-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?
- Thread starter jc104
- Start date
Regarding the 33-page pamphlet's "10 lines of evidence".
Line 1, the Bible's claims for itself, is invalid.
Line 2, entitled "Christ's claims", is really "The Bible's reporting of Christ's claims". As such, it reduces to the same as line 1 and is also invalid.
Line 3 suffers from a combination of reducing to line 1 since it is based on what is reported by the Bible, and is also the Appeal to Belief fallacy. Again, invalid.
Line 4 is both factually dubious in the first place, and also suffers a fatal flaw - since the Bible is a compilation, any book that was NOT in harmony with other books didn't end up in the Bible!
Line 5 is irrelevant. Many of the Greek myths have been preserved, and I expect we both agree they're fiction. Euclid's Elements is similarly preserved, and is of course as valid today as it was when it was written. On the other hand, about half of Diophantus' Arithmetica is lost; being mathermatical in nature, and based on that which survived, the lost books were almost certainly correct.
Line 6 has already been mentioned as dubious.
Line 7 makes two bald claims. Firstly, "they were never meant to be taken literally." - that is interpretation. Secondly "When the Bible does speak directly about matters of science, however, it speaks correctly." - not a single cited verse to back this up. In general, believers in the Bible explain away apparent contradictions with science as the Bible being metaphorical. There is nothing wrong in such an interpretation, but by taking it you cannot then claim that when the Bible is scientifically accurate that proves its truth.
Line 8 is parts of the Bible agreeing with other parts of the Bible. That proves nothing. For it to be valid, there would have to be events with independent evidence that were prophesised in a Biblical manuscript positively dated as prior to the event. To my knowledge, no such event has taken place.
Lines 9 and 10 are Appeal to Consequences. Line 9 also gives no specific examples - perhaps because of the inconvenient fact that Christianity dominated for over a millennium in Europe, and for much of that time there was little social change, poor living conditions, a "nasty brutish and short" life for most people, slavery accepted for centuries, women ill-treated, etc. etc. As for Line 10 - while it is fine for people to believe the Bible for such reasons, it does not give me any reason to agree with them.
EDIT:
If you expect that event A would produce evidence B, and you look for evidence B and do not find it, that suggests event A did not happen.
A better way to state that is that when there is no evidence for something's existence, then it is self-evident that it does not exist. The only way it stops being self-evident that it doesn't exist is when evidence of its existence is presented.
This is, in effect, Russel's Teapot. The nonfalsifiable claim is presumed false, until the claimant can provide evidence towards it.
EDIT: In addition to the arguments above explaining why your pamphlet is illogical; you're just shifting the target, not answering the question. Why do you believe what thebible pamphlet tells you to? What we're trying to find out is where you make your personal choice as to why you believe what you read.
This is, in effect, Russel's Teapot. The nonfalsifiable claim is presumed false, until the claimant can provide evidence towards it.
EDIT: In addition to the arguments above explaining why your pamphlet is illogical; you're just shifting the target, not answering the question. Why do you believe what the
I loved the beginning of this thread, but lost hope as it started to grow. I'd like to see more philosophy and less "God believers vs athiests" nonsense.
The believers that are getting frustrated should realize that philosophy isn't necessarily out to prove a godless universe, (unless of course that's the philosophy somebody is adapting) but instead to find inconsistancies in ideologies. The idea is that a consistant argument brings one to the truth, or at least close to the truth. So basicly, it's not "Your God argument has inconsistancies, so God is a fallacy", but raher "Your God argument has inconsistancies, it would be in your best interest (if you want to seek the truth) if you were to revise your idea of God so it makes logical sense. Your idea of God is not a logically sound idea, so it is most likely not exactly right."
Now getting out of lectures:
Even if there could logically be an all-powerfull, all-good, all-knowing, and eternal god, that would not mean that the Christian God would be the right god. For all we know it could be named Smitty and be upset over being called God.
