Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

Continued
You said"People thought at the time that it was unsinkable. Just like how you apparently feel that the Twin Towers were built so perfectly that two commercial airliners couldn't destroy them."
and I said "As I have said, a couple of times now, but you insist on repeating yourself, so I have to put you right, I have never said that I believe the Twin Towers to be built perfectly just built to withstand a strike by multiple airplane."
To which you said"I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t."
Where is the connection between these three posts and this "I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t." What did I claim that it does't do?

If you don’t know what you claimed it doesn’t do, how should I know?

Well, there claim that is does was taken seriously by the insurance company and those who rented space in the Twin Towers,

So what? You’re still missing the main point, which is that there is no guarantee that something built by humans is “unsinkable” or “impervious to hits from commercial airliners” or that it’s “impossible” for two airliners to take down two tall towers. We try our best to erect buildings that accommodate maximum safety standards and withstand all kinds of natural and manmade disasters, but we don’t always succeed, many times, due to circumstances that hadn’t been foreseeable.

it is just you who have not taken it seriously and have said, Oh well, people make mistakes, it was only 3000 innocent people that died because of someones exaggeration.

I didn’t trivialize the deaths of 3000 people in any such way and I’ll thank you to not put those words in my mouth.

Like I said before, 3000 people died horrific deaths as a direct result of the actions of deranged terrorists looking for a ticket to heaven. That’s how we got off on this 9/11 conspiracy theory tangent, I believe.

By the very method of the construction made it impossible for just one airplane to cause a collapse. It would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. It would make a who but the overall strength of the net would not be compromised. It is the engineering and design that enables him to say that several holes in the net would not cause it to fall not his opinion but a scientific fact.

There you go using the word “impossible.” Were you there to take the temperature of the fire?

I assumed it because it is a frequent event..

What’s that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black?

OK, you got me. I made a mistake with the date. Damn, what a clutz I am. In the uk it would be 11/9. The 11th September but the USA say September 11th - 9/11

I was just checking to see if something happened on November 9th that had something to do with this conspiracy.

No, but there are videos and photos of them on the internet.

There are videos and photos of ghosts, UFOs and Elvis Presley on the internet too.

And your point is?

You were talking about 757s and 747s, I believe.

If you are scientifically competent it does. That is why the scientific method requires repeatability. Have you heard of an "error factor" that is used in almost everything that is made. One airplane would not exceed any error factor on the design of the mess like cage that encompassed the twin towers.

Please read what I said above.

Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. I do not know for instance if Atta was killed in Germany or in America. But the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11 as there can be hardly any doubt about who was behind 9/11 if one rejects the official story. Some elements remain vague, like what happened exactly to WTC7, flight77, flight93 or Mohamed Atta. But these questions are of academic interest only. It's clear who was behind 9/11 and what happened in detail with WTC-1/2 and the planes. That is enough. Here's where most people got killed. The rest of the plot can be uncovered by a tribunal.

More of This can be Found Here

It sounds like most of it is speculation. There are myriad of websites with counterarguments to all of the points brought up in this conspiracy theory as well. The amount of internet space devoted to something doesn’t necessarily lend credibility to it.

This interview of Alex Jones with Andreas von Bulow, the former German Defense Minister said that 9/11 had to be carried out by a very small group of people. Alex asked him 100? 40? He said less than that.

let's start counting:

Read the Rest of this Report Here

Neither am I, so I listen to those pilots who do.

Who cares what number that one person thinks it is? You just implied in your last post that CBS was in on this as well. I bet they employ more than 40 people alone, never mind all the janitors, security personnel, office workers, bomb planters, etc. had to be in on it.

WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH

On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Read the Rest of this Report Here

Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones has suggested that thermite, or some other powerful, high temperature, high explosive capable of slicing the powerful steel columns that comprised the WTC towers central core, provided the energy missing in the official account.

In a September 1, 2006, New York Times article, "U.S. moves to debunk ‘alternative theories’ on Sept. 11 attacks", Jim Dwyer reports that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, disputes Professor Jones’ suggestion. NIST believes that such "enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them" that engineered demolition is not feasible.

Gentle reader, note what NIST is saying. If no reasonable quantity of the explosive thermite, which is used for engineered demolition, could damage the powerful buildings, the measly energy from an airliner, a bit of jet fuel, and gravity could not have collapsed the buildings. Can you see how incompetent these people are. How could you trust in their accuracy.

The Final Bit of this Article

And?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Continued

How do you know, you don't even believe He exists. I portray Him as a perfect being with a perfect Plan of Salvation. You would have difficulty comprehending that because, although you claim to be an agnostic, you have all the traits of an atheist he doesn't want to believe.

He did know that, what are you going on about man, are you reading words that are not here? It is what he intended for us to be tried and tested by.

I don't think that you understand what a straw man is, despite my showing you in detail. Logically I don't think that God is responsible, but you think He is because that is what you want to be true, just like an atheist would. Just like in your analogy the terrorist is at fault, he had the final decision so you cannot blame inanimate objects that kill their target because they cannot be held accountable. That accountability lies with the terrorist..

Where is the connection between the Big Bang, which still remains as a theory, and the terrorist killing innocent people. It sound like you are excusing the actions of the terrorist on the grounds that God exists.

I am not making any sense? My word you have a nerve when it is you who thinks that bombs are responsible for everyone who is killed by them and that murderers should not be found guilty of a crime that a bomb committed. How can anybody demonstrate that the person who is accountable for the loss of life is the one who actually pulled the trigger with every intention of taking lives. The words are sufficient. It is moral accountability. I do not have to demonstrate it because it is a moral standard that is upheld by the whole world, that is, except for you. Why don't you stop trying to find words to insult me and start to pay attention as to what is being said here.

