God?

[Eviora]

Well, the idea is generally both. The idea is that God defines right and wrong and right and wrong define God. It's an unending loop, kinda like this discussion is bound to become

That would be circular reasoning, in which case neither thing is actually defined.

Generally, even if there exists some god, I see no reason to view their opinion of morality as "objective". I'd view it as merely the opinion of a powerful being. Without some sort of extra reasoning, it's special pleading to call one being's view of right and wrong objective.

[Chevaleresse]

It'd be interesting to have a thread that discussed life philosophies rather than simply the subset of such called religions. I'm not sure if discussing such would be going off topic here, but I will give a short opinion summing up my opinion on god/God.

I, personally, think the existence of a deity is unlikely. I also think that if a deity exists, then no modern religion has gotten their desires or commands quite correct, as every single one has been muddled and distorted over time and there are so many with equal claims to legitimacy. I don't see the idea of multiple gods as absurd; in fact I find it far more likely than a single god who simply chooses to torment some and uplift others. I consider myself somewhat of an antitheist, though; in my opinion religion has had an overall harmful influence on humanity as a whole.

[Etesian]

I think religion is man-made and a reflection of what we want to believe in, and it has lots of flaws that are overlooked. As with anything man-made, it has its faults, and I think it's brought a lot of pain and suffering to this world along with its positives. I doubt the gods most religions follow exist as we know them. That being said, I also don't think that means there isn't some kind of creator.

^^That. I recall hearing somewhere that there's been belief in over 2500 deities throughout human history, including some as simple as a god who's in charge of nothing but rain. As science has been advancing, the number of things attributed to deities has been steadily decreasing. So if I had to pick a side right here and now, I'd pick atheist. (Even if I were to believe in god, I still agree with Sunbean. I'd try finding my own "relationship" with god instead of throwing in with an existing religion)

But if I don't have to "pick a side", I'd say that it doesn't matter, because it would change nothing for me. It would change my life in no way. I'm just living my life and I'm doing so based on my opinions/beliefs/philosophies, the way I feel I should and that's all there is to it. It's weird to be saying this about myself, but I'm a nice guy, I lead a good life. And I do so because I'm like that, not because I'm "working for a ticket to heaven". If that means I'm boned for the afterlife, despite leading a good life, just for not being religious, well...fuck.

As for others, they can do believe anything they want to as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't affect me in any way, so no reason to mess with that.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Etesian

[doombotmecha]

I used to be an atheist, but then the whole amazing atheist debacle came up.

so now I'm agnostic.

for me, religion is flawed because even if a given god and their heralds are Perfect, the people who pass down The Word of that god are not, and will inevitably pervert The Word to reflect their own previous biases.

As a result, I have my own set of ideals that I try to live up to, that contain the same essential points as most other religions, namely "don't be a jerk" in all of its various forms and formulations.

my attitude towards other religions is the same as Etesian's. I don't hate people for things that don't affect me.

[laggless01]

@ Laggless - I would post that since we're discussing the topic of God - that it's allowable until Amentura (-Unknown-) says otherwise. Alternatively, you can send me a private message with your response.

If you say so. I'll post them here, in case someone else would be interested, too. I was a bit afraid that, for a topic that merely posts what you believe in, I might be seen as an offender on a very personal level. I do not wish to do so, so to anyone who reads this: I'm sorry if I offended you.

So, I'll go through your arguments one by one.

First, I said I deemed the so-called evidence to be contradictive or insufficient. I base this on the Bible, since it's the only tangible thing there is (with a grain of salt, explanation further down the road). When reading the Bible closely, what's told on its pages regularly self-contradicts. For example: God goes on a mass-murder spree multiple times (Moses and Sodom&Gomorra being the best known), but states that murder is bad (10 commandments). However, God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. Hence: contradiction. It doesn't matter whether the killed people were all 'sinners', he murdered people en masse, even infants. Or the many times he ordered or caused the mass murders to happen.

• The Bible is littered with it, even to the core of its 'values', hence it can't be taken as proof. It was written by people almost 2000 years ago, over a span of 50 years or so after the proclaimed events, and translated at least twice under heavy bias. It is an image of how people thought the world works, with the little understanding they had, and then also being taken through an non-impartial filter.
• Even if Jesus is the son of God, and he actually performed genuine miracles, and God had a singular message, what we have is so distorted that it can't be taken as a factual representation of history, nor its message be, with any meaningful certainty, be taken as being the genuine word of God. So how does He find it justifiable to expect from me that I would find this 'evidence' worthy of trust?
• AND EVEN IF everything in the Bible (not (yet) being proven wrong through science, like the nature of God) would be 100% genuinely true, what does it depict? Unlike what it says, it depicts a God that is flawed, perhaps even more so than the people it created. Think about it; as an example: you could take the Adam and Eve-parable and see it as the actings of an overprotective father, hiding critical information from its children (which we get through growing up), and punishes them (too) severely for looking for answers on their own, even going as far as banishing them from their home. Would you say this is a good father if you met such a person in real life? Then why do you follow such a person as your saviour?

