Post Any Evidence For God Here

[universalchiro]

Atheism is doomed!!/

Eventually yes. In the near term, Atheism is growing faster than any prior age and spreading throughout cultures. Even the Pope, Pope Frances, the head of Catholicism, announced in September 2013 that all Atheist & Agnostics (and by default every religion) if they obey their moral conscience, they will go to heaven. This a new world order of universal salvation, a unification of all religions, all beliefs, United under one umbrella of obey moral conscience.

With one gesture, the Pope has led the way for global peace from religious wars. Now the process of getting all religions to accept this. Of course those Protestant Bible thumpers and will protest and proclaim the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. And gently remind others that one of the signs of the soon coming Messiah returning in judgment as a roaring lion is a one world religion. All my life I wondered what this one world religion would look like, now I have seen its birth. Watch it grow.

[Gillipig]

There was a link you know, it's possible to click on it and read what I was referring to.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwes ... de-tablet/

[universalchiro]

I read it before posting and some of the comments. The article didn't move me, nor did I agree with the premise of the author. Just not an important topic for me, nor did I agree with his view, so I left it alone. But since the article moved you enough to quote it something worth while, I gave you comfort that Atheism is not declining in numbers & acceptance but inclining. So relax you are safe from mankind's religions. Heck one day maybe we'll see an atheist pastor a church.

Interesting times we live in.

[notyou2]

There are atheists pastors at many churches now. The problem is they can't reveal their true beliefs, and many are up in years and don't have another profession to fall back on.

http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2011/07/24/preachers-who-dont-believe-in-god-1/

[2dimes]

There are atheists pastors at many churches now. The problem is they can't reveal their true beliefs, and many are up in years and don't have another profession to fall back on.

http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2011/07/24/preachers-who-dont-believe-in-god-1/

I was going to speculate that. I kind of think it's been going on for longer than some think.

[macbone]

Of course, the fastest growing religion is still Christianity, with 25 million new members every year: http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

It's been Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism in the top 3 spots for the last 40 years or so. However, the site doesn't have information on the growth of atheism, although atheists are included as "Other" in the stats from the CIA Worldbook referenced on the page.

This is what Pope Francis said:

Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

He's not saying here that he believes atheists can go to heaven. What he's saying is that he believes that Christ's death was for everyone, not just Catholics, and that we can find common ground in doing good.

Here's more on Catholics' beliefs:

"At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.” — (CCC, 605)

Again, the Catholic church isn't saying that every person will go to heaven, but that when Jesus gave his life for the world, he did it for everyone, not just for believers (I know this is a point of contention with Calvinists - they believe that Jesus died only for people who believe in him and are therefore "saved", the Elect.)

Here's something from Mark Shea:

"All who do good, and all who do evil, and all saints, and all Nazis, and pirates, and Communists and Mormons, Swedenborgians, and Satanists, and plumbers, and students who are getting Fs, and little kids and old coots, and profoundly brain-damaged folk and really brilliant scientists, and tall, and fat, and short people, and Muslims, and atheists, and Jews, and Buddhists and everybody else with a pulse are redeemed. Stalin is redeemed along with St. Damien of Molokai, Jack the Ripper and St. Francis of Assisi are both redeemed."

Redeemed here does not mean all these people are going to heaven, but it does mean that Catholics (and I) believe that Jesus died for everyone, not just a small number. We don't decide who goes to heaven - God does.

More here:
http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-redeemed/
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/s ... p?id=51077

[universalchiro]

Mac, I agree with you that Christ died for all, however, the free gift of forgiveness of sins/eternal life is only for those who confess Jesus as Lord & savior. This is strict guidelines and Christ further clarified that He was the only way, the only truth, the life that lead to the Father.

So when I read Pope France's words: "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there.". You must know that redeemed means saved from the bondage and penalty of sin, saved and purchased from the slaves blocks of sin to be Christ's. Redeemed is synonym for saved. Its true Jesus died for all, but only those who accept the free gift are redeemed. Atheist reject Jesus' death burial & resurrection, therefore though they do good, they haven't had penalty of sin paid for and are not redeemed.

Pope Frances ushered in a new era of universal salvation. Essentially obey your moral conscience and you'll be in heaven. This is a new age of tolerance, those who protest will be branded intolerant. This is the new age of one world religion.

As far as statistics of how many Christians there are, don't believe it. 90% of Americans claim they are going to heaven, maybe 25% know Jesus died on cross, buried & rose 3 days later, & maybe 10% can defend their faith. So don't trust those research census.

