Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

The suffering argument is indeed very small and circular (like most religious arguments)

God is good!
Why is there suffering?
God is mysterious and beyond comprehension!
How do you know that God is good?
.....

One of the few priests I would willingly allow to teach any children I may have in the future:

https://www.upworthy.com/best-explanati ... an-atheist

Also, if morality is defined as "if God does it or commands it then it is good" then that is just as arbitrary and screwed up as just about anything anyone else has ever come up with. At least atheists put thought into their moral behaviour and try and find rational reasons why X or Y is good or evil. If objective morality exists separate from God, then God is simply a conduit for a greater truth that we could potentially learn without his interference. And if morality is culturally flexible, then again there is no need to have any mention of God in moral teaching. So either:

a) God defines morality - morality is arbitrary and meaningless beyond the premise "might is right"
b) God teaches morality - morality is objective and can be discovered without God
c) God is irrelevant to morality - morality is subjective and God gets in the way of proper moral judgements

[Woodruff]

ugh, haven't we had this argument before? if god exists and is as omniscient as is claimed, who are we to complain if he decides children have to die? you're putting restrictions on what is "good" and "evil" from your limited human perspective.

That's a good excuse and all, but that's really all it is. "You simply cannot understand" is never a good argument.

[john9blue]

ugh, haven't we had this argument before? if god exists and is as omniscient as is claimed, who are we to complain if he decides children have to die? you're putting restrictions on what is "good" and "evil" from your limited human perspective.

It's the only perspective I have,same as everyone else.You do realise the argument about putting restrictions on what is 'good' or 'evil',from a limited human perspective is also necessarily from a limited human perspective?

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

[waauw]

ugh, haven't we had this argument before? if god exists and is as omniscient as is claimed, who are we to complain if he decides children have to die? you're putting restrictions on what is "good" and "evil" from your limited human perspective.

It's the only perspective I have,same as everyone else.You do realise the argument about putting restrictions on what is 'good' or 'evil',from a limited human perspective is also necessarily from a limited human perspective?

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

you're being presumptuous to assume you have to be omniscient to know what 'moral' means.

[chang50]

ugh, haven't we had this argument before? if god exists and is as omniscient as is claimed, who are we to complain if he decides children have to die? you're putting restrictions on what is "good" and "evil" from your limited human perspective.

It's the only perspective I have,same as everyone else.You do realise the argument about putting restrictions on what is 'good' or 'evil',from a limited human perspective is also necessarily from a limited human perspective?

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

Never even implied that,I don't believe in omniscience period,the whole concept is inherently incoherent.The point is even those who do believe in god's omniscience employ a limited human perspective when doing so,rendering your point irrelevant.

[john9blue]

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

you're being presumptuous to assume you have to be omniscient to know what 'moral' means.

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

[chang50]

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

you're being presumptuous to assume you have to be omniscient to know what 'moral' means.

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

[chang50]

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

you're being presumptuous to assume you have to be omniscient to know what 'moral' means.

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

Imperfectly?

[waauw]

so i'm being presumptuous when i say that we aren't omniscient?

you're being presumptuous to assume you have to be omniscient to know what 'moral' means.

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

ever heard of the "extrapolation"?

[john9blue]

nope, please explain, i'm interested in hearing this earth-shattering idea.

[universalchiro]

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

Imperfectly?

2 Timothy 3:16- "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."
But mankind has rejected God and and rejected God as creator. And God Himself has said, "Mankind says, "to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me and not their face; But in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us." But where are your gods which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you. In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities are your gods,.." Jeremiah 2:27-28 Evolution is nothing new. Mankind has already been there and God will judge.

The result:
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world. His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... Therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped a served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;...God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:18-32

Miscarriages are a result of sin. For the wages of sin is death. Before the fall of mankind, there were no miscarriages. God is allowing us to choose. And most people are rejecting God and choosing sin. Most miscarriages are a result of sinful lifestyle, ie prior abortions, drug use, husband and wife physically fighting, etc. God never does anything evil, God never tempts someone, . So the evil from a miscarriage, is as a result of our own sinful activities. Even our sins can be passed down to the 3rd-4th generation. Since everything is under the sovereign control of God, He allows the consequences of our sins to carry out.

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin. And God allows this to occur. Why? We have free will. God uses all outcomes for good though. So what is meant by mankind to be evil, for those who submit to God as Lord and Savior, the result will turn out for good. Romans 8:28 "God causes all thing to work together for good tho those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ..."

[waauw]

nope, please explain, i'm interested in hearing this earth-shattering idea.

