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

[Neutraligon]

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.

Given the internal inconsistancies within the bible, yeah it is illogical.

One therefore accepts the premise of the religion, and can be a Christian, or does not accept it, and is not a believer.

No duh

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.

I disagree, mainly because the internal stories of the bible are contradictory.

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.

It is not cheap at all, given the internal inconsistencies and the fact that all the arguments for a god have failed in some way or another.

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.

But that is not the logical inconsistancies the most atheists point out...

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.

So that includes getting drunk and getting angry at your son for not covering you and making him into a basic slave?

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.

Tell that to JOb who lost all his children.

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.

That pnly makes your god look like an ass.

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.

Given that god created people the way they are, no it really isn't.

Do you think that the notion that evil people deserve punishment and good people deserve assistance requires justification?

Not when there is collateral damage. not when the reason people are evil is because of the god who is punishing them. Not when it would be entirely possible that no evil exist in the first place but the god's decisions means it did.

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.

Except it wasn't treachery, tell me, how are two people who do not know good from evil supposed to be tracherous, they do not even understand the idea. How are they supposed to know they should obey god, they do not know the concept of good or evil. Your God punished all of humanity because he placed a brightly colored very delicious cookie in front of children, told them not to eat it, and then got angry when someone convinced them to eat it.

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.’

Except that the very world of the bible is nonsensical.

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

Very true, so why believe it?

In the Bible, humanity was not intrinsically evil until they were corrupted by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

So why did they eat from the fruit if they where not intrinsically evil.

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.

Crime is not something that can be passed down over the generation. There is a reason we do not say that a child is at fault for the crimes of the father.

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.

Why should I except the premise that the Biblical god exist?

[Salandriagado]

Whose idea was it to call God omnipotent because he can go anywhere?

If I tried to sell people an omnipotent car they'd be pretty mad to learn that what I meant was "off-roader".

If anything, this is why the level of vitriol from atheist advocacy confuses me and even agitates me sometimes. If you adhere to any logically consistent formula of the religion, it obviously necessitates some form of cherry-picking things to account for the fact that no material events as we observe follow an always consistent pattern.

Translation: my religion is false, and I'm making excuses for it.

I don't think there's any way to deny that Christian theologians, before scepticism, did exactly this. Originally, in the Roman era, they were basically famed for this. I feel that should take away whatever is intellectually threatening about the religion, but unfortunately not, I gather.

"Before"? You're doing it right now. There's nothing "intellectually threatening" about Christianity: it's just wrong, and easily shown to be such.

The number-one fallacy of atheist arguments is that they gravitate directly onto formulated principles - "God is omnipotent." But that's a misunderstanding of the Bible.

Great, so your god is weak, and not worth worshipping. Pray tell, what can your god do? Note that it doesn't include the utterly miniscule achievement of preventing the genetic mutation that causes childhood lukemia from coming into being (since you're presumably also claiming that your god isn't evil), so also cannot include much harder tasks, like creating a universe, or indeed, doing much of anything at all.

The Bible is a chronological narrative which explains, one plot development at a time, how the relationship between God and man as it is today came into being. "God is omnipotent," totally misses the real creed of the religion, which is more like "God created a perfect world;

Which is factually untrue.

the intrinsic evil of humanity ruined it;

This world sure doesn't sound perfect, if it's got intrinsically evil entities running around in it. Also, pre-human earth was not, by any means, perfect, so you're just wrong.

God turned to hate mankind and planned to destroy them; a remarkably purehearted individual named Noah impressed God; God saved the line of Noah out of begrudging pity for him to create a new human lineage; the corrupted shadow of our species then began to stumble through history in a mix of both piety and arrogance; God took pity on various pure souls, who reminded of Noah, and gave them assistance to foster what he hoped could be the resurrection of his original design for humanity; Israel was founded, but continued to struggle with the intrinsic evil in their hearts; Israel fell because the sin in man overcame his residual piety; Jesus emerged and began speaking as God on Earth; mankind was triggered by the return of God and, being largely evil, were triggered to lash out and murder him because of their evil; Jesus successfully enduring their hatred and going to his grave in totally obedience to God established the model of a way for others to follow in his footsteps and also be redeemed of their sin."