I think that your ignorance of the Plan of Salvation is causing you to say things that are completely disconnected to reality. You are blaming God because He created the world on which we sin. If he had not done that then we would not have sinned and the terrorist would not be put on a position to sin, Am I correct? But what you do not actually know is that the Plan of Salvation was decided upon by all of us in the council in Heaven. We wanted to gain a body of flesh and blood so that we could one day have a body of flesh and bones and be like God. We wanted Him to organise the elements to create a suitable environment in which we could dwell. We were all a part of these decisions and those that disagreed where cast out of heaven, one third of them. God was acting under the instructions that we gave Him. We said that we would not blame Him for anything but we would glorify His name. God cannot be held accountable for following the majority desires of his children, especially as those decisions would bring them back into His presence.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. An example of an advanced argument is a terrorist pulling the trigger of a bomb is somehow the fault of the bullet compared to the original argument of that God is responsible for our actions because He created us.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition, for example, a terrorists accountability for blowing up a bomb killing several people being the bombs fault (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument of a terrorists accountability for blowing up a bomb killing several people being the bombs fault ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition that God is responsible for our actions because He created us and put us here. The only draw back here is that when your straw man is knocked down by the reality that a bomb cannot be made accountable for its actions, then neither can we be made accountable for our action, in this case, with the bomb being an inanimate object and us being cognitive humans who know what we are doing. The result is that the terrorist is quite correctly accountable for those people losing their lives, but that the Straw Man owner cunningly makes God accountable for our actions because of the straw man that you introduced. It is a completely unreasonable conclusion made through by a desire to win a point. It works with those who do not recognise it but sticks out like a sore thumb to those who do

If the tobacco industry is responsible for smokers deaths then so is the bomb responsible for killing innocent people. We all have a choice as to whether we smoke or not. Just because the tobacco industry produce cigarettes does not mean that we have to smoke them.

God is omnipotent not a magician. The laws of the universe cannot be altered.

I will just ignore the obvious insult and put it down to your intelligence, or lack thereof. So, you, who accuse me of not being knowledgeable enough in the field of genes, thinks that alcoholism is genetic, evidenced by your words "Also alcoholism is genetic" Let me take great pleasure in informing you that you are "wrong". Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.*

Check it out Here

Both myself and this poster you are responding to just explained this to you. Why bother posting a link that says the same thing we've both just pointed out? Alcoholism is genetic and in exactly the way we both explained. Stating that we're wrong and then posting a site that reinforces what we just said, doesn't make you right.

You unquestionably set up a Straw Man argument. In my opinion, you desperately needed a definition as to what it is. I have given you another extensive explanatio because I feel you still have not understood.



I find you unnecessary ad hominem attacks equally as disturbing, uncivilised and disgusting.

How do you know that I am not a psychologist?

I have free agency, I can do what pleases me, however, I am not exaggerating

Yes, I gathered not the bull. more like a chiwawa. This is probably the only place you dare to be angry.

Weird fallacy, don't you mean weird fantasies? Anyhow, you bare out my suspicions about atheists, you may hide behind the label of agnostic but there is no doubt in my mind that you are an atheist.

 

[OurCreed]

Yes, it could, but why to an individual instead of universally. Secondly, an individual revelation is only relevant to that person even if he could determine that it wasn't misperception, hallucination or other mental aberration. And you ignore the final part, that divine interaction would undermine our free will--which is what we're here to test, if God does exist. Your test would be over at that point.

Yes, it could, but why to an individual instead of universally.

The Qur'an says,

10;99
And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

This means that if God willed, He can make everyone on earth believe just like that. It's very easy for Him, but that will ruin the purpose of why we are here. We are supposed to find God and search for Him, just like a scientist or philosopher does studies, experiments, and meditation to arrive to a certain conclusion, a truth. Do you think truth or knowledge just enters a person's mind without any deep thinking? Without study? Without reflection? No.

So how can God reveal His signs and miracles when a person doesn't pray, doesn't reflect, and exhibits immoral behaviors?

30;8
Do they not reflect upon themselves? God has not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them save with truth (absolute purpose), and for an appointed term. But surely many among the people are in disbelief about the meeting with their Lord.

Secondly, an individual revelation is only relevant to that person even if he could determine that it wasn't misperception, hallucination or other mental aberration.

Well that's the point, ain't it? I just explained it above. The thinker will gain knowledge, while the idle ones won't gain any benefit of themselves and wander around blindly. Instead of looking for the truth themselves, they will accept what others tell them, and this is something the Qur'an does not like, when people believe in things blindly.

2;170
And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?

7;179
And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.

And you ignore the final part, that divine interaction would undermine our free will--which is what we're here to test, if God does exist. Your test would be over at that point.

No it would not undermine our free will for 3 reasons.
1) We have no way of proving 100% that the inspiration was from God.
2) We are not being forced to choose a certain path.
3) If we do accept the guidance, we can also go astray just as easily.

The first point is there because no human in this world can prove for a fact that God exists, not until we actually die and meet our Lord, but the signs can become very powerful that it will be almost impossible to deny them.

Second point is simple, we aren't being forced or compelled to accept any inspiration that comes to us.

Third point is very true, many people have received guidance, signs, and miracles, and later on, they went back to disbelieving. That just further proves that the free will is still intact.

Free will cannot go away, this is a misconception that you have. We inherently have free will, it cannot just go away. It either is there or it isn't, and if we didn't have any free will, we wouldn't be able to make autonomous decisions from the start.

 

[roger1440]

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering?
Without suffering there is no hope.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, it could, but why to an individual instead of universally.