The believers that are getting frustrated should realize that philosophy isn't necessarily out to prove a godless universe, (unless of course that's the philosophy somebody is adapting) but instead to find inconsistancies in ideologies. The idea is that a consistant argument brings one to the truth, or at least close to the truth. So basicly, it's not "Your God argument has inconsistancies, so God is a fallacy", but raher "Your God argument has inconsistancies, it would be in your best interest (if you want to seek the truth) if you were to revise your idea of God so it makes logical sense. Your idea of God is not a logically sound idea, so it is most likely not exactly right."
Now getting out of lectures:
Even if there could logically be an all-powerfull, all-good, all-knowing, and eternal god, that would not mean that the Christian God would be the right god. For all we know it could be named Smitty and be upset over being called God.
@J-man Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. Circular reasoning means that you use your conclusion to prove itself. For example suppose I had a piece of paper that said, "everything written on this piece of paper is unquestionably true, 1=4", and I claimed that 1 must equal 4 because the paper said so and the paper must be true because it says it is true.This is invalid reasoning becuase if the paper was false then the statement saying the stuff written on the paper was true would also be false and thus we do not need to pay attention to it it.
The first point is an excellent example of circular reasoning because it tries to support the truth of the bible with what the bible says, the second two points are also circular reasoning because the only source we have of what jesus or the biblical authors thought of the bible is the bible itself
anyway the point still stands that the old and new testaments have entirely different tones and moral codes, about what you would expect if they were written by different human authors.
Point 5 is irrelevant because false texts can be preserved perfectly and still be false. For example, suppose I handed an original copy of the qaran, in Mohammed's handwriting, and you read it and saw that it was exactly like the other qarans. Would you take that as evidence that the qaran was the word of god and convert to islam, or would you think So what if it was copied well, it started out as blasphemy and remains blasphemy. I very much suspect that you would do the second or something similar, as would I, because just because something is well preserved does not mean that it must be true.
The first point is an excellent example of circular reasoning because it tries to support the truth of the bible with what the bible says, the second two points are also circular reasoning because the only source we have of what jesus or the biblical authors thought of the bible is the bible itself
Do you truly believe that anyone who commits a single mistake deserves instant death? I certainly do not. I believe that if god creates imperfect beings with the knowledge that they will fail because he created them imperfectly (which is the system set up by christianity) then he cannot justly fault them with, or punish them for, their failures
anyway the point still stands that the old and new testaments have entirely different tones and moral codes, about what you would expect if they were written by different human authors.
Point 5 is irrelevant because false texts can be preserved perfectly and still be false. For example, suppose I handed an original copy of the qaran, in Mohammed's handwriting, and you read it and saw that it was exactly like the other qarans. Would you take that as evidence that the qaran was the word of god and convert to islam, or would you think So what if it was copied well, it started out as blasphemy and remains blasphemy. I very much suspect that you would do the second or something similar, as would I, because just because something is well preserved does not mean that it must be true.
This is very unsettling, as it seems to suggest that you would desire to rape women if you did not fear the consequences, I certainly would not. You seem to be assuming that rape is about sex, which it very rarely is.
Not really. The age of the earth is determined by the half-life of certain isotopes. The half-lifes are calibrated using tree rings. We can be certain they are accurate because the samples we use have been "zeroed" by volcanic activity. The only thing "debatable" then, is our understanding of isotopes, and particle physics and physics in general. However, if our understanding of those are incorrect then much of what we use in our everyday lives and take for granted could not have been created or used.
Once again, reality contradicts the Bible.
The Jews and their customs likely have other roots. Honestly have you never heard the tribal myths/creation stories crafted by the Native Americans? Their myths are obviously false, but are attempts at explaining their unknown origin. Their customs either resulted as a byproduct of their mythology, or existed before their mythology was crafted, and thus are reflected in their mythology.
I don't think you understand how dependent you are upon modern science. You essentially pick and choose which claims you follow based on whether or not they mesh with your religious convictions. Can you say biased?
In response to the opening post, either you get it because you're Christian, or you don't. End of Story. Do people seriously have nothing better to do than troll Chirstians?
The thread suggests that Christians don't get it.
So having no founder makes it bad? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Are you on complete utter drugs?
Because I'm a moral person. :) I don't need God to do good.