In short, saying I choose to send myself to hell, or I choose to to follow the notions of the Bible, is the same as saying I choose not to be ignorant to the many hamartias of the Word I would have to accept. Demanding me to accept it nevertheless in order to be saved would be unfair.

And he didn't give everyone an alternative. I don't think people in Indonesia at that time were aware of Yahweh's teachings for example, nor does everyone nowadays. How do you expect everyone to do the right thing if you don't contact everyone properly?

Second, morality is subjecive, although it indeed wouldn't be if your described God exists.

I don't think Richard Dawkins has his reasons to find polygamy detestable, but do I have to remind you polygamy is the major form of relationship (in a nin-platonic sense) described in the Bible (mainly Old Testament, though)? People then didn't think it was detestable, so saying Richard Dawkins does now actually substantiates the fact that morality is subjective.

On top of that, knowing God allowed polygamy, could you give me a non-divine argument why polygamy is detestable, if all parties involved have given unforced and informed consent?

To further complement my argument, I give to you the famous 'Train Dilemma'. Link here:

Whatever your choice, it will be dependant upon your own morals. Those morals aren't necessarily the same as those of someone else. You can't claim there is one and exactly one correct answer. That's why what we decribe as 'morally good' is subjective.

What you perceive as 'morality being more objective than we think' is attributed to that people, almost generally, tend to value their lives (due to reproductive reasons, although elaborating on that would drive me off topic...). If you work from that, you can derive a decent amount of solid morals that you and I live by.

But even that can be removed, for example under the condition that Heaven (or simply a better place after life) exists. Simple examples would be the convictions of religious suicide bombers, or suicidal cults. A more elaborate example: One could be praised for executing mass murder, because he/she/xe 'brought thoose people to a better place'. Even if murder is wrong, he/she/xe could call himself/herself/xerself someone who sacrificed his own fate, so others could be better off. This wouldn't fare in our society, because people just really hope Heaven exists.

Yes, Jesus was a political activist if we follow the Book, I'm not denying that. Neither am I saying what his actions in the Book were commendable. His whole point was that the laws weren't always right in the first place*. That doesn't take away his mindset was affected by the society he was in, if again, we follow the Book.

Indeed, he had the perfect opportunity to condemn slavery, in Luke 12, specifically 'Watchfullness'(starting Luke 12:35). Instead, he didn't, as you can read in Luke 12:41-40 in that part. If slavery concerned him that much, he would have spoke out to his apostles.

I wasn't correct on Jesus condoning slavery, I give you that. He was perhaps more indifferent to it. Still, accepting without position is not a correct position if slavery is morally wrong. And if they were anti-slavery, then why wasn't there even a single statement by anyone, not even in close circles (not sure that's a correct translation), even vaguely denouncing the issue, not even by Jesus Christ?

That's what I think of it.

*I never said laws were always right. If they were, they wouldn't change over time. Yet, they are supposed to (roughly) allign with what we think is (morally) just.

EDIT: To be frank, I follow Etesian's stance on religion. I think religion shouldn't be such a major factor in our lives. I am happy to interact with anyone, as long as they're not being a dick on purpose. That I'm so passionate about it is because it deeply affected me, and it is still is deeply affecting the world today.

(Edit2: Yes, I'm aware I accidentally double-posted. I already reported it. Sorry!)

Edited September 1, 2015 by laggless01

[Chase]

Laggless, with all due respect, you didn't follow my argument at all. I'll explain after I get past the first dilemma that was brought up by Hiss - known as the Euthyphro Dilemma.

The question Hiss asked was essentially "Is good only good because God approves it?, or does God approve it because it is good?"

This is trap question that many non-theists like to use in order to force the theist to either make morality arbitrary or indicate that good exists outside of God. Now, allow me to start by formulating a rebuttal that does neither.

Premise 1: If there is a maximally great being, that being must be omnibenevolent (all good.)

Premise 2: There must be a maximally great being.

Conclusion: Therefore, said being MUST be omnibenevolent.

How does this put aside Euthyphro's Dilemma? God's nature is then made necessary and not a result of his approved moral values and duties in order to be the maximally great being. Because God -must- be good (not that he just -is- good), everything that he approves of must be good because all good is His very nature. This means that there can be no good that isn't applicable to God, because due to necessity, it's who He is.

With half the dilemma solved, we now have to look at the first part of the question as it could be now argued that it was avoided. Is good only good because God approves it?