Well you are making 2 big mistakes:
1. You presume there is a universal morality, however researches point out that people have a very wide variety in opinions on what is moral and what isn't.
2. You don't have to know everything to know what moral means. People are able to judge things on their own, hence have their own opinion about morality. And on a larger scale, laws and researches can point out the moral codes of large parts of the population.

and if you don't know what extrapolation means, look it up in a dictionnary

[waauw]

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

Imperfectly?

2 Timothy 3:16- "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."
But mankind has rejected God and and rejected God as creator. And God Himself has said, "Mankind says, "to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me and not their face; But in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us." But where are your gods which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you. In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities are your gods,.." Jeremiah 2:27-28 Evolution is nothing new. Mankind has already been there and God will judge.

The result:
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world. His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... Therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped a served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;...God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:18-32

Miscarriages are a result of sin. For the wages of sin is death. Before the fall of mankind, there were no miscarriages. God is allowing us to choose. And most people are rejecting God and choosing sin. Most miscarriages are a result of sinful lifestyle, ie prior abortions, drug use, husband and wife physically fighting, etc. God never does anything evil, God never tempts someone, . So the evil from a miscarriage, is as a result of our own sinful activities. Even our sins can be passed down to the 3rd-4th generation. Since everything is under the sovereign control of God, He allows the consequences of our sins to carry out.

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin. And God allows this to occur. Why? We have free will. God uses all outcomes for good though. So what is meant by mankind to be evil, for those who submit to God as Lord and Savior, the result will turn out for good. Romans 8:28 "God causes all thing to work together for good tho those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ..."

I didn't read your entire text as I don't have time for it today. However I did read that last paragraph of yours. You say all miscarriages are a result of sin. By that definition we should see a strong correlation between the variables "sin" and "misscariage". In other words, people who do more crimes get more misscariages or people with a certain degree of sins get misscariages. So do you have any evidence supporting this statement?

[Agent 86]

Which God are we supposedly talking about? There is no god that I or any of you can give real evidence for..end of thread!!

[Woodruff]

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin.

That can only be true if you hold to the misguided and frankly evil position that sex is always a sin. Are you that misguided and evil?

[john9blue]

nope, please explain, i'm interested in hearing this earth-shattering idea.

Well you are making 2 big mistakes:
1. You presume there is a universal morality, however researches point out that people have a very wide variety in opinions on what is moral and what isn't.
2. You don't have to know everything to know what moral means. People are able to judge things on their own, hence have their own opinion about morality. And on a larger scale, laws and researches can point out the moral codes of large parts of the population.

and if you don't know what extrapolation means, look it up in a dictionnary

sounds to me like you suffer from moral relativism.

which makes me wonder why you are criticizing god for having different morals than you, if morals are entirely up to the individual.

but hey, logically consistent viewpoints are overrated, right?

[waauw]

nope, please explain, i'm interested in hearing this earth-shattering idea.

Well you are making 2 big mistakes:
1. You presume there is a universal morality, however researches point out that people have a very wide variety in opinions on what is moral and what isn't.
2. You don't have to know everything to know what moral means. People are able to judge things on their own, hence have their own opinion about morality. And on a larger scale, laws and researches can point out the moral codes of large parts of the population.

and if you don't know what extrapolation means, look it up in a dictionnary

sounds to me like you suffer from moral relativism.

which makes me wonder why you are criticizing god for having different morals than you, if morals are entirely up to the individual.

but hey, logically consistent viewpoints are overrated, right?

I'm criticizing the fact that you are making it sound like one has to be omniscient to know the difference between good and evil(as if it were universal, rather than individualist).

And I'm not a moral relativist. I accept the fact that some moral laws have to be established in society. But from an objective point of view there is no universal moral law as you suggest. Morality has to be debated.

EDIT: what I meant with my last paragraph is that I'm not a normative moral relativist, I am actually a descriptive and meta-ethical moral relativist

[tzor]

And I'm not a moral relativist. I accept the fact that some moral laws have to be established in society. But from an objective point of view there is no universal moral law as you suggest. Morality has to be debated.

I would argue that there is, in fact, a "universal moral law" that is derived as the optimal solution to the moral equation. Not knowing the solution (or even the equation) means this is sort of like throwing rocks into space without knowing the law of gravity and trying to get one to go into a geosynchronous orbit.

[waauw]

And I'm not a moral relativist. I accept the fact that some moral laws have to be established in society. But from an objective point of view there is no universal moral law as you suggest. Morality has to be debated.

I would argue that there is, in fact, a "universal moral law" that is derived as the optimal solution to the moral equation. Not knowing the solution (or even the equation) means this is sort of like throwing rocks into space without knowing the law of gravity and trying to get one to go into a geosynchronous orbit.