That's too strong. For example, prior to spaceflight we had no evidence the far side of the moon existed, or that it was cratered. Does that mean people should have assumed the moon had a big missing pie-wedge on the far side, or a mirror-smooth surface? Similarly, there is no evidence for the existence of galaxies beyond a sufficient distance (most simply, the visible horizon, but theory may allow the distance to be extended) - and indeed if current physics is applicable there can BE no evidence of them. That certainly doesn't mean no such galaxies exist, let alone that it's self-evident they do not.
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Stealing and rape are destructive to society. You don't need a god to tell you that. I certainly don't.
I also like to try and follow the golden rule as best as possible: Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself.
Also there is evidence that our sense of right and wrong is a product of evolution. If you want I'll post a very long article that details examples of morality in non-human animals. I could also link you to a very in depth website that will link you to articles/books.
I believe that one of the biggest reasons there are so many factions of Christianity and so many different types of Christians lies with the fact that literal interpretation of the rules and doctrine of God simply is not consistent. The Bible was written by a group of men, none of them perfect (not even capable of achieving the same understanding of God as Jesus) by their own natures, and each with their own understanding. Add in the differences of time, place, culture and language, and it becomes impossible to accurately perceive God's desires for us based simply from tradition/text.
Consider: God said that I shall not covet my neighbor's wife, but he never said anything concerning the rules on downloading gigabytes of porn off the internet.
Modern laws with millions of lawyers and people of government across the world have difficulty keeping up with the constantly changing times and technology, so trying to govern your life by rules written thousands of years ago by men of a completely different culture/time/place/language who themselves had an imperfect understanding of the ruler's will is-- well, a bit hard to swallow.
To me, when considering technicalities or inconsistencies in the Christian doctrine, I think it important to first step back and consider any number of potential sources of that inconsistency. For instance 2 I can think of off the top of my head:
-We say "all powerful," "all knowing," "all loving," but as mentioned by the OP, this could simply not be the case in a literal sense. For instance, these perceptions come again, from the Bible and Christian texts, but it could be that God's power was simply so awe-inspiring that it seems close to all-powerful to those who wrote of it. To an ant stuck underneath an empty glass, a person capable of moving that glass would seem all-powerful.
-Our understanding of "good" and "evil" simply is inaccurate. This is easy to believe, because definitions of good and evil are inconsistent on a person-to-person basis. You can say, "there is evil in the world," but defining exactly what is or is not evil is nigh-impossible. If you don't know the rules, how can you say whether or not the rules are being followed?
For instance, I for one believe strongly in the beauty of nature and it's wonder (and why not after all? It is all "part of God's creation," no?)-- but someone who truly believes in nature's splendor will understand that it's actually a vicious competition. Even trees "peacefully" growing in their own plot are spreading out their branches to starve competitors for light, developing chemical weapons to destroy those who would predate on the plant's leaves etc., signing treaties (with species like ants, who are far more vicious than humans) for jobs along anything from assassination to mass genocide of organisms that stand against the tree's regime. So if you truly love nature, as I do, you also appreciate the beauty of the vicious competition.
At which point you can choose to believe that nature, like man, is tainted with evil-- which I find very hard to swallow.
The alternative is simply to believe that Darwinian nature is, as a part of God's creation, exactly how it was meant to be-- and the shape of nature itself is actually the definition of what is good and beautiful. Not perfect peace and plenty, but the beauty and meaning behind all those billions of lives, big and small, all fighting for survival.
Of course thinking of God as a God who loves such a wold goes against literal interpretation of the Bible-- which leads us back to the starting point:
Literal interpretation of the Bible or Christian texts will only lead to outrageous inconsistency-- rather, it's simply ridiculous.
If you cannot interpret it literally, than there becomes "leeway," room to divert and come to your own personal understanding and perception. The problem comes from "how much" and unfortunately leads to complete inconsistency. But then, that's how it is-- "deal with it," becomes the ultimate finale note on that line.
The point is withe room and leeway from one's own interpretation, and a recognition that literal interpretation of the Bible or Christian mantra never leads to anything logical-- worrying about technicalities such as those outlined by the OP become inconsequential, really.
While I agree that "incorrect" perception results in all sorts of horrific things to happen in the world, the unfortunate problem is that there is that room for interpretation that makes correct perception impossible, and technicalities, even more impossible to straighten out.