[warmonger1981]

The Hiramic legend may be considered to embody the vicissitudes of philosophy itself. As institutions for the dissemination of ethical culture, the pagan Mysteries were the architects of civilization. Their power and dignity were personified in Hiram Abiff-the Master Builder- but they eventually fell a victim to the onslaughts of that recurrent trio of state, church, and mob. They were desecrated by the state, jealous of their wealth and power; by the early church, fearful of their wisdom; and by the rabble or soldiery incited by both state and church. As Hiram when Raised from his grave whispers the Master Mason's Word which was lost through him untimely death, so according to the tenets of philosophy the reestablishment or resurrection of the ancient Mysteries will result on the rediscovery of that secret teaching without which civilization must continue in a state of spiritual confusion and uncertainty.

When a mob governs, man is ruled by ignorance ; when the church governs, he is ruled by superstition; and when the state governs, he is ruled by fear. Before men can live together in harmony and understating, ignorance must be transmuted into wisdom, superstition into an illumined faith, and feat into love. Despite statements to the contrary, Masonry is a religion seeking to unite God and man by elevating its initiates to that level of consciousness wheron they can behold with clarified vision the workings of the Great Architect of the Universe. From age to age the vision of a perfect civilization is preserved as the ideal for mankind. In the midst of that civilization shall stand a might university wherein both the sacred and secular sciences concerning the mysteries of life will be freely taught to all who will assume the philosophic life. Here creed and dogma will have no place; the superficial will be removed and only the essential preserved. The world will be ruled by the most illumined minds, and each will occupy the position for which he is most admirably fitted.
Here the initiate will be taught that every visible object, every abstract thought, every emotional reaction is but the symbol of an eternal principle. Here mankind will learn that Hiram (Truth) lies hurried in every atom of Kosmos; that every form is a symbol and every symbol the tomb of an eternal verity. Through education-spiritual, mental, moral, and physical-man will learn to release living truths from their lifeless coverings. The perfect government of the earth must be patterned eventually after that devine government by which the universe is ordered.

Manly P Hall

[crispybits]

There are 2 major flaws with the reasoning in the Telegraph article.

1. It assumes that tribal population increases can be scaled up without significant reduction as the tribe grows. Sure this or that religious group (tribe) may be having children faster than the overall average, but the ones with the biggest numbers are generally the smaller religious groups so the numbers can easily be distorted by the policies of these smaller groups. It is not valid to say that this will always be the case, in fact it would be reasonable to study whether as religious groups grow they start to trend towards societal averages. It's already been done to an extent, and is a known principle described (loosely) by evolution. If you have a small population, the evolutionary pressures on that population are to breed more in order to perpetuate the bloodlines. Ideas follow a lot of the same principles as bloodlines, a small population idea will often find ways to promote breeding within it's parent population or of recruiting from outside of the parent population or both. For those ideas that structurally can't easily recruit from outside, it is generally true throughout history, regardless of exactly what the idea is, that those groups get higher birth rates as the parent population is guided to produce more adherents to the idea when the idea is fundamental to defining meaning to the tribe.

2. It skews the numbers between big and small populations. Say there are 250,000 Amish and 315 million Catholics. Say the amish breeding rate is 4 children per woman (doubling each generation) and the catholic breeding rate is 2.5 children per woman (25% increase per generation). The Amish have a 5% apostasy rate for the children born into that faith and the catholics have a 40% apostasy rate for children born into that faith (as in what percentage of children born into the faith leave the believing population by the time they reach adulthood). Sure the amish population will grow, and in 3 generations they will have 1.6 million population size. Religion wins by breeding right? But catholics have decreased during the same time, with only a 150 million population size. In both cases I'm assuming that the starter generation has died for the 3rd generation final figure, there is no apostasy after adulthood is reached, and a few other unrealistic things but I'm just demonstrating a point not trying to do the study properly, so I'm not saying those numbers are what is actually happening, but the premise of the piece doesn't take into account the differing base population sizes and the birth-to-adulthood apostasy rates in a statistically valid way.

[macbone]

Right, Chiro, I'm not a biblical scholar, but I think it comes down to whether the term redemption means the same thing as salvation. They're obviously closely connected, but I'm not sure if they're synonyms. The same is true for terms like justification and sanctification - for Catholics, these two terms are describing different aspects of the same thing, but for many Protestants, they identify two different processes.