The Qur'an says,

10;99
And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

This means that if God willed, He can make everyone on earth believe just like that. It's very easy for Him, but that will ruin the purpose of why we are here. We are supposed to find God and search for Him, just like a scientist or philosopher does studies, experiments, and meditation to arrive to a certain conclusion, a truth. Do you think truth or knowledge just enters a person's mind without any deep thinking? Without study? Without reflection? No.

So how can God reveal His signs and miracles when a person doesn't pray, doesn't reflect, and exhibits immoral behaviors?

30;8
Do they not reflect upon themselves? God has not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them save with truth (absolute purpose), and for an appointed term. But surely many among the people are in disbelief about the meeting with their Lord.

Secondly, an individual revelation is only relevant to that person even if he could determine that it wasn't misperception, hallucination or other mental aberration.

Well that's the point, ain't it? I just explained it above. The thinker will gain knowledge, while the idle ones won't gain any benefit of themselves and wander around blindly. Instead of looking for the truth themselves, they will accept what others tell them, and this is something the Qur'an does not like, when people believe in things blindly.

2;170
And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?

7;179
And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.

And you ignore the final part, that divine interaction would undermine our free will--which is what we're here to test, if God does exist. Your test would be over at that point.

No it would not undermine our free will for 3 reasons.
1) We have no way of proving 100% that the inspiration was from God.
2) We are not being forced to choose a certain path.
3) If we do accept the guidance, we can also go astray just as easily.

The first point is there because no human in this world can prove for a fact that God exists, not until we actually die and meet our Lord, but the signs can become very powerful that it will be almost impossible to deny them.

Second point is simple, we aren't being forced or compelled to accept any inspiration that comes to us.

Third point is very true, many people have received guidance, signs, and miracles, and later on, they went back to disbelieving. That just further proves that the free will is still intact.

Free will cannot go away, this is a misconception that you have. We inherently have free will, it cannot just go away. It either is there or it isn't, and if we didn't have any free will, we wouldn't be able to make autonomous decisions from the start.

If you're a child and your parent is looking over your shoulder, you know you can't rob the cookie jar without getting caught. With God, who is ostensibly omnipresent. But if we knew God existed, we wouldn't be able to do anything without God knowing. Ergo, God rigged things so we not only couldn't know, but not even suspect--based on anything but hearsay.

And using the Koran or Bible to show that what it says is right has always been the most blatant example of circular logic.

 

[serp777]

You could have always continued it, as I have done, rather then limit it as if you couldn't answer it.
..........

Now you are being ridiculous

So, you think that our existence is independent of God?

It could be. Nobody has shown that they have enough knowledge to make a claim either way.

You have never heard me say that I have heard voices. I always describe it as a exterior source of intelligence that communicates conceptually. So, yet again another misrepresentation or an outright lie.

First of all you havent accused me of a lie before, so I don't know why you're saying again. Furthermore it doesn't matter if you heard a voice, or got an email, or got a concept brain upload. Its all the same thing for the most part. You're getting special information denied to everyone else. A concept upload to your brain isn't any better than hearing voices.

2.2 billion other Christians do not describe it as unlikely, however, I certainly do not expect anyone to buy into it

Most Christians have entirely different ideas of important theological concepts. Its why there are so many different Christians.

Firstly, Mormons are Christians. Secondly, God exists so you would expect other denominations to say the same thing.

Seriously? religions don't say the same thing. They are mutually exclusive often times. Thats why there are different religions in the first place--because they aren't compatible.

What about them.

Obviously that the faith from other religious people is just as avalid as yours. Someone's faith in scientology is no better or worse than yours. We have no way of knowing that the scientologist's beliefs are more or less valid than yours with respect to religion.

I have never seen anything divine with my earthly eyes so I have never claimed it. If I had I certainly would not cast my pearl before swine.
I don't trust that you perfectly understand everything.

If I knew everything I would be omniscient, like God, I am not omniscient, or anywhere close to it.[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about seeing it with your eyes. At least you admit you don't know everything. That means you don't know whether your "concepts" that were transmitted to your brain are delusions or not. You can't know if its just your brain tricking you just like it can trick you with an optical illusion. The brain is NOT infallaible. Why you trust it in regard to magic concepts is not reasonable.

You don't know that. I would certainly recognise him again.

How would you certainly recognize him? You have a lot of explaining to do. Do you have some kind of God radar or Satan radar that nobody else has access too? Satan is supposedly the ultimate deciever. I;m pretty sure a nigh omnipotent being could trick you or anyone else. you have no way of knowing.

Yes, assumptions based on the content of your posts which suggests that you are an atheist.

Assumptions that are just as invalid as all the others you have been making. I don't even claim to know the probability of God's existence. Im a true agnostic. This is just a red herring though.

It is non-sequitur and you are using it incorrectly.

You didn't explain that part adequetely. I'm using it perfectly well.

Sorry, but you are speaking from ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about.

Ah yes because you know so much more about God than anyone else because of the magic concepts that you downloaded from God's personal ftp server.

God is not defined by a single definition He is defined by many definitions, sinless is just one of them

ANother strawman argument. I never said he was defined by a single definition. And no, sinless isn't a static definition associated with him. You haven't proven that. There's no reason why God wouldn't sin. I don't accept the tenets of Christian theology by the way, so basing your arguments on christian theology without proving the validity of christian theology is senseless.

All of us will be judged fairly with all of the extenuating factors. You can only be judged by a law that you know.

SUpposedly even though you have no evidence. You don't seem to be understanding the fact that there are blurred lines between free will and no free will. You can't be judged fairly with partial free will. It doesn't make sense. Its like saying you'll be judged if you're black or white when you're grey.