Basically, it's impossible to understand the laws if no one let's you read the small print. At the end of the day, it becomes up to you to do your best to be a good person.
Consider: God said that I shall not covet my neighbor's wife, but he never said anything concerning the rules on downloading gigabytes of porn off the internet.
Modern laws with millions of lawyers and people of government across the world have difficulty keeping up with the constantly changing times and technology, so trying to govern your life by rules written thousands of years ago by men of a completely different culture/time/place/language who themselves had an imperfect understanding of the ruler's will is-- well, a bit hard to swallow.
To me, when considering technicalities or inconsistencies in the Christian doctrine, I think it important to first step back and consider any number of potential sources of that inconsistency. For instance 2 I can think of off the top of my head:
-We say "all powerful," "all knowing," "all loving," but as mentioned by the OP, this could simply not be the case in a literal sense. For instance, these perceptions come again, from the Bible and Christian texts, but it could be that God's power was simply so awe-inspiring that it seems close to all-powerful to those who wrote of it. To an ant stuck underneath an empty glass, a person capable of moving that glass would seem all-powerful.
-Our understanding of "good" and "evil" simply is inaccurate. This is easy to believe, because definitions of good and evil are inconsistent on a person-to-person basis. You can say, "there is evil in the world," but defining exactly what is or is not evil is nigh-impossible. If you don't know the rules, how can you say whether or not the rules are being followed?
For instance, I for one believe strongly in the beauty of nature and it's wonder (and why not after all? It is all "part of God's creation," no?)-- but someone who truly believes in nature's splendor will understand that it's actually a vicious competition. Even trees "peacefully" growing in their own plot are spreading out their branches to starve competitors for light, developing chemical weapons to destroy those who would predate on the plant's leaves etc., signing treaties (with species like ants, who are far more vicious than humans) for jobs along anything from assassination to mass genocide of organisms that stand against the tree's regime. So if you truly love nature, as I do, you also appreciate the beauty of the vicious competition.
At which point you can choose to believe that nature, like man, is tainted with evil-- which I find very hard to swallow.
The alternative is simply to believe that Darwinian nature is, as a part of God's creation, exactly how it was meant to be-- and the shape of nature itself is actually the definition of what is good and beautiful. Not perfect peace and plenty, but the beauty and meaning behind all those billions of lives, big and small, all fighting for survival.
Of course thinking of God as a God who loves such a wold goes against literal interpretation of the Bible-- which leads us back to the starting point:
Literal interpretation of the Bible or Christian texts will only lead to outrageous inconsistency-- rather, it's simply ridiculous.
If you cannot interpret it literally, than there becomes "leeway," room to divert and come to your own personal understanding and perception. The problem comes from "how much" and unfortunately leads to complete inconsistency. But then, that's how it is-- "deal with it," becomes the ultimate finale note on that line.
The point is withe room and leeway from one's own interpretation, and a recognition that literal interpretation of the Bible or Christian mantra never leads to anything logical-- worrying about technicalities such as those outlined by the OP become inconsequential, really.
While I agree that "incorrect" perception results in all sorts of horrific things to happen in the world, the unfortunate problem is that there is that room for interpretation that makes correct perception impossible, and technicalities, even more impossible to straighten out.
Basically, it's impossible to understand the laws if no one let's you read the small print. At the end of the day, it becomes up to you to do your best to be a good person.
Actually, it doesn't really matter what evil is. The argument applies to suffering and anything that causes suffering (which surely you cannot deny the existence of.)
When it comes down to it you are taking the entirely sensible route in admitting that the argument is correct, and slightly altering your standing. It really makes very little difference in terms of what we as people do. If everyone could do this, that would be great!
"Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?" is the title of the thread. Also, posters have been using the word evil, so of course evil would need a definition. Clear definintions are a very important part of understanding.
If evil was, say, petting kittens, then we'd all be way off topic.
That being said, evil is generally defined as suffering without a benefit; which is something you hit on, but just because we're talking about suffering doesn't mean that evil doesn't need to be defined.
J-man, I'm happy for you and Imma let you finish but the Catholic Church is one of the biggest trolls of all time. OF ALL TIME.