Here's a definition for the Catholic doctrine of redemption here. Catholics believe, at least according to this source, that redemption is universal.

When the question is limited to fallen man it has a clear answer in such passages as I John, ii, 2; 1 Timothy 2:4 and 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:16, etc.; all bearing out the Redeemer's intention to include in His saving work the universality of men without exception . . .The universal power has been maintained against the Predestinarians and Calvinists who limited Redemption to the predestinated (cf. the councils named above), and against the Jansenists who restricted it to the faithful or those who actually come to faith [prop. 4 and 5, condemned by Alexander VIII, in Denzinger-Bannwart, 1294-5 (1161-2)] and the latter's contention that it is a Semi-Pelagian error to say that Christ died for all men has been declared heretical [Denzinger-Bannwart, n.1096 (970)].

Compare it to salvation, which is not universal for Catholics.

When the Pope says that all have been redeemed, he appears to be speaking from Church Orthodoxy, that redemption is a universal event. I don't understand him to say that all are saved, and the Catholic interpretations of his words seem to say the same thing, but I'm no theologian. =)

Here's a blog from the Telegraph saying basically the same thing: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... stand-him/

We Catholics believe that nobody should be compelled to share our faith, hence atheists are at liberty to "follow their own conscience." But we also believe that "conscience" is not a relativist thing that varies from individual to individual. The conscience is the seed of truth implanted in us by God when we are born and anyone who listens to it opens themselves up to the possibility of doing good and – eventually – to finding God. When we see someone in pain, our conscience tells us to help them. That is the "good" in us. If we feel nothing and do nothing for them, that is the "evil" in us. Ergo, the Pope is entirely right to advise atheists to follow their conscience, because that is the path to enlightenment.

What if someone's conscience tells them that God doesn't exist and the Pope is a silly man in white peddling antiquated nonsense? Well, we would say that a truly tested conscience will always conclude that the Church offers salvation. But if an individual continues to assert the opposite then they are best advised to be honest about their feelings. One of the greatest sins in the world is to participate in the Church and not really believe in its teachings. That's a sure way to get to Hell.

Here's something else: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-ak ... aved-9-thi

First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.

Given that—and this is fundamental—God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience.

In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.

The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

He doesn't actually answer the question, but he focuses on listening to and obeying one's own conscience.

One more: http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-f ... -atheists/

The Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold.

First, that Christ died to redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However, many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

Secondly, the Pope is also affirming that all humans are created in God’s image and are therefore created good. Yes, created good, but that goodness is wounded by original sin.

Thirdly, he is affirming that all men and women are obliged to pursue what is beautiful, good and true. Natural virtue is possible–even obligatory, but natural virtue on its own is not sufficient for salvation. Grace is necessary to advance beyond natural virtue to bring the soul to salvation. The Pope does not say atheists being good on their own will be saved. He says they, like all men, are redeemed by Christ’s death and their good works are the starting place where we can meet with them–the implication being “meet with them in an encounter that leads eventually to faith in Christ.

Pope Francis did not say that an atheist who does naturally good things can be saved if he dies an atheist. Yet that is the impression given by Catholic Online’s half truth headline…

The Pope… simply reminded the faithful that there can be, and is, goodness, or natural virtue, outside the Church. And that Christ’s death on the Cross redeemed all men. He paid the price so that every man could come to God and be saved.

If Catholic Online is insinuating that Pope Francis has “reformed” the irreformable dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation, then that is shameful and disingenuous.

If one holds that redemption and salvation are the same thing, or perhaps isn't too clear on the distinction, it sounds like the Pope is saying that everyone gets to go to heaven if they do good and follow their conscience. But that's not what he's saying if examined in the light of traditional Catholic theology.

[universalchiro]

@warmonger: The Masonic symbols are all over the place, they are a powerful secret organization, there are some youtube videos that reveal how prevalent their symbols are and how their influence shapes our world.

@Crispybits: point conceeded. I'm in the camp of ; there are less followers of Jesus today than yesterday, with a forward decreasing number of believers. I don't go by the titles of all the different denominations or Catholic/Protestant, most of the denominations came about as geographical or peripheral doctrin difference. The title of the church doesn't save, only when one confesses Jesus as Lord and savior is saved, be it Catholic or Protestant.

@Macbone: We agree Christ died for all, a redemptive act to save all mankind. However, only those who confess Jesus as Lord & Savior are redeemed.
"Redeemed": one who has accepted God's free gift & is free from the penalty of sin, one whose cost of sin has been paid for in full by the Blood of Jesus because upon hearing the Word they confessed Jesus as Lord & Savior.