You really need to educate yourself on religion. Why are you intent on trying to make me wrong? Genetics is not a massive part of my general knowledge, I have never said that it is. I find it hard to conceptualise it, however, genes do not control who I am. The person inside of me and my cognitive reasoning. If they did my entire existence could be predetermined and everything I do could be attributed to a sin. Justice could never be served as it will always be attributable to a gene. Murders would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes.
Genes that affect emotion and personality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835681

Religion? I'm talking about genetics, not religion, so why would you make such an irrelevant statement?
And you're being completely hypocritical--you've been trying to prove multiple people wrong on this thread for days. Its a religious debate forum. its entertaining to debate and prove people wrong. Don't be ridiculous. Are you on a religious debate forum to prove other people right? Of course not. It wouldnt be a debate then.
Also genes don't necesserily control you, although they could, but they influence you along with the environment and culture. Also genes and the environment are not deterministic--therefore you would behave randomly, you just might not have free will or you might only have a limited amount.
Either way you're just so wrong here about everything.

 

[serp777]

Cont

Murders would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes.

No, another pitiful strawman. You're once against misrepresenting what i've said and then attacking the false position you've given me. I never said we're just a byproduct of our genes--we're a by product of genes, the environment, culture, etc. Finally, those people would be locked up for having such a gene if gene determinism was true.

A conscience cognitive mind is capable of determining the difference between right and wrong and then making a choice as to which one it will choose. Again, if your logic is true then how could we determine whether someone is guilty or not have murder?

MAny, many people throughout time have had different and inconsistent moralities moralities. Also it doesn't matter if the lack of free will presents a problem or not--what maters is what's true. If the logic is true, then that's the way reality is and you have to deal with it. its not suddenly false because you find it difficult to reconcile your values of justice.

I do not believe that. It is a copout and excuse for our wrong doings. There is nothing in my life that I can say is not the result of my choices that I have knowingly made.

Your personal belief is irrelevant. And there is nothing in your life? Really? Your digestion was also a choice you knowingly made?

You call speculation research, really? You do realise that there are those who criticize the existence of a Mitochondrial Eve:

its not speculation. If there were only two human beings in the beginning then the incest would have limited genetic diversity and humanity would have suffered the effects of inbreeding. There always had to be at least a few thousand humans ot maintain enough genetic diversity. That's just a fact. If you want to deny science without including a source, then you're just plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and denying knowledge.

I have checked if they existed. I was told that they didn't by a source far greater then men. But you carry on delivering you unnecessary insults and unfounded accusations against my person, it only tells the reader who you are, unless they are one of the same ilk.

You only think you were told by God. This magic God beaming knowledge thing is preposterous. I mean you must think you're a prophet or something right? Write the next gospel since God is literally telling you what he thinks.

But anyways its a fact that you haven't done any scientific investigation of the existence of adam and eve. Facts aren't insults. And its important for these discussions since science is an integral part. You can't debate well without properly researching these subjects.

I don't know what you are talking about or who you refer to as seeing things that nobody else see. As you accused me earlier, you are assuming without evidence to support your assumption. You are clearly not familiar with things divine or or what Christianity is all about.

You forgot what you just said. Try again. you said "That is right, however, if you have to live a life that would enable you to see fairies, wouldn't you give it a go? I did and now I am a believer.". You're clearly not familiar with the fact that there are many different opinions about Christianity and that I don't accept Christian theology as a legitimate way to argue.

God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, what happens in between He has no control over, so He cannot know who will get Leukemia or who will lose their life in a car accident. All of those things are the result of the choices we make.

oh my god lol. You forgot what you said again: "God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, what happens in between He has no control over, so He cannot know who will get Leukemia or who will lose their life in a car accident. All of those things are the result of the choices we make." Please, try again. You just said that all of those things are the result of choices we make and before you were just talking about leukemia. its becomming tedious to remind you about stuff you just said.

I did not say that we choose the illness that we have, how preposterous, I chalked it up to genetics, which you would have known if you were reading for comprehension instead of looking for trivialities to catch me out on. You clearly haven't disproved my point, you have corroborated it, but why do you want to so desperately?

LOL yes you did. See above. And I haven't corroborated anything. Why do you want to desperately defend your beleifs so much? Why are you on this forum filling up this thread for days on end? You're CLEARLy the only desperate one. Give me a break.

God knows all thing that can be known. I would say that is a lot because there is no more.

Then God doesn't know all. How much does he even know then?

Now you are being ridiculous

Not really. You just gave an underwhelming explanation of what God knows and doesn't know.

How do you know, you don't even believe He exists. I portray Him as a perfect being with a perfect Plan of Salvation. You would have difficulty comprehending that because, although you claim to be an agnostic, you have all the traits of an atheist he doesn't want to believe.

I don't know if he exists, that's a big difference. And I do have difficulty comprehending it because its makes no sense; as you've said God is beaming knowledge/concepts into your brain. Probably from his ftp server. I don't have a broadband connection to God so naturally i don't have the special knowledge like you do to comprehend it. Do you ever wonder why people on this forum express so much doubt on your special knowledge claims?

He did know that, what are you going on about man, are you reading words that are not here? It is what he intended for us to be tried and tested by.

No, your memory is just failing hard. We were talkinga bout God's knowledge of what what happen during the universe, and I said a toddler could have told you that the emergence of life would lead to suffering and death. Therefore God knew and was responsible.

I don't think that you understand what a straw man

I think you're not aware of the abundance of strawmen you create. You said in response to my point that explosions are not intelligent. That misrepresents my position since I never claimed that explosions were intelligent. Either your memory is just crashing hard or your deliberately being intellectually dishonest and I hope its the later for your sake.