Have you ever seen a game of #fluodome mafia where some asshole troll werewolf types "NO I AM MARTYR. BG PROTECT."and all of the dumbass villagers believe him and lynch the real martyr? Well, the same relationship exists between the Catholic Church/Jesus/Insert other religion here and the common man. Now, imagine if %mafia didn't speak and reveal that the person killed was the martyr. Now imagine that the asshole werewolf pretends to be %mafia and tells everyone that they must give him donations and that he doesn't have to pay property tax or else they lose the game, get a perma-ban, and burn forever in a never-ending inferno. btw, there are also no inspectors in this game, but there are multiple sheriffs. Some of these sheriffs believe the troll, some of these sheriffs don't, and some of these sheriffs are insane.
That sounds like a shitty game, right? Unfortunately, that game is life.
Anyway, I would be inclined to believe that the werewolf is a troll, so why don't we think of the Catholic Church this way?
Also, this topic was sort of already answered in the OP. I think that anyone who wishes to refute the points made here should refer to the OP.
Have you ever seen a game of #fluodome mafia where some asshole troll werewolf types "NO I AM MARTYR. BG PROTECT."and all of the dumbass villagers believe him and lynch the real martyr? Well, the same relationship exists between the Catholic Church/Jesus/Insert other religion here and the common man. Now, imagine if %mafia didn't speak and reveal that the person killed was the martyr. Now imagine that the asshole werewolf pretends to be %mafia and tells everyone that they must give him donations and that he doesn't have to pay property tax or else they lose the game, get a perma-ban, and burn forever in a never-ending inferno. btw, there are also no inspectors in this game, but there are multiple sheriffs. Some of these sheriffs believe the troll, some of these sheriffs don't, and some of these sheriffs are insane.
That sounds like a shitty game, right? Unfortunately, that game is life.
Anyway, I would be inclined to believe that the werewolf is a troll, so why don't we think of the Catholic Church this way?
Also, this topic was sort of already answered in the OP. I think that anyone who wishes to refute the points made here should refer to the OP.
well hey, guess we're pretty much done now, eh? just read through the two new pages, but I guess we circled back to the beginning kinda. yeah, I don't really like how we're just trolling on Christianity either, but then again, I don't like how Christianity trolls on the rest of the world... somebody's bound to flame me for that one, but hey! Alright, since we're now just circling around arguing about definitions of good/evil and whether the bible is 100% right or not, I guess I should bring in something else to talk about, so please respond:
Whether or not the Christian God exists, should we--I'm assuming we're posting mostly from developed nations here--go out of our way to fix up the rest of the world? As in, devote our collective resources to massively raising the standard of living in underdeveloped nations somehow? Would doing that be considered good or (for J-man) would God look upon such an action kindly? I'll feel better knowing where most of us stand on that, and maybe then something substantive might come of this thread.
To J-man: You never answered the question of what the purpose of Christianity was. Is it "to praise God?" That seems sort of bland and empty to me, honestly. And to answer your questions regarding atheism, its founders are many and spread throughout history, and no, it doesn't actually have a purpose, seeing as atheism is defined as the lack of a belief in a particular God. I think most atheists would say that the purpose of their lives would be simply to live/enjoy life, or something along those lines. But where do you stand on helping those who don't already enjoy well-established, stable societies? Don't make me quote the Beatitudes, I don't feel like looking it up...
Whether or not the Christian God exists, should we--I'm assuming we're posting mostly from developed nations here--go out of our way to fix up the rest of the world? As in, devote our collective resources to massively raising the standard of living in underdeveloped nations somehow? Would doing that be considered good or (for J-man) would God look upon such an action kindly? I'll feel better knowing where most of us stand on that, and maybe then something substantive might come of this thread.
To J-man: You never answered the question of what the purpose of Christianity was. Is it "to praise God?" That seems sort of bland and empty to me, honestly. And to answer your questions regarding atheism, its founders are many and spread throughout history, and no, it doesn't actually have a purpose, seeing as atheism is defined as the lack of a belief in a particular God. I think most atheists would say that the purpose of their lives would be simply to live/enjoy life, or something along those lines. But where do you stand on helping those who don't already enjoy well-established, stable societies? Don't make me quote the Beatitudes, I don't feel like looking it up...