Though Christ's sacrifice on the cross is a redemptive act for all mankind, few accept Him and. become redeemed. Most reject Christ and are not redeemed.
Though Christ's sacrifice on the cross is a redemptive act for all mankind, few accept Him and become saved. Most reject Christ & are not saved.

"Saved": Those who have been purchased from the cost of sin by the blood of Jesus and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Christ died to save all, but few accept His free saving gift.

We disagree on what the Pope meant and that's okay
I view his words as all are saved by obeying moral conscience, which Atheist do, thus a one world religion , universal salvation via moral obedience.

[Gillipig]

There are 2 major flaws with the reasoning in the Telegraph article.

1. It assumes that tribal population increases can be scaled up without significant reduction as the tribe grows. Sure this or that religious group (tribe) may be having children faster than the overall average, but the ones with the biggest numbers are generally the smaller religious groups so the numbers can easily be distorted by the policies of these smaller groups. It is not valid to say that this will always be the case, in fact it would be reasonable to study whether as religious groups grow they start to trend towards societal averages. It's already been done to an extent, and is a known principle described (loosely) by evolution. If you have a small population, the evolutionary pressures on that population are to breed more in order to perpetuate the bloodlines. Ideas follow a lot of the same principles as bloodlines, a small population idea will often find ways to promote breeding within it's parent population or of recruiting from outside of the parent population or both. For those ideas that structurally can't easily recruit from outside, it is generally true throughout history, regardless of exactly what the idea is, that those groups get higher birth rates as the parent population is guided to produce more adherents to the idea when the idea is fundamental to defining meaning to the tribe.

2. It skews the numbers between big and small populations. Say there are 250,000 Amish and 315 million Catholics. Say the amish breeding rate is 4 children per woman (doubling each generation) and the catholic breeding rate is 2.5 children per woman (25% increase per generation). The Amish have a 5% apostasy rate for the children born into that faith and the catholics have a 40% apostasy rate for children born into that faith (as in what percentage of children born into the faith leave the believing population by the time they reach adulthood). Sure the amish population will grow, and in 3 generations they will have 1.6 million population size. Religion wins by breeding right? But catholics have decreased during the same time, with only a 150 million population size. In both cases I'm assuming that the starter generation has died for the 3rd generation final figure, there is no apostasy after adulthood is reached, and a few other unrealistic things but I'm just demonstrating a point not trying to do the study properly, so I'm not saying those numbers are what is actually happening, but the premise of the piece doesn't take into account the differing base population sizes and the birth-to-adulthood apostasy rates in a statistically valid way.

Certainty of what will happen in the future is not possible, so the goal of the article can't be to prove without shadow of a doubt that these trends will continue in the future, so trying to hold it to such a standard is not warranted. All it's doing is illustrating an alarming trend, which if continued might not be good for atheist, but who knows, perhaps in the 22nd century atheists will have a birth ratio of 5.5 children and religious people 1.5, that can't be proven or disproven, all we can say is that we see no trends leading that way as of now. It's similar to for example the worldwide temperature increase, we don't know that it will continue to increase throughout the 21st century, we know it's been increasing from the 19th century up until now and that trend has been pretty clear, and we can say that unless we change our society it's going to continue to increase, same thing we can say about religious groups like the amish, we know that they have a trend of increasing numbers, but if that trend will change or not we do not know, we can't assume it will change just because we would like it to, perhaps we can make some guesses based on past history, but there's no guarantee that history will repeat itself, so you can't debunk the sturdiness of a trend based on what has happened in the past.

[Dukasaur]

[/quote]

[universalchiro]

@ Dukasaur: Point taken, But what is going on with her wig and breast implants? Her father needs to assure her she is precious as she was and beauty starts from within. Look how precious and beautiful this tender soul is below

Click image to enlarge.

Doesn't that melt your heart.

[DaGip]

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the evidence of God as being solely the commonly held tenants of Christianity. Before Christians, was there not a God? When was the concept of God bound by a belief in Jesus Christ or any other such Messiah-like construct? What evidence is there that Jesus was indeed God? Why does God need a human embodiment? How does this allow me to be saved or go to Heaven?

Belief and evidence are two very different concepts. One accepts evidence on faith-based notions of stories and teachings handed down over thousands of years, and the other accepts evidence only as that of which is provided through scientific method.