Where is the connection between the Big Bang, which still remains as a theory, and the terrorist killing innocent people. It sound like you are excusing the actions of the terrorist on the grounds that God exists.

The connection is so obvious that i'm having trouble believing if you're actually still having difficulty with it.
1. The terrorist knows that a bomb will cause suffering and death
2. The terrorist creates the bomb and gets it set up
3. A terrorist sets off a bomb in a crowded area.
4. People are hurt and suffer
5. The terrorist is responsible for the death and suffering.
Now for God.
1. God knows that creating the universe will cause sufferring and death.
2. God designs the laws of physics and sets everything off.
3. God triggers/ is the initial cause of the big bang.
4. People eventually emerge and then are hurt and suffer
5. God is reponsible for the death and suffering.
How are you not understanding this?

God is omnipotent not a magician. The laws of the universe cannot be altered.

I suppose God beamed this knowledge to you as well.

I will just ignore the obvious insult and put it down to your intelligence, or lack thereof. So, you, who accuse me of not being knowledgeable enough in the field of genes, thinks that alcoholism is genetic, evidenced by your words "Also alcoholism is genetic" Let me take great pleasure in informing you that you are "wrong". Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.*

Check it out Here

Yet another foolish strawman. Also your hypocrisy is astonishing. You cry and complain about ad hominem but you're certainly not any better. But anyways, I didn't say alcoholism is ONLY genetic. Everything our genes result in depends on the environment they exist in as i've stated similarly before. Also i'm amused you take great pleasure in supposedly proving me wrong.

 

[loverofhumanity]

God does intervene in human affairs by sending Prophets, Messengers and Teachers with laws and Teachings but we make a conscious decision not to incorporate them into our lives and society so our ills persist.

 

[Serenity7855]

It could be. Nobody has shown that they have enough knowledge to make a claim either way.

Not to me it couldn't be

First of all you havent accused me of a lie before, so I don't know why you're saying again.

I haven't now. I said "another misrepresentation or an outright lie." I did not say from you. This comprehension thing gets worse.

Furthermore it doesn't matter if you heard a voice, or got an email, or got a concept brain upload. Its all the same thing for the most part. You're getting special information denied to everyone else. A concept upload to your brain isn't any better than hearing voices.

Yes it does, the alternative is to allow complete ambiguity by confusing how the Holy Ghost communicates. You said "Also saying you know its true because you hear voices from a Ghost isn't an argument." Specifying that I heard. as with my ears, voices. My response is appropriate, I have not heard voices so your words misrepresent me or they are based on a lie. Either Way, it brings your intentions into question on here.

Most Christians have entirely different ideas of important theological concepts. Its why there are so many different Christians.

How do you know that. You have already proven you lack of knowledge in Christianity so why would you expect me to believe that without solid evidence. Secondly, I am not in competition with any other belief system. I am nor here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. The Christian values that I adhere to are all found in the scripture, there is nothing extraordinary that I believe in

Seriously? religions don't say the same thing. They are mutually exclusive often times. Thats why there are different religions in the first place--because they aren't compatible.

I don't know why you are telling me that. I simply have no concern as to what other religions think. I am not a school boy in the play ground seeking popularity.

Obviously that the faith from other religious people is just as avalid as yours. Someone's faith in scientology is no better or worse than yours. We have no way of knowing that the scientologist's beliefs are more or less valid than yours with respect to religion.

Again, so what. I have little interest in other peoples religion. I am very happy with my own. I do not critique them or judge them I respect them and their right to worship God in anyway they choose.

I never said anything about seeing it with your eyes. At least you admit you don't know everything. That means you don't know whether your "concepts" that were transmitted to your brain are delusions or not. You can't know if its just your brain tricking you just like it can trick you with an optical illusion. The brain is NOT infallaible. Why you trust it in regard to magic concepts is not reasonable.

1. You said that "Your word that your mind didn't make an illusion for you isn't persuasive or convincing to anyone." As illusions are "an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience." one would naturally expect them to be seen with the natural eye or the minds eye, therefore, by saying what you said could equally mean actually vision or vision within your mind, therefore, when you say that you never said anything about seeing it with your eyes you are not be accurate or truthful​

2. I know it like I a blind man knows when someone walks in the room. He knows that it is not him. What magic concept do you refer to. I have said nothing that can be interpreted as magical.

3. I have never said that I know everything and to my knowledge I have never given that impression.​

How would you certainly recognize him? You have a lot of explaining to do. Do you have some kind of God radar or Satan radar that nobody else has access too? Satan is supposedly the ultimate deceiver. I;m pretty sure a nigh omnipotent being could trick you or anyone else. you have no way of knowing.

I have no explaining to do. You either believe me or you don't. Satan has no power over me, or anybody else. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Assumptions that are just as invalid as all the others you have been making. I don't even claim to know the probability of God's existence. Im a true agnostic. This is just a red herring though.

Yes, assumptions based on the content of your posts which suggests that you are an atheist. My assumptions are only valid to me. I am not making assumptions for anything else.

You didn't explain that part adequetely. I'm using it perfectly well.

Your statement does not logically follow from the previous statement.

Ah yes because you know so much more about God than anyone else because of the magic concepts that you downloaded from God's personal ftp server.

1. Yes, that is quite facetious and provocatively argumentative.

2. I said "Sorry, but you are speaking from ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about." I used the word "you" so I was refering to you and not everybody else. You use verybody else just to vilify me. Just another example of you sophistry.

3. I have no idea what you mean by magical concepts, other than you are using it to intentionally taunt me, just like an atheist would do.​

ANother strawman argument. [1] I never said he was defined by a single definition. And no, sinless isn't a static definition associated with him. [2] You haven't proven that. [3] There's no reason why God wouldn't sin. [4] I don't accept the tenets of Christian theology by the way, [5] so basing your arguments on christian theology without proving the validity of christian theology is senseless.

