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

[Ters Althria]

We know how chairs come about because we can watch people making them.

How many universes have you seen created to be so confident that a universe implies a creator in the same way that a chair implies a carpenter?

We are the chair, not the carpenter.

[Dogmeat]

We know how chairs come about because we can watch people making them.

How many universes have you seen created to be so confident that a universe implies a creator in the same way that a chair implies a carpenter?

We are the chair, not the carpenter.

That doesn't answer the question.

[Frievolk]

We know how chairs come about because we can watch people making them.

How many universes have you seen created to be so confident that a universe implies a creator in the same way that a chair implies a carpenter?

We are the chair, not the carpenter.

We're almost definitely the carpenter who believes to be a chair, actually.

[Ters Althria]

We are the chair, not the carpenter.

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does.

[Neutraligon]

We know how chairs come about because we can watch people making them.

How many universes have you seen created to be so confident that a universe implies a creator in the same way that a chair implies a carpenter?

We are the chair, not the carpenter.

Except that you yourself said that there is no real difference between a creation and something coming about naturally, so using your own ideas it is entirely possible that there was no carpenter necessary.

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does.

It really doesn't No it doesn't, how many is a question that requires a number as an answer. Your answer did not include a number.

[Thomas More]

God exists outside of Creation. We, as part of Creation, cannot know that which is outside. We can, however, glean bits of information about God indirectly through his Creation in much the same way as we can gather hints about an author in his writing or the carpenter in his chair, and through the experience of the only thing that has been both inside and outside of Creation. Inside a room, there is something that is both inside and outside that room — the door. The door, here, is Jesus.

[Achidyemay]

I don't have evidence in particular for God the Father or God the Son, but I can definitely speak at length about God the Holy Spirit. I don't know if anyone has ever read Hume, but he talks a lot about happiness, and what makes a person happy, and how what makes people happy is what is good for themselves and the community (Rand and Plato also would back up these notions). We've evolved this goodness within us as a way to be more fit (in the evolutionary sense of the term). This goodness is a real thing, and with some exceptions (Biology is the study of exceptions) exists universally throughout humanity. "By one Spirit we were all baptized" is a line from the catechisms and I see reason to believe that what the church is saying and what philosophy and biology are saying is the same thing. We evolved and were anointed by God the Holy Spirit and that is how the universe works.

I chose Catholicism because the catholic church does the most good for my community out of any organization that operates there.

[Neutraligon]

God exists outside of Creation. We, as part of Creation, cannot know that which is outside. We can, however, glean bits of information about God indirectly through his Creation in much the same way as we can gather hints about an author in his writing or the carpenter in his chair, and through the experience of the only thing that has been both inside and outside of Creation. Inside a room, there is something that is both inside and outside that room — the door. The door, here, is Jesus.

Show that there is a creation. Also...why did you change accounts?

[Ifreann]

We know how chairs come about because we can watch people making them.

How many universes have you seen created to be so confident that a universe implies a creator in the same way that a chair implies a carpenter?

We are the chair, not the carpenter.

We're people on the internet and you're trying to tell me that God is real because chairs.

[Erythrean Thebes]

You still believe that a god, specifically the Christian god exists,that is a claim and state as such

.

Asking you to actually support your claims is not 'atheist vitriol' Thebes.

No, it isn’t. My claim, though, is not that the Christian religion is true. Nor am I claiming that God exists. I am not willing to subscribe to either proposition. The only thing I am claiming, is that according to its premise, the Christian religion is logically consistent, it is not illogical. One therefore accepts the premise of the religion, and can be a Christian, or does not accept it, and is not a believer. It’s not ‘obvious,’ because many atheist arguments are that the logic of the Christian religion is nonsensical, and there is no way to believe and also be a logical thinker. But that is not true. An atheist argument that the logical premise for Christianity is cheap, and not compelling, one the other hand IS valid, but, it is also an opinion, and not a fact.

Yeah, and as the person on its side in a debate, it's on you to bring proof regarding to it. You can't say "can you prove the Bible isn't right?" -or well, it's not considered good debating at any rate. It is on you to prove the Bible is right, i.e. by proving that every single one of our ancestors was "people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others." (And then you'd have to somehow prove that it somehow justifies "God's sentence passed upon [us]")

You're the one making that claim (or, pushing for the side that makes that claim). It is only on you to prove it true.