Philosophically, if there is a kind, merciful, all powerful God; how can He (She) stand back as innocent people and children are slaughtered? How can He (She) create dastardly organisms that can eat you from the inside out and cause you to vomit your own intestines?

If such is the case that God is believed to be good, then Ebola can be considered a vile joke on His (Her) part; therefore making Him (Her) evil.

To believe that God does not exist and to accept the theory of evolution and survival of species; one can easily accept deadly organisms and the death of innocent people from such diseases.

So, there are indeed only two reasonable choices of which we can deduce from such said philosophy:

1. God is Evil and therefore Satan is indeed the true God

or

2. God does not exist

Spew what Bible verses you want, the proof is in the pudding.

[warmonger1981]

I think a major problem is that words have meaning. This meaning may be different in its original text from one language to the next. Interpretation of these ancient words to present English is difficult. The NIV version compared to KJV is a perfect example of interpretation. Satan-Devil-Lucifer all have different meanings. Know the roots to words.

[universalchiro]

@DaGip: uh ya you can't be wrong right? It's not possible for you to make an error in judgment, a mistake, a wrong decision, and there truly be a God. You have it all figured out and know all there is to know regarding whether there is a God or not. That's fine, you've made your choice, continue on your path, your purpose and reward in life awaits you.

@Warmonger: sure there are several names for the head fallen angel. He goes by many names. They each have a distinct purpose and meaning about him.

Similarly the Son of God has many names that reveal some of His attributes.

So could you be more specific, because I'm not seeing your angle with stating there are different names.

[DaGip]

@DaGip: uh ya you can't be wrong right? It's not possible for you to make an error in judgment, a mistake, a wrong decision, and there truly be a God. You have it all figured out and know all there is to know regarding whether there is a God or not. That's fine, you've made your choice, continue on your path, your purpose and reward in life awaits you..

It seems you have already judged me, seems fitting for a so-called self proclaimed Christian to be a hypocrite. You have offered no evidence of God here, only your faith. And what if that "faith" is indeed a lie that has been going on for thousands of years? Christians and other Cult fanatics are like goldfish in a bowl. They swim around and think that that is the world before them, the glass separating you from a greater reality is your "faith" in a cult. Just because you are a Cult member does not therefore prove the existence of God.

It seems that when a reasonably valid philosophical point is made to discredit the existence of God, there is no real debate made from the Cultist side of things. Just simply: "You are wrong" or "You atheists think you are so smart" or "You got it all figured out".

My philosophy is a simple philosophy, of which I have whittled the possible existence of God into two distinct frames of thought:

1. God let's evil exist, therefore God Him (Her) Self is Evil. Reasoning: A good and merciful God would not allow evil to exist.

or

2. There is no God. Reasoning: No evidence of God.


If I must believe in dualism, then God cannot be a Good God. If I believe in Monism, then God becomes non-existent.

If one were to believe that God is indeed a good God, then one would have to grapple psychologically with cognitive dissonance. Much like the smoker who wants to stop smoking, but continues to smoke...believing he is indeed stopping smoking. Or the morbidly obese person that believes they are losing weight, but still eats fast food and Twinkies.

It is easier to deal with the dissonance of smokers and overweight people because their dissonance only encompasses their eating and smoking habits; however, it is much more difficult for Cult members to deal with their dissonance because their beliefs in the world have been engrained on them their entire lives. To take a pacifier from a nursing babe leads to stress and discomfort in the baby's cognition, and therefore, the baby cries. The same is basically happening today.

You have a black president with a Muslim sounding name, who wants to regulate guns and offer health care. Christians and other Cult members are freaking out, and they don't know why. They use the Constitution as an excuse, but the real underlying issues here are that their belief system is being challenged. And like the babe and the pacifier, they begin to feel stress. But unlike the babe, these Cult members will eventually burst and start shooting up Federal agents and declare that they are Patriots guarding the Constitution.

Face it, your world is dead. Embrace reality, and welcome to the future of humanity!

[universalchiro]

@DaGip: You've made your choice, continue on your path. There is no need discussing with you, for you know all there is to know regarding whether there is a God. Your choice has 100% been made. Don't get mad at me for saying, "you've made your choice, continue on your path and await your reward". There is no need to carry a logical discussion with someone such as yourself that comes and presents your statement as fact, end of story, BOOM! What's left to discuss? Nothing. So carry on good sir, stay your course. Don't inquire, don't ask, don't seek, don't search, stay on your course. Nothing to discuss, your ship has left and set sail. So I say, "Bon Voyage!"