In my opinion atheism/agnosticism is simply about living life and helping others in society live it better. You don't have to worry about pleasing a God, so you live your life to make yourself happy, and ideally you help other people to be happy too. Atheists and agnostics concede that we must live well in life because we don't know what will happen in death. The only obvious function of the human race is to make more humans and ensure that people don't suffer and die, so while there is no God to establish morality, there is still the basic idea that we live to create the next generation and allow them to live better and longer.
It is very unfortunate that people who believe there is a higher power feel the need to be right all the time, and as a result they must kill those who are wrong. This and the want for too much of a good thing are two of the major pitfalls of humanity. Another pitfall is laziness. Impoverished countries are generally that way because there is a lot of war and turmoil in the area. If people could stop waging war, if people could stop needing to be right all the time, if people could stop wanting more than they need, and if people would stop being lazy and contribute to the betterment of society then there would be no impoverished countries.
Unfortunately, there are, and I feel that providing aid to these countries is very important, but the thing is that helping individual people will not make the problem (corrupt leaders) go away, yet these people are only removed by bloodshed, so the ultimate question is if it is worth it for people to die in order to hopefully provide better quality of life later. Even if you do topple a government there is always the possibility that the next person in power is worse than the first...
It is very unfortunate that people who believe there is a higher power feel the need to be right all the time, and as a result they must kill those who are wrong. This and the want for too much of a good thing are two of the major pitfalls of humanity. Another pitfall is laziness. Impoverished countries are generally that way because there is a lot of war and turmoil in the area. If people could stop waging war, if people could stop needing to be right all the time, if people could stop wanting more than they need, and if people would stop being lazy and contribute to the betterment of society then there would be no impoverished countries.
Unfortunately, there are, and I feel that providing aid to these countries is very important, but the thing is that helping individual people will not make the problem (corrupt leaders) go away, yet these people are only removed by bloodshed, so the ultimate question is if it is worth it for people to die in order to hopefully provide better quality of life later. Even if you do topple a government there is always the possibility that the next person in power is worse than the first...
We didn't have definitive proof (so we couldn't take it as certain), but the observation of homogeneity we saw in the rest of the world, as well as knowledge of stability in orbits etc., served as evidence suggesting the backside of the moon was similar to the visible part. So without any of that extra information that we possessed, then it would be correct to say that the backside of the moon could not be presumed to have any particular quality. However, we knew it existed regardless, because the moon exists and therefore there must be a 'back' of it, even if it was just a flat surface or whatever.
Also, observation doesn't necessarily include sight.
In regards to galaxies beyond the visible boundary of the universe, it is the correct presumption that they do not exist. Indeed, if they are beyond our light-sphere boundary, they cannot affect us (either directly, or indirectly through their interactions with other objects), and hence what does it even mean to say they exist?
Those two contradict each other. The observation of homgeneity in the Universe, as well as knowledge of the Big Bang, galaxy formation, etc. allow us to infer that the part of the Universe we cannot see (well, at least the nearest part of it) is probably similar to the visible part.
The issue is whether such an 'inference' constitutes evidence. And that's just asking what exactly one means by 'evidence'. The methods we are talking about above are applications of theory (both the general theory of homogeneity, and more specific physical theories like gravity). I'm not sure I'd consider that 'evidence'.
Well, as time goes on (and we're talking real long time periods here), some of those currently invisible galaxies could BECOME visible. Their existence could affect us in the future. Conversely, if there is a void just beyond the visible horizon - or if the Universe is topologically closed and 'loops back' upon itself - we would in future be able to observe this fact. (I believe WMAP data has been used to put a lower limit on the size of a closed Universe that's much bigger than what we observe, but doesn't preclude it altogether). So I think it's meaningful to consider whether or not such galaxies exist, even if we are in practice highly unlikely to observe them.
to Anachronism: good to see you endorse helping people at least, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that impoverished societies are that way simply becuase of war/corrupt governments; i think a lot of them have simply been dealt a bad natural hand--i.e. they never had massive oil reserves or countless fields to harvest in, etc. Or perhaps they're really prone to hurricanes/earthquakes/etc in the area they happen to inhabit. All I'm saying is it's not always purely the fault of human vice/hatred. We could probably mess with our surroundings to fix many of these problems; I pointed out that hurricane-prevention device described in Superfreakonomics earlier, and they also tell of several simplistic possible solutions to global warming (whether or not it exists), but they all involve geoengineering, which some people might disagree with. The counterargument would be that we're already inadvertently geoengineering... so yeah.