None of this has any relevance to the discussion at all, except to note that there was never any kind of global flood. Stop protelysing, and start debating.

[Jolthig]

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.

Okay, regarding that, any diseases of any kind according to science is neither good nor bad. They just happen to be natural. Especially a child having cancer or any diseases of any kind by anyone who has them. Yet, there are also cures that scientists invent or have yet to be invented.

According to Islam, all the diseases, natural disasters, and what not are all trials and there is a hidden good in them. An opportunity for humanity to find a cure, and to advance from it, or that evolution gives individuals ways to resist diseases over the course of long periods of time. This gives evidence of a God guiding the process of how his creation are generated.

[Salandriagado]

You're the one making the claim in the first place though

I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be a claim in such a way. I don't want to try and convince you of it against your opposition. I'm interested in the debate as an exercise to explore how the Christian religion can accommodate different forms of criticism and skepticism. I believe the Christian view of mankind is an ideology, suitable for those who identify with its precepts.

You absolutely are making claims: you're claiming that a god exists, you're claiming that it's yours, you're making some hilariously incorrect claims about history, and so on.

[Neutraligon]

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.

He also has an inordinate fondness of beetles.

[Thermodolia]

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...

Well we Jews don’t really believe in a hell so... Also most of us, outside of the orthodox, don’t believe in the creation myth.

Actually we in Reform believe that pretty much believe that all biblical figures prior to King David aren’t really real.

[Salandriagado]

I am sorry you failed to understand that a universe and a chair are two separate things. So once again, provide evidence that the universe was created. Oh and Maybe answer this question...how do we tell the difference between something that forms naturally and something that is created?

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.

Sounds like a flaw on the maker's part, they should know to put a logo or something on it.
Otherwise I can only conclude they don't care if people know who made it.

And what of all those who have said they have come in the name of a creator? Many have left an indellible mark upon creation.

This is what the universe looks like. Notice the complete lack of any kind of "indellible mark".

[Jolthig]

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...

Well we Jews don’t really believe in a hell so... Also most of us, outside of the orthodox, don’t believe in the creation myth.

Actually we in Reform believe that pretty much believe that all biblical figures prior to King David aren’t really real.

That's, interesting.. So what are your guys' view on Moses and Abraham then? Metaphorical figures?

[Neutraligon]

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.

Okay, regarding that, any diseases of any kind according to science is neither good nor bad. They just happen to be natural. Especially a child having cancer or any diseases of any kind by anyone who has them. Yet, there are also cures that scientists invent or have yet to be invented.

According to Islam, all the diseases, natural disasters, and what not are all trials and there is a hidden good in them. An opportunity for humanity to find a cure, and to advance from it, or that evolution gives individuals ways to resist diseases over the course of long periods of time. This gives evidence of a God guiding the process of how his creation are generated.

Except that you have to show the initial premise, that there is a god that is doing all this, otherwise all you have is the disease. Second why does an omnipotent god need a disease to do these things? An omnipotent god could get the good without the suffering caused by the disease.

[Erythrean Thebes]

I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be a claim in such a way. I don't want to try and convince you of it against your opposition. I'm interested in the debate as an exercise to explore how the Christian religion can accommodate different forms of criticism and skepticism. I believe the Christian view of mankind is an ideology, suitable for those who identify with its precepts.

You absolutely are making claims: you're claiming that a god exists, you're claiming that it's yours, you're making some hilariously incorrect claims about history, and so on.

Now you've told a lie about me. You don't think that's wrong? It's not wrong for you, after I've said that my contention is only that the Bible is logically consistent, to lie and say that I'm claiming God is real?

[Salandriagado]

You are now being dishonest in equating chairs to humanity.
Price that the equation is valid.