My claim is that, if you subscribe to the premise of the religion, one of the key tenets of which is the intrinsic evil of humanity, then the partially desolate condition of man’s relationship to God has justification and is also logically consistent. My claim is NOT that such a premise is necessarily true.

In regards to this particular point, your quote above, the Bible accounts for different types of people, some of whom are good, and some of whom are evil. Figures such as Noah, Esau, Joseph, and Christ, adhere to the original code of conduct which humanity observed in the perfect world of Eden. You will see, God doesn’t punish those people. He gives them assistance throughout their lives and he ultimately repays them for injuries they suffer. On the other hand, people like Cain, Jacob, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who are like Adam and commit sins willfully, are tormented by God for their sins. It may be debatable whether or not that is fair, but if you are accepting the premise of the Bible in the first place, it is fairly clear how it would be justified to punish a person for doing wrong. Do you think that the notion that evil people deserve punishment and good people deserve assistance requires justification?

It is not my opinion that it is fair for one evil act at the beginning of time to have ruptured our relationship to God, such that he gives us no succor on Earth and only offers a certain reward for good character after death. I will not make that claim. However, I do contend that it is not illogical, and I claim that it is consistent with the premise of the Bible that mankind was corrupted by sin forever because of the treachery of Eve and Adam. You may not believe such a thing, nor do I believe it without reservation, but that is not what I am debating with you. I am only debating if it logically follows that ‘within the world of the Biblical reality, the barren state of mankind’s relationship to God is justified by the events which are purported to have directly led up to it.’

What is there to be confused about? You are aware that in the US besides Muslims atheists are one of the most hated groups? You are aware that it is practically impossible in most parts of the US for an atheist to be elected? You are aware that atheists have dealt with theists trying to force them to follow their religion through the force of law. YOu do realize that untill relatively recently atheists where killed for being atheist. That the term godless is a pejorative?

I guess it’s not confusing – it’s frustrating, because I wish that I would be viewed differently from an uncritical practitioner of the religion.

That makes no sense. Why would a document inspired by a perfect being need to be cherry picked?

I contend that it’s not perfect, nor infallible. We both know that it was written in pieces over a long period of time.

No that is what we are told by the theists when we ask them what they mean by god. When the issues or omnipotence are pointed out the theist then moves the goal post...over and over and over again.

I agree, I think most forms of Christian apology are awful.

WHy did god create a being that had intrinsic evil in it?

In the Bible, humanity was not intrinsically evil until they were corrupted by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. But, in accordance with the commonly held view of genetics and hereditability in ancient times, the corruption became embedded in the seed of Adam and passed down to the coming generations. Again, I do not claim that it is true, I claim that if you adopt the logical starting point that the Biblical God exists, then this story is logically consistent with the events purported to have happened both before and after it.

[Erythrean Thebes]

I think your mistake is in assuming that atheists are arguing with Christians purely as an intellectual exercise. Rather, atheists are arguing with Christians because Christians run our countries and write the laws that we will have to obey. So of course there is vitriol. Politics is a high-stakes game. And of course we are arguing against God being omnipotent. That's what Christians tell us they believe. If it's fallacious to respond to the arguments before us instead of running off to engage with theology that actually makes totally different arguments then fine, I guess this whole thing is a fallacy, but it's a necessary fallacy. You don't get gay marriage legalised by arguing with long-dead theologians.

Certainly I can understand. But in the end I believe a better strategy, even if it is not feasible to atheists or distasteful to them, is to advocate a different definition of the religion. And I happen to think a stringently humble and egalitarian formula of the Christian religion is also, not coincidentally, much closer to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and his initial followers, compared to institutionalized and polemical Catholic and Protestant views, for instance.

[Salandriagado]

All of this is irrelevant: any entity that has the power to end suffering, but allows childhood cancer to continue to exist, is evil. What their fan club says about them is entirely irrelevant, they're still evil. Thus, we are still left with the trichotomy: any deity is either evil (because it allows childhood cancer to exist), weak (because it can't stop childhood cancer), or doesn't exist. So which is it? Is your god evil, weak, or non-existent?

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

Literally no part of this has any relevance to any part of this discussion.

[Dogmeat]

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does.

When a carpenter assembles a chair, they don't "create" the chair. They take materials that already existed, and assemble them into a new form (that of a chair.) What you're talking about with god creating the universe isn't that. It's not matter in motion. It's the ex nihilo generation of matter and energy.

This would be akin to a carpenter reading an incantation, and having a fully-formed chair pop into the room. Something we've never seen, and no one has ever done. And here you are telling me that these two processes - building a chair, and summoning one - are exactly the same, and that one proves the other.