The obvious solution is to move. That's not exactly easy, but it's something better done sooner rather than later. Developing world investment in modern buildings and cities, if those cities are in disaster-prone locations, would seem unwise.
One can carry out a 'move' more indirectly. Discourage people coming to vulnerable cities, and encourage development in safer locations. If a disaster hits a major urban area, encourage relocation. Unfortunately people tend to resist if they feel they're being forced to move.
Of course, none of this works so well for agriculture. It's also not much use when EVERYWHERE in a country is vulnerable, as is often the case especially for smaller nations.
First of all there are several points you must understand that you are a bit confused on
God gave us free-will to glorify himself. If we had no free will, then we would be robots. If you had kids would you want them to be robot kids? I wouldn't either. God loves us so much he accepts our faults even though we are unworthy.
The Devil- You must understand God's concept of time. He isn't bound by it. You are. God (in our time) is going to destroy evil. (In our time) It just hasn't happened yet. Read Revelation, chapter 21 or 20 or something like that.
Suffering- You might be under the impression that God created it. Well your wrong. Suffering came about when Eve traded an eternity with God over a piece of fruit. Now if you did something very bad, would your parents punish you or would they say, "Oh, its OK son, I'm not going to do anthing about it. Here's a dollar go get something at the candy store?" The truth is God is going to get rid of suffering too (We are simply bound by time and have not conceived its happening yet).
Is it a test?-You are slightly placing this out of context. God tests you for you not Him. Yes, he knows the answer but you need to choose it. If you choose what is right (and you are a Christian) you will be rewarded in heaven.
On regards to your other things, it is sadly impossible to prove any God exists scientifically. In order to do that you must be greater than or equal to the thing you are trying to prove(ex: a mathematician prooving a math equation. The mathematician is greater than the math equation.). However, we can give evidence. The Bible is the most accounted for book in history. We have more manuscripts of it than any other book of that age. The only thing that comes close is the Illyad, which we are missing many many lines from. Furthermore, each of the manuscripts are all 95% identical to eachother, with the only differences being spelling, or things like saying Jesus Christ instead of Christ Jesus.
Also, Jesus had thousands upon thousands of witnesses in history. Saying you don't believe in Jesus is like saying you don't believe in your grandmother. It is just simply inconceivable. Now that we have established Jesus is real. There are either two options to go for. Either Jesus was insane or He was indeed the Son of God. Well, Jesus was seen performing miricles (many times). These are also in account. So what if Jesus was impowered by Satan? First of all if this was true, then he probably wouldn't have cast out all those demons in people. There are also over a hundred prophecies that Jesus fufilled in the old testament, hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Jesus fufilled every one of them, too.
On to the Omni stuff. I would like to point out that I can't understand God. No one can. But Omnipotece doesn't mean God can do everything. God cannot lie. God cannot tell you what shape yellow is. God cannot tell you where a circle starts. To do so would involve things against his nature. God knows everything, but this does not mean he loses omnipotence. If you threw a rock in liquid water, you would be able to guarentee it would make a splash. This does not make you lose any power. If you were breathing you could choose how you wanted to breath. If you wanted to breath softly, then you do. This doesn't mean you could have breathed normally. You chose not too.
Hope this helps.
God gave us free-will to glorify himself. If we had no free will, then we would be robots. If you had kids would you want them to be robot kids? I wouldn't either. God loves us so much he accepts our faults even though we are unworthy.
The Devil- You must understand God's concept of time. He isn't bound by it. You are. God (in our time) is going to destroy evil. (In our time) It just hasn't happened yet. Read Revelation, chapter 21 or 20 or something like that.