If God is the maximally great being - He doesn't have choice to be anything -BUT- good, according to the argument posited above. Here's another.

Premise 1: God is by definition, a maximally great being.

Premise 2: A maximally great being -MUST- be metaphysically necessary and morally perfect.

Premise 3: If a maximally great being -MUST- be metaphysically necessary - the being -MUST- exist in all possible worlds.

Premise 4: Some -or- all moral values are -NOT- contingent.

Conclusion (A): By premises 1, 3, and 4, God must have the same moral character on all possible worlds.

Conclusion B - Therefore, God's nature is good not because He happens to be, nor His involvement with "external" goodness, but because he -MUST- be good in order to be a maximally great being who is morally perfect and existent in all possible worlds.

Long story short, the necessity of God's nature being good in order for Him to be God makes God Good, and because God -has- to be good (not just is) the things He wills and approves are God because they reflect his necessary nature.

Here's the final straw here - taking his nature - that is necessary in order for God to be who He is - into account. God wills something because He -is- good, and something is right because God -wills- it.

Laggless, you've got a lot to refute too. I just want to get some water first..

[Eviora]

I could claim that a maximally great being must have a greater mass than anything else. Except in a very particular context, "great" is a fairly vague word. I don't know what "maximally great" means at all. Further, both of those arguments stuff all the non-trivial facts into the premises and then just use rudimentary logic in the conclusions.

[Chase]

1. A "maximally great" being is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect (or all powerful, all knowing, and all good.)

2. I didn't think I was debating theologians or philosophers such as myself who make this kind of stuff their very livelihood but people who surf the internet and form their own ideas based off of what suits them best. As such, I have kept things basic so as to hold discourse with the common individual and tried not throw a slew of terms people wouldn't understand into my argument. As for using non-trivial facts, would you rather me try to defend my argument with trivial ones and lies? No. That would be a great waste of everyone's time.

Great (adj.) - of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.

MAXIMALLY Great then - would be indicative of a being that is of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above everything else that is existent.

[Eviora]

The trouble is, I disagree that the non-trivial statements you made are true statements. I don't believe a maximally great being exists at all. I also disagree that a god necessarily must be what you call "maximally great". Can you prove your premises?

[Chase]

I'd actually like to sit down and see you prove yours regarding the premises above. The burden of proof falls on the believer, no matter what the belief is. I've argued on behalf of an existent God and made a concerted effort in explaining away a common dilemma that is used to favor the view that there isn't an existent God.

I can tell you that a maximally great being must be all good because humanity itself is capable of being "mostly" good. In order for God to logically be maximally greater than the mostly good human being, God must be completely good.

Your argument then, would have to be that there could a God that is of equal or less greatness to the human being - and that God must be existent and not hypothetical.

The atheist often doesn't take the steps needed to defend their own viewpoint. They just go as far as to discredit a theist's. Can you prove that wrong?

Also, allow me to posit a counter dilemma here. What is the best explanation for Jesus' body having remained missing? Those of you that are able to read the thread where I proved the historicity of Jesus up to his specific Crucifixion know that He was actually crucified without having to even open the Bible at all. Recall the Apostle Paul in my first post on this topic. Give me the best explanation that trumps Jesus' ascension - and my faith and my efforts in this thread are in vain.

[Hiss13]

The trouble is, I disagree that the non-trivial statements you made are true statements. I don't believe a maximally great being exists at all. I also disagree that a god necessarily must be what you call "maximally great". Can you prove your premises?

The main issue is that my entire question is that it is done under the assumption that God exists. So, yeah. The two initial premises work under the question that was asked.

Edit: Actually…now that I think about it…ugh…I opened up way too much of a can of worms here…I need time to think on this…serves me right for not being that good a debater, I guess. XP

That being said…the Euthyphro Dilemma, huh…never knew that question was actually given a specific name…I should take a philosophy class at some point...

Edited September 2, 2015 by Hiss13

[Eviora]

To clarify, I'm not claiming your premises are false, I'm saying I'm not convinced they're true. I haven't particularly tried to argue in favor of either conclusion, I'm just poking at other people's arguments. =p

[Chase]

Thank you, Hiss, I appreciate your understanding as to how the arguments should be viewed. I would be happy to discuss things under the assumption that God doesn't exist as soon as it's adequately defended. I'm not trying to convert everyone but the discourse had indeed shifted to me putting up or shutting up. Because I do hold a strong belief on the matter - I have opted to put up. Now I do believe - if there is anyone out there not named Guant (because both of us came to our stalemate already and we don't need to go to war again.) it is the devout non-theists' turn to provide a counter. Until then, I don't wish to field anymore attacks outside of the one I promised Laggless earlier.