[Salandriagado]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That is the fallacy, at least in respect to Christian theology. God only 'controls' himself; he is 'omnipotent' in the sense that, in his capacity as a discrete entity, he can appear anywhere.

So you're going for "weak", then. In that case, this deity of yours is so weak as to not deserve worship.

But living things have free will, God can't control them. If somebody does harm to you, God was not involved. I understand that a common atheist argument is thus 'why would I worship God, since he doesn't stop these bad things from happening to me?' What I'm saying is that the further argument which I often see, to the effect of 'why does God do bad things to me?' is deeply fallacious and not correct. God never does anything bad to anyone; other humans and living things, who have free will, are the ones who do bad things to people. And it may be that this does not satisfy many people, nevertheless, it is a logically consistent and longstanding Christian answer to the retort 'why doesn't he stop bad things from happening to me?' The answer: God personally punishes wrongdoers, but most of the time, it's post facto.

It's irrelevant: any god worth worshipping has the capacity to end childhood lukemia, without any great difficulty. Any entity that can't do that is no more omnipotent than I am. Any entity that could do that, but doesn't, is evil.

In Christianity's original milieu, this satisfied people. The slaves/servants of a tyrannical lord or king when, for instance, after years of tyranny he would finally drown in the river or die of consumption or something, they would think to themselves 'hah! God nabbed the fucker. He had it coming to him...' Regardless how one exercises their freedom of choice to select a personal ideology, the rhetoric of many atheist advocates is deeply confused on the principles of the Christian religion. The religion is logically consistent according to its premise. The flaw, which frustrates me, is that most people identify with the untenable and irrelevant metaphysical aspects of the Biblical premise, rather than focusing on the more valuable sociological elements of the Biblical premise.

That an argument points out the logical inconsistencies in your claims, rather than ignoring the problem, is not a flaw.

[Salandriagado]

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Here's what I think personally: if you're not like these evil 'ancestors' of yours, then you're a member of the new class of the redeemed which Christ created. God doesn't punish you. Whereas, if you really are like them, you're guilty of the same sins...

The historical answer is that when the books of the Bible were being written, it was widely believed that children inherited the personality traits of their parents automatically.

(If you're asking, 'why does God inflict suffering on people in the Bible?', I think you'll find that each instance of God inflicting a punishment on people is rather elaborately explained...)

Well explained, and outright sociopathic.

[Salandriagado]

The question was "why does god give children cancer if he is allloving and omnipotent".
The answer given was "because their ancestors suck and therefor they deserve it".

I am hoping I am not understanding this correctly.

Why do you think God gives children cancer?

You claim that your god created the world, no? Then, being omniscient, he knew the consequences of that initial setup. Thus, he knew that childhood cancer would arise in the world that he created. He then chose not to remove it. That, right there, is evil.

[Jolthig]

So what is being discussed right now? I'm in debate mood.

[Thermodolia]

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

Yes. God, or at least the Jewish one, is kind of a dick

[Salandriagado]

I ask this: If there is a chair who created it, and if you sought its maker would you find it in the woodgrain, the nails perhaps, or even the glue that sturdy its construction; where within this creation would you find its creator?
If you do not expect to find the maker of such a chair within the confines of its creation. why would you expect to find our creator within the bounds of his creation?

We wouldn't. But we would expect to find evidence of it being created and designed. We see nothing of the sort. Indeed, any deity that designed the world either:

1. Really, really likes hard vacuum, likes Hydrogen almost as much, and likes bacteria vastly more than any other lifeform;
2. Is stupid beyond all belief; or
3. Really fucking hates humans.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

Yes. God, or at least the Jewish one, is kind of a dick

Why do you worship him, then?

I certainly would have no respect whatsoever for a God that has condemned us to what amounts to eternal suffering because some schmuck ate a fucking apple...

[Thermodolia]

Are you saying a creator cannot form naturally?
I assure you I was born no different from you and yet I am very capable of creating many objects from wood.

Are you capable of creating a person from wood?

Well sometimes I get wood...

[Frievolk]

So what is being discussed right now? I'm in debate mood.

Why people worship god, of course. (Poorly explained and badly argued Christian Theology and general atheist rhetoric like The Epicurean paradox and the First Cause Fallacy inbound, of course)

[Erythrean Thebes]

Why do you think God gives children cancer?