1. I know you didn't define him thus, that is what I said.

2. In case you didn't know, I cannot prove anything about God. Nothing at all.

3. There is a very logical reason. God id a perfect being. To expose Him to imperfection would contaminate and desecrate Him

4. If you do not don't accept the ideology of Christian theology why are you here trying to demolish the beliefs of those who do agree with them? It sound a bit contentious.

5. Again, why are you here if you think that whatever any Christian says on here is senseless to you.​

SUpposedly even though you have no evidence. You don't seem to be understanding the fact that there are blurred lines between free will and no free will. You can't be judged fairly with partial free will. It doesn't make sense. Its like saying you'll be judged if you're black or white when you're grey.

1. What blurred lines could there be. You have a choice or you don't have a choice. It is black and white logic.

2. You can be judged fairly if you have full free agency, you cannot be judged at all if you have no free agency. There is no grey area.

3. Again, you use another straw man. We are not talking about being black, white or grey. The conclusion that we can draw from that cannot be attributed to free will as one is colours and the other is authority. Guess what that is. It is a non-sequitur because it does not logically follow from the previous statement​

[1]And you're being completely hypocritical--you've been trying to prove multiple people wrong on this thread for days. [2]Its a religious debate forum. its entertaining to debate and prove people wrong. Don't be ridiculous. [3]Are you on a religious debate forum to prove other people right? Of course not. It wouldnt be a debate then.
[4]Also genes don't necesserily control you, although they could, but they influence you along with the environment and culture. Also genes and the environment are not deterministic--therefore you would behave randomly, you just might not have free will or you might only have a limited amount.
[5]Either way you're just so wrong here about everything.

1. I have not tried to prove anyone wrong. That is not in my persona. I have merely been expressing my opinion.

2. It may well be entertaining for you to prove others wrong, although I doubt that it doesn't happen that much, but it can be quite upsetting for those who are proved wrong, especially when they are not actually wrong. In debate there is no right or wrong, there are just opinions and beliefs. No debater walks way from a debate thinking that they are wrong.

3. If my opinions prove people right then I am enthralled that I have done that. I never try and prove people wrong, I express my opinion. It is unethical to come on here with the sole purpose to make people miserable by proving them wrong, especially when they use underhanded debating tactics to do it. It is sick.

4. I know that they influence you with the environment, however, you said that alcoholism is down to our genes when that is not the only reason.

5. If you want to think I am wrong then please be my guest. I will stick with reality.​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Serenity7855]

God does intervene in human affairs by sending Prophets, Messengers and Teachers with laws and Teachings but we make a conscious decision not to incorporate them into our lives and society so our ills persist.

So God does not intervene He sends Prophets to do that for Him.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So God does not intervene He sends Prophets to do that for Him.

Yes. God is like the sun. The Prophets, Messengers and Teachers are like the rays of the sun. We receive warmth and nourishment from the sun's rays but were the sun to directly descend to earth we could not sustain it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The one element people have left out of this argument is the Unknown. People have assumed that God created the world knowing that we would suffer but have left out the possibility that it may be towards a good end. A seed sacrifices itself and becomes a tree bearing fruit. A candle weeps its life away giving light. Childbirth is extremely painful but what is the result? Just because it is painful or involves sacrifice or suffering doesn't mean it's bad.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are two ways that we learn. Firstly, and the ideal way is to put into practice the teachings given to us by the wise teachers throughout the ages and the other is trial and error resulting in much suffering which in the end will teach us that the best way of doing things was always God's Way but unless we bring about our own almost extinction we will not go down that path as we think we know better.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes. God is like the sun. The Prophets, Messengers and Teachers are like the rays of the sun. We receive warmth and nourishment from the sun's rays but were the sun to directly descend to earth we could not sustain it.

Yep, I would very much agree with that.

 

[Serenity7855]

[1] No, another pitiful strawman. You're once against misrepresenting what i've said and then attacking the false position you've given me. I never said we're just a byproduct of our genes--we're a by product of genes, the environment, culture, etc. [2] Finally, those people would be locked up for having such a gene if gene determinism was true.

I Said
Justice could never be served as it will always be attributable to a gene. Murderers would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes.

1. As can be seen by the above paragraph that I wrote previously. I am not offering a substitute, I and demonstrating the effects that will ensue if sin was attributable to genes, as you suggested, I was not replacing anything with a similitude, I was giving a conclusion. I have to admit, I do not think you will understand this either. It seem like you cannot adequately reason these things out. You have insinuated that my perceived results to your argument is a straw man, a substitute argument. I was right, you do not understand what a straw man is, do you.

2. That would be a miscarriage of justice as they could not be held accountable for there actions. By your logic we wouldn't need any prisons​

MAny, many people throughout time have had different and inconsistent moralities moralities. Also it doesn't matter if the lack of free will presents a problem or not--what maters is what's true. If the logic is true, then that's the way reality is and you have to deal with it. its not suddenly false because you find it difficult to reconcile your values of justice.

Tell me, what is the connection between your rebuttal above and my original post, as shown below. Until you clarify it I cannot answer you.

A conscience cognitive mind is capable of determining the difference between right and wrong and then making a choice as to which one it will choose. Again, if your logic is true then how could we determine whether someone is guilty or not have murder?​

[1] Your personal belief is irrelevant. [2]And there is nothing in your life? Really? [3]Your digestion was also a choice you knowingly made?

1. If my belief is irrelevant do you accept that your beliefs are irrelevant as well?

2. Really, I will stand, hand on heart, and say that everything I am and everything that I possess is the result of my choices, for which I know that I will have to stand accountable for..