I am not a dishonest man. A craftsman's chisel shapes and works a piece of wood to it's master's desire, and yet you will not find said chisel within the wood. Yet we find in humanity that those who are exposed to worship and religion to be wholly changed. From a desert bandit to venerable father of a monastery within a blink of an eye. Although I'm sure there are thousands of other cases that are no less poignant.

This is just not true. By and large, religious people are, on average, exactly the same as any other kind of people.

[Thermodolia]

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.

He also has an inordinate fondness of beetles.

Maybe they where supposed to the creation to spend the rest of time with god but they said fuck that. So humans

[Neutraligon]

You absolutely are making claims: you're claiming that a god exists, you're claiming that it's yours, you're making some hilariously incorrect claims about history, and so on.

Now you've told a lie about me. You don't think that's wrong? It's not wrong for you, after I've said that my contention is only that the Bible is logically consistent, to lie and say that I'm claiming God is real?

And yet the Bible is internally inconsistent. The bible says that Jesus will be of the male line of David, Jesus having no father cannot be of that line. And if you say that he is also the son of Joseph, then you have the issue that Joseph would have passed down the sin you said would show up genetically.

[Achidyemay]

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.

This is a good point, why would an omnipotent, purely good entity allow for evil. I'm unconvinced of the arguments that we need to know pain to know pleasure, but I've got another idea: It's an opportunity. We are supposed to take Jesus as like an example, right? Do good things, cure the sick, feed the hungry, walk on water, etc. God made the leukemia, so we have to assume the leukemia is somehow good (I feel you'll take contention with this bridge, but stay with me), and it is good because.... I don't know, my guess would be that it allows us to play doctor. It is important to God that we know how to cure childhood leukemia. The better question then is why aren't we born with this knowledge? Well, we could be, but that wouldn't make us good, it is not in the knowledge of curing patients that doctors are so lauded, but in the act of actually curing patients. This logic reeks of circularity, but there might be something there?

[Thermodolia]

Well we Jews don’t really believe in a hell so... Also most of us, outside of the orthodox, don’t believe in the creation myth.

Actually we in Reform believe that pretty much believe that all biblical figures prior to King David aren’t really real.

That's, interesting.. So what are your guys' view on Moses and Abraham then? Metaphorical figures?

I’d say halfway between real and legend. Especially for Moses. But metaphorical figures would probably fit.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

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...

Well we Jews don’t really believe in a hell so... Also most of us, outside of the orthodox, don’t believe in the creation myth.

Actually we in Reform believe that pretty much believe that all biblical figures prior to King David aren’t really real.

I assume that you instead view them as embodiments and representations of...things, I guess?

[Salandriagado]

Quinque viæ:

Unmoved Mover
First Cause
Contingency Argument (necessary for there to be at least one eternal being)
Argument from Degree (a flawed existence cannot be its own source)
Final Cause (things appear to exist with purpose in mind)

Read your Summa Theologica

1 and 2 are the same thing in different dresses, and are both obviously bullshit: there's no need for there to be a first cause, and there's no need for that first cause to be a deity. The contingency argument is just outright bunk, the argument from degree assumes its conclusion, and there's no appearance of purpose in the universe at all. All of your "arguments" were very thoroughly debunked literally centuries ago, kindly at least try to think for yourself, rather than copying other people's bullshit.

[Thermodolia]

Now you've told a lie about me. You don't think that's wrong? It's not wrong for you, after I've said that my contention is only that the Bible is logically consistent, to lie and say that I'm claiming God is real?

And yet the Bible is internally inconsistent. The bible says that Jesus will be of the male line of David, Jesus having no father cannot be of that line. And if you say that he is also the sun of Joseph, then you have the issue that Joseph would have passed down the sin you said would show up genetically.

Joe had a sun? That must have been a really bright birth

[Salandriagado]

Show that it was a god that made the change rather then something natural. Explain why it is mutually contradictory religions that have this result. And Once again,show that the universe was created. Oh and answer my question, how does a person differentiate between something that forms naturally and something that is created.