I think I understand the problem here. There might be a slight difference in interpretation of the word "universal". I refer to the fact that mr. John9Blue here arrogantly states that only the opinion of his so-called deity is right and that morality can not be subject to debate(because according to him humans are unable to understand)
In other words he thinks that humanity has no right to decide for itself what is good and what is bad, that we aren't allowed to create our own moral laws according to democracy. He thinks of morality as something unquestionable.

Also comparing physics to morality is a bad comparison in my opinion. The laws of physics can be proven and used in mathematical equations. Morality on the other hand can only be debated. There is no objective morality as it is subjective by nature.

[waauw]

Yes, the fossilized objects are on top of mountains but should they be there in the first place? Even after millions of years of the earth rising into the sky. If we do a thought experiment and imagine that all of the fossilized see life on top of the mountains began in some body of ocean, where they were all killed by some catastrophe and afterwards the ocean floor rose to the surface level, surely by then it would have been replaced by perhaps coral reefs that took millions of years to form as the ocean floor rose to the surface. Millions of years of tidal waves activity alone would have swept the ocean floor burying all signs of any dead/fossilized items as the ocean floor surfaced to sea level.

1. water can recede very rapidly
2. the ocean easily burries everything(look at all the ships at the bottom of the seas burried under piles of sand.

clams burried in sea ==> pushed up due to continental drift ==> erosion uncovers the clams who are by now fossilized

There is a difference, at least in my mind, between a few thousand years of earthquake activity and several millions of years of earthquake activity. And while earthquakes do sometime unearth things as it did in the case of Noah's ark where it was already visible but an earthquake made it even more obvious because the surrounding mound of earth around the Ark was flattened more towards ground level and not that it actually pushed the ark up. But those are rare circumstances of an earthquake actually revealing something. More often than not, an earthquake opens up the ground creating gnashes in the earth, and even creates sink holes where Objects fall into it and/or are buried and put out of sight.



This sink hole was not made with a giant drill from the sky but a huge boulder just beneath the surface was gradually moved down by seismic activity (earthquakes) until the day when it just all collapsed and opened up. The Boulder was moved down by the fact that it was heavier than the surrounding earth. As would fossilized items be as well. Nothing was pushed up through here thus earthquakes tend to bury things. (I am assuming a boulder because of the perfect roundness of the wall of the sinkhole. But I was not there to see it actually happen. lol.)

Not to mention that as something becomes fossilized it picks up weight because it is essentially turning into a rock. So the Ocean floor is rising over millions of years to sea level and lifting up with it something that is heavier then itself? I don't see that happening. Not over millions of years. More likely the earth would rise at the rate of inches per year leaving behind the more heavier sediments in the oceans so that the lightest materials are what we see rising into the sky with the landscape and not the heavier stone fossilized items.

Maybe you can address that for me?

You do realise that purely because something is heavier, doesn't mean it'll fall even after millions of years. It's not as easy to fall down through a solid as it is through a liquid or a gas. Also you keep forgetting the fact that earthquakes can also push objects up.

http://cera.govt.nz/photo/penny-carnaby-not-tripping-over-an-earthquake-raised-footpath-protrusion

If all denser objects would be deeper in the earth after millions of years, we'd never have found gold near the surface of the earth and especially not in rivers. As gold is denser than the different types of soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
http://www.agriinfo.in/?page=topic&superid=4&topicid=271

[Viceroy63]

how is one supposed to know what should be done without having all the facts?

Imperfectly?

2 Timothy 3:16- "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."
But mankind has rejected God and and rejected God as creator. And God Himself has said, "Mankind says, "to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me and not their face; But in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us." But where are your gods which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you. In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities are your gods,.." Jeremiah 2:27-28 Evolution is nothing new. Mankind has already been there and God will judge.

The result:
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world. His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... Therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped a served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;...God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:18-32

Miscarriages are a result of sin. For the wages of sin is death. Before the fall of mankind, there were no miscarriages. God is allowing us to choose. And most people are rejecting God and choosing sin. Most miscarriages are a result of sinful lifestyle, ie prior abortions, drug use, husband and wife physically fighting, etc. God never does anything evil, God never tempts someone, . So the evil from a miscarriage, is as a result of our own sinful activities. Even our sins can be passed down to the 3rd-4th generation. Since everything is under the sovereign control of God, He allows the consequences of our sins to carry out.

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin. And God allows this to occur. Why? We have free will. God uses all outcomes for good though. So what is meant by mankind to be evil, for those who submit to God as Lord and Savior, the result will turn out for good. Romans 8:28 "God causes all thing to work together for good tho those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ..."

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin.

That can only be true if you hold to the misguided and frankly evil position that sex is always a sin. Are you that misguided and evil?