Bon Voyage!

[warmonger1981]

The word " Satan" means, in Hebrew, simply, "The Adversary."
The word Lucifer refered to Venus, the light bearer.
Lucifer in Latin means "light bearer" ( lux=light, fero=to bring)
The true name of Satan, the Kabalist says, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is a personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

[universalchiro]

@Warmonger: I understand the statements you are saying, I don't follow the direction you are gong with the information though. I need more information or a question or present a problem. If you are merely wanting to make a statement, then okay, sounds good.

[warmonger1981]

History is written in mystery. Its word manipulation throughout the ages. The word gay meant happy. Now it refers to sexual orientation. The book of Revelations is written in code. Numbers have a very special, almost divine existence. Pythagoras was a master of mathematics , colors and music. All not possible without numbers. I guess what I'm saying is a great understanding of universe in needed to understand God and Gods Laws. Its hard to know what is truth and fiction.

[Ray Rider]

My philosophy is a simple philosophy, of which I have whittled the possible existence of God into two distinct frames of thought:

1. God let's evil exist, therefore God Him (Her) Self is Evil. Reasoning: A good and merciful God would not allow evil to exist.

I'm 24 and I've just been through 4 months of chemo + 1 month of radiation, the most recent side effect was an inability to eat solid food for 3 weeks; now it's 4:00 AM and I just left the bedside of my 10 month old niece who has spent over a month in the Pediatric Cardiac ICU after multiple heart surgeries. Obviously there's terrible pain, suffering, and evil in the world but that has never driven me to the belief that God is evil. I'm sorry that you feel the need to jump to that conclusion.

2. There is no God. Reasoning: No evidence of God.

"It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young skeptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.” -G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

[warmonger1981]

Doubt, in presence of Being and its harmonies; skepticism, in the face of the eternal mathematics and the immutable laws of Life which make the Divinity present and visible everywhere, as the Human is known and visible by its utterances of word and act, - is this not the most foolish of superstitions, and the most inexcusable as well as the most dangerous of all credulities? Thought, we know, is not a result or consequence of the organization of matter, of the chemical or other action or reaction of its particles, like effervescence and gaseous explosions. On the contrary, the fact that Thought is manifested and realized in act human or act divine, proves the existence of an Entity, or Unity, that thinks. And the universe is the Infinite Utterance of one of an infinite number of Infinite Thoughts, which cannot but emanate from an Infinite and Thinking Source. The cause is always equal, at least, to the effect,; and matter cannot think, nor could it cause itself, or exist without cause, nor could nothing produce either forces of things; for in void nothingness no Forces can inhere. Admit a self-existent Force, and its Intelligence,or an Intelligent cause of it is admitted, and at once God is.

Moral evil is Falsehood in actions; as Falsehood is Crime in words.
Injustice is the essence of Falsehood ; and every false word is an injustice.
Injustice is the death of the Moral Being; as Falsehood is the loosen of the Intelligence.

Albert Pike

[DaGip]

I'm 24 and I've just been through 4 months of chemo + 1 month of radiation, the most recent side effect was an inability to eat solid food for 3 weeks; now it's 4:00 AM and I just left the bedside of my 10 month old niece who has spent over a month in the Pediatric Cardiac ICU after multiple heart surgeries. Obviously there's terrible pain, suffering, and evil in the world but that has never driven me to the belief that God is evil. I'm sorry that you feel the need to jump to that conclusion.

I am sorry to hear of yours and your niece's health problems, and my response is not meant to be insensitive or offensive, and since you are dualistic in your philosophy, I will respond in like.

Since your belief in God is that He/She is good and merciful (as such it seems since both you and your niece have gone through much suffering and survived), and that such belief is that God has created all things (God is all powerful, all knowing after all); then God, therefore, created the illnesses of which both your niece and yourself have suffered. To what ends? To enlighten you? To enlighten you for what?

If a dualistic God created the suffering and one of you had died from it, then what? Would you still think of it as a miracle? Perhaps it was just part of God's plan? What plan?!?

For every miracle that Cult members believe happens in the world, I will show you a crocodile ripping apart a baby gazelle. Your faith is your crutch, and I do not fault you for it, and neither do I wish you to discontinue your belief in such. I just cannot adopt a belief in a Good God that permits evil and disease and suffering to perforate the world.

If Good was indeed the intention of a Dualistic God, then God would then not permit such evil to exist; but since evil and suffering do exist, then how can your God be Good? Perhaps God only pretends to be so.