My friend as I tried to point out in a previous post. You assume that a God is not a natural phenomena when every tribe and people on this planet has had one, or many gods. The effect of a religious event like a Damascene conversion happen within the mind and soul of a believer and they may have similar experience within another religion entirely. But that is not more or less an indictment of a diety or a practice but rather the workings of a creator being upon the soul of mankind.
As pertaining to the difference between what is natural and what is created is entirely subjective to the contextual perspective of the observer. In other words there is no difference but an arbitrary distinction made by ourselves.

This is utterly indistinguishable from "there is no god". Thus, it's just bullshit with no connection to reality, and can be dismissed out of hand.

[Jolthig]

Okay, regarding that, any diseases of any kind according to science is neither good nor bad. They just happen to be natural. Especially a child having cancer or any diseases of any kind by anyone who has them. Yet, there are also cures that scientists invent or have yet to be invented.

According to Islam, all the diseases, natural disasters, and what not are all trials and there is a hidden good in them. An opportunity for humanity to find a cure, and to advance from it, or that evolution gives individuals ways to resist diseases over the course of long periods of time. This gives evidence of a God guiding the process of how his creation are generated.

Except that you have to show the initial premise, that there is a god that is doing all this, otherwise all you have is the disease. Second why does an omnipotent god need a disease to do these things? An omnipotent god could get the good without the suffering caused by the disease.

What I said was simply evidence for a God. The proof of God doesnt come without revelation.

God doesnt need to do anything, and no, the state of the world simply is not like your view of an omnipotent God.

[Thermodolia]

Well we Jews don’t really believe in a hell so... Also most of us, outside of the orthodox, don’t believe in the creation myth.

Actually we in Reform believe that pretty much believe that all biblical figures prior to King David aren’t really real.

I assume that you instead view them as embodiments and representations of...things, I guess?

Pretty much. Metaphors for Judaism as a whole for the most part. Now if non-biblical evidence of their existence is found we will obviously change our stance

[Novo Vaticanus]

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.

This is all kinds of messed up theologically so I'll just get to it:

God IS omniscient, but in order to preserve our free will, He keeps Himself from seeing our future. In doing so, and in creating anything apart from Himself, He gave up at least a bit of His complete control of the Universe. So while God surely knew that diseases and such might arise later on down the line, it clearly wasn't enough to stop Him from enacting His perfect will, which was to create us, and then lead us back to Him. That process results in eternal life, and beatitude for us, the ultimate and only source of happiness in our existence; of course He was going to put us into the world!

So no, God doesn't just go around putting tumors in the heads of kids. That's so contrary to everything about the nature of God, haha. It's just the logical end of a world that's metaphysically distinct from God. If we only existed within his complete presence, we wouldn't really exist in the way we do now, you feel?

[Salandriagado]

...This makes less then no sense.

Well, either my mind's optimistic, playing tricks on me, or God exists. I believe in the third, but the first two are possible.

Tried it with a lighter at my house, and it worked then, too. I dunno.

Or, you know, flames flicker and rise naturally, and your brain, which is an absurdly over-powered pattern-matching machine, assigned a pattern where there was none.

[Achidyemay]

Except that you have to show the initial premise, that there is a god that is doing all this, otherwise all you have is the disease. Second why does an omnipotent god need a disease to do these things? An omnipotent god could get the good without the suffering caused by the disease.

What I said was simply evidence for a God. The proof of God doesnt come without revelation.

God doesnt need to do anything, and no, the state of the world simply is not like your view of an omnipotent God.

Careful, he needs to be perfect.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I assume that you instead view them as embodiments and representations of...things, I guess?

Pretty much. Metaphors for Judaism as a whole for the most part. Now if non-biblical evidence of their existence is found we will obviously change our stance

They haven't found remnants of the Ark, the Covenant or the Ten Commandments, so yeah, it is best to assume these figures were either legendary or metaphorical.

That said, ancient Israel has indeed existed.