you all regard from any religious arguments put forward, which mainly do have the same level of historical evidence and backing as your own arguments, which you can be damn well sure that we read and consider before just automatically putting them down. So grow up, and have a reasonable debate rather than just ignoring what we say. For goodness sake, bloody atheists.

There's plenty of historical evidence for evolution and the Big Bang, but religious people love to deny those.

Weird, considering it was a Catholic Priest who first posited the big bang theory.

[New Legland]

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

And why did God choose you to be one of the lucky ones? I find it odd since he isn't really partial to answering prayers.

[Tarsonis]

So in the Christian framework, you treat calamity as an independent factor to God. Which again, makes no sense because nothing is independent of God.

Independent in the sense that calamity is a result of the system, not (necessarily) the result of direct intervention. The same way a thunderstorm is the result of low and high pressure systems and not Zeus hurling lightning bolts.

Thirdly, in Christian moral framework, you're already doomed for hell. You're ransomed to heaven from hell. The "don'ts" don't get you sent to hell, rather they push away the salvation to heaven.

What a needlessly convoluted way of saying the same thing. Also, again, makes no sense. Because Hell and the concept of "damnation" is also not independent of God. He created the entire scenario.

It's not the same way though. The way you presented is that humans are naturally destined for heaven, and are condemned to hell. The opposite is in fact true, humans are naturally destined for hell, and are rescued to heaven. This won't make much more sense without a long discussion of what hell actually is, but no hell is not independent of God, it's inherently related to God.

Except it doesn't. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. God's knowledge is reactive not prescriptive. God knowing doesn't make you do something, you still have the capacity to choose.

Then he's not omniscient. There are things he doesn't know, such as the future. He's also not independent of space-time in that case. You dug yourself into that hole.

Yes he is. He knows what you will choose, but that doesn't mean his knowledge is what makes you choose. The choice is still yours even if you will always make that choice. The capacity for free thought remains in your brain, even if there is not a single universe in which you ever make a different choice.

[Tarsonis]

If morality is subjective to God why should humans, who are an entirely different sort of beings, adhere to or even care about it ?

You don't have to. Not going to play out very well for you though.

[Tarsonis]

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

And why did God choose you to be one of the lucky ones? I find it odd since he isn't really partial to answering prayers.

His inability to know why, doesn't negate the validity of his statement.

[New Legland]

If morality is subjective to God why should humans, who are an entirely different sort of beings, adhere to or even care about it ?

You don't have to. Not going to play out very well for you though.

I love God, a more oppressive and brutal dictator than any other the world has ever known. Really, it'd be best to but that "don't have to" in quotes. It's just like you "don't have to" follow the law.

[Tarsonis]

You don't have to. Not going to play out very well for you though.

I love God, a more oppressive and brutal dictator than any other the world has ever known. Really, it'd be best to but that "don't have to" in quotes.

*God creates universe*
*God creates beings in universe for a purpose*
*Beings reject purpose*
*God warns them that doing so will have grave consequences*
*Beings do so anyway*
*Consequences happen*
*"Wow you're so mean God, such a brutal dictator."


Ffs it's like listening to my high school students complain when I take their phones after telling them to put them away 20 times.

[New Legland]

I love God, a more oppressive and brutal dictator than any other the world has ever known. Really, it'd be best to but that "don't have to" in quotes.

*God creates universe*
*God creates beings in universe for a purpose*
*Beings reject purpose*
*God warns them that doing so will have grave consequences*
*Beings do so anyway*
*Consequences happen*
*"Wow you're so mean God, such a brutal dictator."


Ffs it's like listening to my high school students complain when I take their phones after telling them to put them away 20 times.

Oh yes, because not believing in him (among many other ridiculously petty things) warrants eternal punishment. No dictator has ever given a punishment so grave, and no crime warrants such a punishment. Except, you know, eternally torturing billions of people. Anyway, you could insert any dictator ever's name into your little conversation and nothing would change.

[Dazchan]

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

That’s rather insulting to the doctors who spent years studying medicine and worked so hard to save your life.

[Page]

*God creates universe*
*God creates beings in universe for a purpose*
*Beings reject purpose*
*God warns them that doing so will have grave consequences*
*Beings do so anyway*
*Consequences happen*
*"Wow you're so mean God, such a brutal dictator."

For what purpose did God create beings? And don't say "for a higher good", because no higher good is necessary if beings don't exist.

[Aglanen]

Independent in the sense that calamity is a result of the system, not (necessarily) the result of direct intervention. The same way a thunderstorm is the result of low and high pressure systems and not Zeus hurling lightning bolts.

Zeus was also not accredited with creating the universe like God. He was also definitely not looked at as benevolent. But it's all relative, I suppose. After all, your God holds as much credibility as the Hellenic Gods/Goddesses.