You claim that your god created the world, no? Then, being omniscient, he knew the consequences of that initial setup. Thus, he knew that childhood cancer would arise in the world that he created. He then chose not to remove it. That, right there, is evil.

I don't claim that God created the world. I also contend that, in the Bible, God is not omniscient. It is actually one of the first things that happens in the Bible. God creates the world but he doesn't know that Adam and Eve will violate his instructions, and eat from the Tree of Knowledge. God is shocked when they do. This shows that he is not omniscient.

[Novo Vaticanus]

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚
Welp, there's a fuckton to talk about here, and I've never been one to shy away from a theological challenge, so here goes nothing.

May God have mercy on me for being so insufferable, lmao

If God loves us, why do we have such fallible free will that leads to such horrible things, and why did he give us limited natural resources and economic scarcity?

God wants us to go to Him, completely of our own accord. That means we're able to choose everything OF Him, and everything that ISN'T of Him, including the horrible stuff, you see? It's a part of our journey here on this Earth to experience pain, and suffering, because said things are innately human in their nature. We're imperfect creatures after all.

Also, how much of that is like the tyrannical Irish "homes" for unweed mothers, how much of this creates a charity dependence vs actual change, how much of this disappears along the way?

I couldn't give you exact numbers or anything on any "unwed irish mother" homes because I really don't know much about that just yet, but in regards to charity dependence and such, the Church doesn't just give food out; It also develops affordable housing, on top of the tens of thousands of hospitals, elderly homes, clinics, orphanages, etc. that it runs for the benefit of our disadvantaged and impoverished neighbors. It's all a part of the constant call to Holiness, and living out the command of Christ.

There is a difference between sharing experiences and wasting your time nagging.

I think Lynyrd Skynyrd has a long list of underrated songs, but I don't go telling about them to most of the people I know, because they aren't interested in classic rock at all.

Lynrd Skynrd is great dude. Why NOT hit people up with it if it's in a relevant forum topic?
Anyway, that isn't very comparable. The wages of Lynrd Skynrd are getting pumped and getting even more pumped, lmao. In the long run, it's of no consequence.
The faith, however, is a very important thing to be talking about. If you truly believed that it's the eternal salvation of a man's soul on the line, why WOULDN'T you go telling it to the mountains, and to the forums? It's a message borne of love, and of complete regard for our metaphorical brother on this earth, and his ultimate well being in this life, and the next.

The faith community is not the only one out there.

While true, if you put the best trained Jew, the best trained Catholic, the best trained atheist, the best trained Hindu, etc. etc. aaall in a room together and made them all come to a logical, and sound agreement, you'd find that the scholasticism of the Catholic apologist would beat out any argument made against it. There are actual, theological holes in other faiths, but the Catholic one is air tight when you get right down to the fact of the matter.

I feel more satisfied not having to waste an hour every Sunday.

Well of course you feel that way. That isn't much of an argument though, because if you were of the faith, you wouldn't see it as a waste at all.

That's just plain obvious though, so eh.

Seriously though, how much of a waste can it be if it leads to eternal life? To true beatitude? There've been a lot of studies which show that happiness levels are reportedly higher among active parishioners, if you want to look at that secularly. Surely that can't be the product of a "waste of time", right?

Yes, which is why I find it in other things.

It wouldn't be much of an overstatement if I said that my playthrough of Mafia III was more fullfilling than all the years of contact with Christianity.

C'mon man, surely you don't believe that dedicating your life to a video game is the ultimate purpose in your life. As a brother and a friend, I'm telling you man, there's so much more out there yet to be seen, so many great things that we're being called to do, and to live through.

If you've never eaten of the feast, how can you know that there's anything other than the piecemeal scraps you've been given your whole life?

Some twisted asshole might fly a plane over somebody and drop nails, but do we all wear hard hats?

I think we might if he was capable of being everywhere, like God is. Lucky for us, we belong to an all loving God who wouldn't dream of getting into that metaphorical plane if you will, lmao.

Anyway, sorry to write a fucking book here, it's just quite a bit to unpack. My craft is one of folly, admittedly, but I'm called to earnestly share the faith that I've been graciously shown, for your sake and for the sake of, well, everyone here I suppose.

May the peace of Christ be with you always chief, and hey, be well yeah?
<3

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Are you capable of creating a person from wood?

Well sometimes I get wood...

*slowly claps*

I'll drown ya in liquid bloody gold and preserve the ensuing statue as a symbol for that goddamn joke!