3. My digestion. What do you think is wrong with my digestion.​

[1] its not speculation. If there were only two human beings in the beginning then the incest would have limited genetic diversity and humanity would have suffered the effects of inbreeding. [2] There always had to be at least a few thousand humans ot maintain enough genetic diversity. That's just a fact. [3] If you want to deny science without including a source, then you're just plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and denying knowledge.

1. Eve was taken from the rib of Adam. She shared Adams genes. There would be no effects from interbreeding because there would be no interbreeding. The genes are the same.

2. In our world today, and with our knowledge, you might be right. In Adam's world where they fell from perfection to imperfection, then your wrong. Diversity would result as soon as we increased in numbers and started our own families away from our parent to allow our genes to be influenced. No, doubt that is why God said; For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother,and be joined to his wife; and they shall becomeone flesh.

[3] Why would you think that I would want to deny the God of atheists, "science". I am a great believer in science because it is its origins come from my Father in Heaven, who has been drip feeding us with discoveries.​

You only think you were told by God. This magic God beaming knowledge thing is preposterous. I mean you must think you're a prophet or something right? Write the next gospel since God is literally telling you what he thinks.

You say that because your lifestyle prevents you from receiving His witness. I am just a Child of God who strives to live a Christ like life. God has told everyone what He thinks. He has even compiled a book called the bible where you can read what He thinks.

[1] [2] But anyways its a fact that you haven't done any scientific investigation of the existence of adam and eve. [3]Facts aren't insults. [4]And its important for these discussions since science is an integral part. [5]You can't debate well without properly researching these subjects.

1. How do you know that. Are you a mind reader. It is not impossible to use science to create a mathematical model to determine the probability that they did exist. You should first do your research before making assertions.

2. So what, that does not mean that they didn't exist. I don't know myself if they physically existed in a garden called Eden, however, what I am certian of is the principle of what took place, that is, the initiation of life as we know it today.

3. No, facts are not insulting, however your unrestrained insult bear no connection to any facts that you would be aware of. Your insults are personal and completely unnecessary and only reflects upon the kind of undesirable person that you must be.

4. We have bearly discussed science here, and what we have discussed shows your ineptitude it it. So what is your point.

5. You don't know me, you don't know what I have research. What you are saying is pure conjecture. Science and religion is together because God is the Master Scientist.​

You forgot what you just said. Try again. you said "That is right, however, if you have to live a life that would enable you to see fairies, wouldn't you give it a go? I did and now I am a believer.". You're clearly not familiar with the fact that there are many different opinions about Christianity and that I don't accept Christian theology as a legitimate way to argue.

Again, what does your rebuttal, above, and my post, below, have anything to do with each other

I don't know what you are talking about or who you refer to as seeing things that nobody else see. As you accused me earlier, you are assuming without evidence to support your assumption. You are clearly not familiar with things divine or or what Christianity is all about.​

oh my god lol. You forgot what you said again: "God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, what happens in between He has no control over, so He cannot know who will get Leukemia or who will lose their life in a car accident. All of those things are the result of the choices we make." Please, try again. You just said that all of those things are the result of choices we make and before you were just talking about leukemia. its becomming tedious to remind you about stuff you just said.

What on earth are you talking about? I have no clue, other then you are getting exited at the potential of proving me wrong, which is a little unsettling, You obviously see something that is clearly not there. However, please clarify it as I look forward to refuting it and making you look inept.

LOL yes you did. See above. And I haven't corroborated anything. Why do you want to desperately defend your beleifs so much? Why are you on this forum filling up this thread for days on end? You're CLEARLy the only desperate one. Give me a break.

As I said, your excitement has made you incoherent leaving me clueless as to what your point is.

Then God doesn't know all. How much does he even know then?

God knows all that there is to know. If it cannot be known then he cannot know it. Simple deductive reasoning.

Not really. You just gave an underwhelming explanation of what God knows and doesn't know.

Well, we will wait and see if you can do a better job of explaining yourself enough for me to understand what you are trying to say.[/QUOTE]

 

[Serenity7855]

Continued

[1]I don't know if he exists, that's a big difference. [2]And I do have difficulty comprehending it because its makes no sense; [3]as you've said God is beaming knowledge/concepts into your brain. Probably from his ftp server. [4] I don't have a broadband connection to God so naturally i don't have the special knowledge like you do to comprehend it. [5]Do you ever wonder why people on this forum express so much doubt on your special knowledge claims?

1. A big difference from what exactly?

2. How come that the entire Plan of Salvation makes perfect sense to me, who tried for two decades to disprove it in every way possible, yet you cannot make any sense of it. I cannot make any sense without it.

3. Lets put your misrepresentation right. I did not say that God is beaming knowledge/concepts into your brain. Probably from his ftp server. That is your taunt, thought up all by yourself. You are so proud of it that you keep repeating it.

4.You do not have a special connection because you cannot cut it, make the grade, and your comprehension skill are spurious, at best.

5. Thats funny, nobody has ever said that to me, if they ever do it will be an atheist who says it on the grounds that I am a Christian, however, your insults are getting more and more notably personal.​

[1]No, your memory is just failing hard. [2]We were talkinga bout God's knowledge of what what happen during the universe, [3]and I said a toddler could have told you that the emergence of life would lead to suffering and death. Therefore God knew and was responsible.

1. As it happens, I do have a poor memory due to illness, however, I use methods to prevent it. In this case my memory is just fine.