Wooddruff; You are obviously missing the point to that answer and you are putting words into Universal's comments that were never implied except by you alone, even as you insult him. Why are you doing that?

This does not encourage topic debate. In case you are not aware of what it is that you are doing?

I believe that you still do not understand the premise of how sin equates to death and need to understand this subject further, before you can participate in that discussion. Otherwise it is impossible to discuss something without a common point of reference.

In other words, You really need to understand what they are talking about before you make you thoughts known and reveal to everyone, that you are really the one that is evil and misguided.

[john9blue]

I think I understand the problem here. There might be a slight difference in interpretation of the word "universal". I refer to the fact that mr. John9Blue here arrogantly states that only the opinion of his so-called deity is right and that morality can not be subject to debate(because according to him humans are unable to understand)
In other words he thinks that humanity has no right to decide for itself what is good and what is bad, that we aren't allowed to create our own moral laws according to democracy. He thinks of morality as something unquestionable.

Also comparing physics to morality is a bad comparison in my opinion. The laws of physics can be proven and used in mathematical equations. Morality on the other hand can only be debated. There is no objective morality as it is subjective by nature.

how did you fit all those baseless assertions into such a short amount of text?

[waauw]

I think I understand the problem here. There might be a slight difference in interpretation of the word "universal". I refer to the fact that mr. John9Blue here arrogantly states that only the opinion of his so-called deity is right and that morality can not be subject to debate(because according to him humans are unable to understand)
In other words he thinks that humanity has no right to decide for itself what is good and what is bad, that we aren't allowed to create our own moral laws according to democracy. He thinks of morality as something unquestionable.

Also comparing physics to morality is a bad comparison in my opinion. The laws of physics can be proven and used in mathematical equations. Morality on the other hand can only be debated. There is no objective morality as it is subjective by nature.

how did you fit all those baseless assertions into such a short amount of text?

How did you fit all that ego in that little brain?(if you want to start a trollwar, than troll on!!!)

[Woodruff]

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin.

That can only be true if you hold to the misguided and frankly evil position that sex is always a sin. Are you that misguided and evil?

Wooddruff; You are obviously missing the point to that answer and you are putting words into Universal's comments that were never implied except by you alone, even as you insult him. Why are you doing that?

I did nothing of the sort. Universalchiro stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that "all miscarriages are a result of sin". Since some miscarriages happen naturally following only the act of sex, the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that all sex must be sin.

This does not encourage topic debate.

Quite frankly, very little that you have said in this entire long-ass thread has encouraged topic debate. You've made it painfully clear that you're not actually interested in discussing the situation. You just want to have your way while ignoring the points brought against you.

I have yet to see ANY evidence for God posted in this thread, so I'm hardly off-topic any more than you are.

I believe that you still do not understand the premise of how sin equates to death and need to understand this subject further, before you can participate in that discussion. Otherwise it is impossible to discuss something without a common point of reference.

I don't believe in the concept of sin.

[universalchiro]

The answer: All miscarriages are a result of sin.

That can only be true if you hold to the misguided and frankly evil position that sex is always a sin. Are you that misguided and evil?

Has woodruff accurately stated God's view on sex? Does God think all sex is sinful?
Proverbs 5:15 (setting: King Solomon inspired with the words & wisdom of God: warns to avoid adultery, verses 1-14. Then says" drink water from your own cistern and fresh water from your own well should your springs be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be yours alone and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breast satisfy you at all times. Be exhilerated always with her love. For why should you my son be exhilarating with an adulteress & embrace the bosom of a foreigner. For the ways of a man or before the eyes of the LORD and he watches all his path". This verse is a tiny fraction of the erotic yet veiled sexual passion in the Bible. Yes God tells us to drink in our own wife, this is literally her fluids and figurately her love. The fountain in this section is the Penis & the springs are our sperm. God is saying put your springs only in your wife, not other women. The book Song of Solomon is 8 chapters of veiled erotic poetry of a husband & his wife. So strong is the passion and eroticism that it will make a grown man blush.

Does a God that created the penis & the hormones for desire of a woman think all sex is sinful & evil? Does a God that instructs a husband to drink in his wife until intoxicated thinks sex is sinful and evil? Does a God that placed breast on a woman & instructs the husband to caress his wife like a tender doe, think sex is evil? Does a God that creates mankind naked & says be fruitful & multiply, think sex is evil? Does a God that has an entire book dedicated to the veiled erotic passion of honeymoon conception think sex is evil?

No.

God created sex. God created the enjoyment of sex. But sex outside of marriage is self love, is putting selfish desire before God's command of marriage and this is improper love,. Equal to greed, immorality, love of self which equals idolatry. Colossians 3:5