It's not the same way though. The way you presented is that humans are naturally destined for heaven, and are condemned to hell. The opposite is in fact true, humans are naturally destined for hell, and are rescued to heaven. This won't make much more sense without a long discussion of what hell actually is, but no hell is not independent of God, it's inherently related to God.

Considering how this discussion goes, it seems to me the more you attempt to explain it the less sense it'll make. Also, why does your loving omnibenevolent God believe that everyone, even a newborn baby, is destined for hell?

Yes he is. He knows what you will choose, but that doesn't mean his knowledge is what makes you choose. The choice is still yours even if you will always make that choice. The capacity for free thought remains in your brain, even if there is not a single universe in which you ever make a different choice.

My choices are invalid if God created things the way they are with the knowledge that it would influence my choices a certain way. What if someone if born with a chemical imbalance or terribly abused as a child, and that person grows up to become a serial killer? Where's the free will in that? Whether God created a person specifically that way, or the series of events that would lead to it, the point still stands. That's not the work of an omnbenevolent being.

[Tarsonis]

*God creates universe*
*God creates beings in universe for a purpose*
*Beings reject purpose*
*God warns them that doing so will have grave consequences*
*Beings do so anyway*
*Consequences happen*
*"Wow you're so mean God, such a brutal dictator."


Ffs it's like listening to my high school students complain when I take their phones after telling them to put them away 20 times.

Oh yes, because not believing in him (among many other ridiculously petty things) warrants eternal punishment. No dictator has ever given a punishment so grave, and no such punishment is ever justified for anything. Except, you know, eternally torturing billions of people.

God "Do this and you go to heaven."
Human: *Actively doesn't do that thing*
God "Sorry, you can't come in you didn't do the thing."

[New Legland]

Oh yes, because not believing in him (among many other ridiculously petty things) warrants eternal punishment. No dictator has ever given a punishment so grave, and no such punishment is ever justified for anything. Except, you know, eternally torturing billions of people.

God "Do this and you go to heaven."
Human: *Actively doesn't do that thing*
God "Sorry, you can't come in you didn't do the thing."

There's a difference between denying entrance to Heaven and sending to eternal punishment. If God supposedly only denied people entrance to Heaven, I wouldn't have made that argument in the first place.

[Page]

God "Do this and you go to heaven."
Human: *Actively doesn't do that thing*
God "Sorry, you can't come in you didn't do the thing."

Why give humans the option to not do what god wants?

God could have created a world with infinite resources, then no one steals or covets anything. He could have designed human brains in such a way that all sexual desire for anyone else ceases to exist the moment a human finds a mate, then there's no adultery. He could have given us indestructible bodies and there would be no murder. The world was apparently designed to make sin as frequent and inevitable as possible.

[New haven america]

Oh yes, because not believing in him (among many other ridiculously petty things) warrants eternal punishment. No dictator has ever given a punishment so grave, and no such punishment is ever justified for anything. Except, you know, eternally torturing billions of people.

God "Do this and you go to heaven."
Human: *Actively doesn't do that thing*
God "Sorry, you can't come in you didn't do the thing."

Also God: "Hey, let's make you either biologically or physically incapable of doing that thing!"

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Please forgive me, but if we are to be discussing ethics, I feel I should dump the following here:

In the Form of Formal Argumentation
Premise: (You act as though) Your physical and psychological needs have intrinsic value, and you work to meet them
Premise: The differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible*
Conclusion: (You should act as though) Everybody's needs have intrinsic value, and you should work to meet them as best as possible when practical (i.e. one should act with unconditional compassion)

In essence, I hold that "pure" egoism and "pure" nihilism are rather arbitrary means of answering "what-to-do-next", in that oneself is not fundamentally different from others, and therefore one should treat others with the same dignity/love with which one treats oneself.

*My reasoning for embracing such an abstract meta-ethical axiom (that is to say, that the differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible, or more broadly the phenomenon of empathy and the concept of impartiality) is that I realized knowledge in the domains of mathematics, logic, and especially morality are made by the same process that gives us scientific knowledge. Namely creativity and criticism. This is true even though the nature of investigation is very different in all these domains (mathematics/logic, for example, being axioms and proofs, logical consistency and completeness). Furthermore, scientific explanations necessarily employ abstract objects and quantities that are not directly experienced but essential parts of the explanation. Also, if abstractions are all just in the mind (just the way we represent regularities in the outside world), then all we've done is shuffle the problem of abstraction in the outside world to abstractions in our own minds. Not to mention that unobservable universals are necessary components of explanatory knowledge, whether scientific or in another domain. By saying there are no abstractions, the "pure" egoist or the "pure" nihilist thus implies that there are only subjective illusions and that only meaningless world of subatomic particles exists. But that also means rejecting that experience, the self, and indeed the very-concept of personhood exists, and thus the importance and primacy of your own sense of good. Hence why I accept the value of abstractions, including and especially impartiality and empathy and thus the intrinsic value of other beings as moral equals to the "self".