2. What does this mean? "We were talkinga bout God's knowledge of what what happen during the universe " If you write it again for comprehension then I will answer it

3. Yes, God knew that there would be trials and tribulations however, it was our decision and design and it was the only way for us to obtain a body of flesh and blood. It is the Plan of Salvation that was accepted and sanctioned by two thirds of the host of Heaven, including you. You cannot be tried and tested without without opposition so, it is the fault of every single one of us, we are all culpable for that terrorists actions. These statements are what shows your ignorance in Christianity, to the point that it is becoming tiresome to continually have to repeat myself in among you puerile insults.​

[1]I think you're not aware of the abundance of strawmen you create. You said in response to my point that explosions are not intelligent. That misrepresents my position since [2]I never claimed that explosions were intelligent. [3]Either your memory is just crashing hard or your deliberately being intellectually dishonest and I hope its the later for your sake.

1. I think that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what a Straw Man actually means.

2. Yes you did. You inferred it when you said "if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly." In order for the bomb to be responsible it would have to be fully aware of what it is doing and be able to alter the laws of the universe to stop it from happening if it were it's choice. This is obviously not possible so the terrorist remains the culprit.

3. The state of my health is none of your business. You are being personal, again, in your ad hominem​

The connection is so obvious that i'm having trouble believing if you're actually still having difficulty with it.

1. The terrorist knows that a bomb will cause suffering and death
2. The terrorist creates the bomb and gets it set up
3. A terrorist sets off a bomb in a crowded area.
4. People are hurt and suffer
5. The terrorist is responsible for the death and suffering. You are repeating what I have said all along. Your story is changing.
6. That's like saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly​

Now for God.

1. God knows that creating the universe will cause sufferring and death. Does He? How do you know that? I am not saying that he doesn't but How do you know? You don't believe He exists. He knows that by creating Adam and Eve will cause suffering and death. There would be none if they did not exist.
2. God designs the laws of physics and sets everything off. He Didn't The laws are Eternal. They have always been and will always be. Energy can niether be created or destroyed, a basic scientific principle. If you knew anything about science you would know that Quantum Physics demonstrates that these laws have always existed because the Quantum Field has always existed..
3. God triggers/ is the initial cause of the big bang. Which is undetermined and still a theory, although a theory that works both for science and religion. It might have been spontaneous, it might have been you.
4. People eventually emerge and then are hurt and suffer They are, but by their own choices. Our own choices before we came here and whilst we are here.
5. God is reponsible for the death and suffering. Do, He was acting under our wishes and desires. We all agreed to it, knowing the full consequences of our choice, and wanted it more than anything. It is our fault.​

How are you not understanding this?

Because it is completely illogical and based on your understanding of Christianity and science, which does not appear to be extensive.

I suppose God beamed this knowledge to you as well.

Petty puerile provocation.

[1]Yet another foolish strawman. Also your hypocrisy is astonishing. [2]You cry and complain about ad hominem but you're certainly not any better. [3]But anyways, I didn't say alcoholism is ONLY genetic. [4]Everything our genes result in depends on the environment they exist in as i've stated similarly before. [5]Also i'm amused you take great pleasure in supposedly proving me wrong.

1. Coming from you that is a compliment.

2. I retaliate, however, even my retaliations are nowhere near as disturbingly hateful and personal as yours are. However, I have never said that I am perfect, therefore, I would not deny using Straw Men unintentionally. I would never do it to gain an advantage.

3. You said that alcoholism is genetic. You did not offer any other possibilities, therefore, a reasonable man would naturally assume that is what you meant. Regardless as to what other posters believe, it is not just genetics, it is social conditioning as well.

4. I know that and I have agreed with that on a number of occasions.

5. What did it feel like being proved wrong? Not very nice is it?
​

 

[Aquitaine]

Satan created the early, undifferentiated universe. God created the later, differentiated universe out of the early, undifferentiated universe.

I'm struggling to understand you here, could you elaborate on the differences between the two universes?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I'm struggling to understand you here, could you elaborate on the differences between the two universes?

What I am here calling the early universe is the universe from its 'birth' in the so-called Big Bang up to the beginning of the period known in cosmology as recombination, when the first hydrogen atoms started to form. The later universe, then, is the universe from the beginning of this period of recombination going forwards.

 

[Serenity7855]

Both myself and this poster you are responding to just explained this to you. Why bother posting a link that says the same thing we've both just pointed out? Alcoholism is genetic and in exactly the way we both explained. Stating that we're wrong and then posting a site that reinforces what we just said, doesn't make you right.

Why do you always assume that you are the authority of all knowledge and whatever you say is right? Just because you and serp777 said it does not make it true it just means that both of you are wrong. Alcoholism is not solely down to genetics, there are other factors that contribute towards it development. Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. If you put it down to be just genetic, as serp777 did, then it is certainly not exactly as you put it. It is way off. You are wrong because genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Oh, and of course, you didn't like me proving a fellow non-believer wrong and then gloat in order to demonstrate that it is not nice to prove people who think that they are right wrong, just for entertainment. You obviously thought that you could say something that would save any embarrassment.

How do genes influence alcoholism?

Alcoholism often seems to run in families, and we may hear about scientific studies of an “alcoholism gene.” Genetics certainly influence our likelihood of developing alcoholism, but the story isn’t so simple.

Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.

Quoted from The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [Click Here]

 

[loverofhumanity]

Everyone one is forgetting an essential point. That we are spiritual, emotional beings and we need to feed the spirit as well as the body so it can be spiritually healthy enough to resist these physical addictions. A healthy spirit can control these desires and wayward promptings of the self and body. A heart and mind that is nourished with the Word of God continually can overcome any genetic problems. These are really just a poor excuse for people not wanting to face reality that we are suffering primarily because we are neglecting to develop spiritually. I used to drink heavily but once I turned to God I have not touched the stuff in 40 years as I don't need it as I have fulfilment from spiritual life.