Suffering- You might be under the impression that God created it. Well your wrong. Suffering came about when Eve traded an eternity with God over a piece of fruit. Now if you did something very bad, would your parents punish you or would they say, "Oh, its OK son, I'm not going to do anthing about it. Here's a dollar go get something at the candy store?" The truth is God is going to get rid of suffering too (We are simply bound by time and have not conceived its happening yet).
Is it a test?-You are slightly placing this out of context. God tests you for you not Him. Yes, he knows the answer but you need to choose it. If you choose what is right (and you are a Christian) you will be rewarded in heaven.
On regards to your other things, it is sadly impossible to prove any God exists scientifically. In order to do that you must be greater than or equal to the thing you are trying to prove(ex: a mathematician prooving a math equation. The mathematician is greater than the math equation.). However, we can give evidence. The Bible is the most accounted for book in history. We have more manuscripts of it than any other book of that age. The only thing that comes close is the Illyad, which we are missing many many lines from. Furthermore, each of the manuscripts are all 95% identical to eachother, with the only differences being spelling, or things like saying Jesus Christ instead of Christ Jesus.
Also, Jesus had thousands upon thousands of witnesses in history. Saying you don't believe in Jesus is like saying you don't believe in your grandmother. It is just simply inconceivable. Now that we have established Jesus is real. There are either two options to go for. Either Jesus was insane or He was indeed the Son of God. Well, Jesus was seen performing miricles (many times). These are also in account. So what if Jesus was impowered by Satan? First of all if this was true, then he probably wouldn't have cast out all those demons in people. There are also over a hundred prophecies that Jesus fufilled in the old testament, hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Jesus fufilled every one of them, too.
On to the Omni stuff. I would like to point out that I can't understand God. No one can. But Omnipotece doesn't mean God can do everything. God cannot lie. God cannot tell you what shape yellow is. God cannot tell you where a circle starts. To do so would involve things against his nature. God knows everything, but this does not mean he loses omnipotence. If you threw a rock in liquid water, you would be able to guarentee it would make a splash. This does not make you lose any power. If you were breathing you could choose how you wanted to breath. If you wanted to breath softly, then you do. This doesn't mean you could have breathed normally. You chose not too.
Hope this helps.
Sigh... you should really read the thread as this has been covered.
First of all, how do you know we would be robots? I've never seen someone without free will, and neither have you. Secondly, define free will. Lastly, if being robots ensured them eternal paradise in the afterlife then yes, I would want them to be robots. I would never risk my child burning for all eternity.
Except Eve had no idea she was doing anything wrong. She couldn't have. She didn't gain that knowledge until AFTER eating the fruit. What god did is more akin to punishing a child for saying the word "(BAN ME PLEASE)" when you never ever told them it was wrong, and simply told them not to say it.
The New Testament was written several hundred years after the supposed events took place. I've seen my grandmother, I've never seen Jesus. Not believing in one is not the same as not believing in the other.
Also you are forgetting the third option: The people around him were gullible morons.
Besides, similar arguments could easily be applied to the Quaran, or the Book of Mormon.
He seemed quite capable of doing so to Abraham.
The most resource-rich areas of the world are in Africa, yet their constant in-fighting has caused them to never attain the wealth that much of the resource-barren western world enjoys. America is rather resource-poor. The only thing of note we have is fertile soil. The successful nations are the ones that specialized. Although many successful nations engaged in fighting with each other and there has always been corruption it ultimately comes down to the probability that fighting was more all-consuming than anywhere else.
@november: you are forgetting a third Jesus angle: Jesus could have been the biggest troll in history. Also, I think YOU need to understand some things. It has already been mentioned that if God really IS able to see all that has happened or that ever will happen then he already knows how each one of us will turn out, so why does he need to "test" us? Why can't humans simply be here, not for any higher reason, but simply because of probability?
@november: you are forgetting a third Jesus angle: Jesus could have been the biggest troll in history. Also, I think YOU need to understand some things. It has already been mentioned that if God really IS able to see all that has happened or that ever will happen then he already knows how each one of us will turn out, so why does he need to "test" us? Why can't humans simply be here, not for any higher reason, but simply because of probability?