TL;DR: My moral philosophy is inspired by, but not exactly, Mohism. For a quick primer: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/#assessment2

Hopefully I've made some sense at least, and I apologize if I don't.

[Free Arabian Nation]

God "Do this and you go to heaven."
Human: *Actively doesn't do that thing*
God "Sorry, you can't come in you didn't do the thing."

Also God: "Hey, let's make you either biologically or physically incapable of doing that thing!"

God Again: "Let's also make a thing people are born with and have no control over a sin!"

[Tarsonis]

Independent in the sense that calamity is a result of the system, not (necessarily) the result of direct intervention. The same way a thunderstorm is the result of low and high pressure systems and not Zeus hurling lightning bolts.

Zeus was also not accredited with creating the universe like God. He was also definitely not looked at as benevolent. But it's all relative, I suppose. After all, your God holds as much credibility as the Hellenic Gods/Goddesses.

That's not the point. The Point is that yes God created the system, but that results of the system are not necessarily specifically targeted and generated, but are naturally occurring tangents of the system.

It's not the same way though. The way you presented is that humans are naturally destined for heaven, and are condemned to hell. The opposite is in fact true, humans are naturally destined for hell, and are rescued to heaven. This won't make much more sense without a long discussion of what hell actually is, but no hell is not independent of God, it's inherently related to God.

Considering how this discussion goes, it seems to me the more you attempt to explain it the less sense it'll make.

Also, why does your loving omnibenevolent God believe that everyone, even a newborn baby, is destined for hell?

Newborn baby's aren't. Everyone above the age of reason is, because humans unlike animals have the intellect and capacity to evaluate moral choices, yet still succumb to animalistic tendencies which run contrary to the moralistic paradigms established by God. The incarnation of God in Christ elevates human nature and cognition out of the dirt towards God, and thus by communion with him we are elevated into divination, where as without him we're trapped out side of divination for all eternity. H

Yes he is. He knows what you will choose, but that doesn't mean his knowledge is what makes you choose. The choice is still yours even if you will always make that choice. The capacity for free thought remains in your brain, even if there is not a single universe in which you ever make a different choice.

My choices are invalid if God created things the way they are with the knowledge that it would influence my choices a certain way. What if someone if born with a chemical imbalance or terribly abused as a child, and that person grows up to become a serial killer? Where's the free will in that? Whether God created a person specifically that way, or the series of events that would lead to it, the point still stands. That's not the work of an omnbenevolent being.

Even a serial killer has the capacity to not act upon their compulsions. You're more than the sum of your parts, your parts do not generally dictate your conscience decisions. In the case where they do, (i.e schizophrenia) then you would not be responsible and thus innocent. You're trying to argue that all of creation is predetermined by God and this is not the case.

[Page]

God: I gave you scripture that tells you how to get to heaven.
Christian: Okay, I will obey all of your rules and praise you every day.

*Christian dies*

God: I meant the Qu'ran, not the Bible. You're going to hell.


God: I gave you scripture that tells you how to get to heaven.
Muslim: Okay, I will obey all of your rules and praise you every day.

*Muslim dies*

God: I meant the Bible, the not Qu'ran. You're going to hell.

[Tarsonis]

God: I gave you scripture that tells you how to get to heaven.
Christian: Okay, I will obey all of your rules and praise you every day.

*Christian dies*

God: I meant the Qu'ran, not the Bible. You're going to hell.


God: I gave you scripture that tells you how to get to heaven.
Muslim: Okay, I will obey all of your rules and praise you every day.

*Muslim dies*

God: I meant the Bible, the not Qu'ran. You're going to hell.

One of these statements is true, one of these statements is false.

[Page]

God: I gave you scripture that tells you how to get to heaven.
Christian: Okay, I will obey all of your rules and praise you every day.

*Christian dies*

God: I meant the Qu'ran, not the Bible. You're going to hell.


God: I gave you scripture that tells you how to get to heaven.
Muslim: Okay, I will obey all of your rules and praise you every day.

*Muslim dies*

God: I meant the Bible, the not Qu'ran. You're going to hell.

One of these statements is true, one of these statements is false.

Yup, and every Christian and every Muslim agrees with you there. So why do you think you're on the right side of the coin, and does it not unsettle you that the likely reason you're on that side of the coin is because of what continent you were born on?