Science 3, God 0

[CynthiaCypher]

If there is a god, goddess, or a polytheistic model, why should this entity/entities be at our beck and call? This is an awfully big universe. Why would a being that is above this universe care about beings as small, insignificant, and as flawed as human beings? To say we are a speck of dust in the cosmic ocean is, by comparison, making us too large.

This is why I firmly believe that if you want God to pay attention to you, then you should at least be entertaining.

 

[averageJOE]

No, I'm saying what I said. God has good reasons to allow suffering temporarily. One good reason is to allow persons to come to know the true God and be saved from his coming judgment. God's "will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) If God had brought destruction upon the wicked just 100 years ago, few if any of earth's billions would even have been born. I believe his patience is giving us time to decide whether to accept his mercy or not. "Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) That being said, I believe time is fast running out for the wicked.

So basically your saying god is not responsible for evil because he allows it to happen so he can act against it some day...?

 

[Breathe]

If there is a god, goddess, or a polytheistic model, why should this entity/entities be at our beck and call?

Some people seem to believe that God (or gods) is a cosmic sugar daddy, I guess. I think it says a lot about human ego.

 

[Quintessence]

Some people seem to believe that God (or gods) is a cosmic sugar daddy, I guess. I think it says a lot about human ego.

In fairness, classical monotheism - which is the most common theistic perspective in Western cultures as far as I'm aware - does posit that their one-god is all-loving or omnibenevolent. With that assertion, it does make some sense to suppose if its worshipers ask for aid, such a benevolent deity would at a minimum, always be inclined to render aid. If one insists that such a god must always render aid, that is probably a fairly egoistic perspective. We all can easily imagine scenarios where immediate gains are offset by long-term harm or greater losses in some other aspect of reality. I'm not going to pretend to be able to understand the omniscient/omnipresent knowledge of the one-god and how that mathematically determines whether or not a given action is good from its point of view.

 

[Mycroft]

And I could say that God operates through human agency and methodology to grace us with the cures to these illnesses. So it would be Science: Wins / God: Wins.

Doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

I reject that. If God 'gave this scientist the cure to cancer' why did he wait 30/40 years to get around to it?

Also, you insult the people who worked long and hard on such a cure by essentially removing their ingenuity.