[Hiss13]

Nah. That's fine. I won't push the field of the question and discuss under the assumption that god doesn't exist. I'll concede defeat in this little debate here~

I know when I've lost.

Maybe I'll come back to debate again some day when I get better at debating on this topic but frankly, this ain't a topic I'm passionate about so, yeah.

[Lil' Baby Rupe]

Ideas on God and the creation of the universe are always changing for me. I grew up in a family that was loosely religious, my dad was catholic and my mum was christian and i occasionally went to sunday church with an older sister. I believed in this religion simply because i was brought up with it, the same way a primary school child learns maths because they learn it from school, it was just life. I wasn't told to question what i was taught, from religion to maths.(I should say here my mother was adamant that I should be the one to make my own decision on my religion while i was growing up, not someone else, but i was still taught these views through church and my primary/lower school)

In my teen years I started questioning my religion and why i believed in it, and why other people would do the same.

I no longer believe in any organised religion. The same way a Hindu wouldn't believe in the Christian Faith, or a Catholic wouldnt believe in the Muslim faith(although a quote comes to mind right now thats something like "religions are all strands of the same rug, just different colours" - someone that isnt me).

I have plans to re-read the bible as well as other religious texts such as the Qur'an, not so I can follow these religions but just so I can understand their followers better.

For me, I don't need a god or a religion to do the right thing(...most of the time), and don't really like the threat of an eternity of flames as a way to reinforce this.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents into this, since the community seems to be.(didn't mean any hate if any of my comment came across that way)

[Eviora]

Basically, I'm a weak atheist, which means I don't believe in any gods, but I'm also not convinced that no gods exist. That's why I don't argue that there is no god. I would argue that there are no "maximally great" beings, but I suspect that would just devolve into arguing about what "benevolence" is, and I can't say I'm terribly interested in that.

[laggless01]

@Hilda Please, do get your glass of water. I need it too (And perhaps my night's sleep, too...)
I do look forward to what arguments you'll give me. Please don't shut up. I like the discourse you're giving, only by having said discourse I have something to affirm/revise my view. Your replies are truly appreciated.

I'm not sure what the Euthyphro dilemma has to do with my previous posts, but since you brought it up, I guess I'll dig into it.

I'd actually like to sit down and see you prove yours regarding the premises above. The burden of proof falls on the believer, no matter what the belief is. I've argued on behalf of an existent God and made a concerted effort in explaining away a common dilemma that is used to favor the view that there isn't an existent God.

I can tell you that a maximally great being must be all good because humanity itself is capable of being "mostly" good. In order for God to logically be maximally greater than the mostly good human being, God must be completely good.

Your argument then, would have to be that there could a God that is of equal or less greatness to the human being - and that God must be existent and not hypothetical.

The atheist often doesn't take the steps needed to defend their own viewpoint. They just go as far as to discredit a theist's. Can you prove that wrong?

Ah, I see what you mean. Although my argument of God not being that good was only there under the circumstance that all what the Bible says about God is completely true.
I wasn't arguing in that segment that God exists, rather I argued that if God would exist, it wouldn't quite resemble what's in the Bible due to its contradictory content, or if it did, it wouldn't be an omnibenevolent one, not even very good either.

Your argument against the Euthyphro dilemma is similar to something I saw in history class in high school, years ago. Ever heard of Anselm's ontological arguments? He tried to prove the existence of god through logic, in a similar way you argue that that dilemma is incorrect.
The thing is, his arguments weren't sound because there was always at least one premise/consequence that was flawed. Yours has those, too.

Omniscience and Omnipotence are both impossible traits, and it's easy to prove. And morally perfect is impossible, too, just look at the Train Dilemma. In that particular case, you can't claim you're omnibenevolent, because you will carry (a little) responsibility for the death(s) of your choice.
If those are the required traits of a maximally great being, then such a being can't exist. Hence that argument is invalid.

You could've just stated your conclusion of that dilemma to give a solution that fell out of it. That would've shown the false dichotomy of the dilemma.
But this doesn't take away from my argument: God 'willed' mass murder because he is good, which makes mass murder good, which it isn't, because God says murder is bad. That's the contradiction I was pointing out.

Oh, and your argument about God needing to be completely good through being maximally greater is flawed. You can show it by abstracting the problem in a mathematical manner. I'll put it in the spoiler below.

Represent humans on a graph: the X-axis being the humans (they are countable, you can just say human1 = 1, human2 = 2 etc.), and their total benevolence as their Y-value (positive = benevolent, negative = non-benevolent). Now, you state God has to be completely good (or infinitely good) in order to be more benevolent than any human being. In mathematical terms, you say Y(God) = infinity in order for Y(God)>Ymax(human) to be true. You can split this in two cases: Ymax(human) not being infinite, and Ymax(human) being infinite.
If Ymax(human) isn't infinite, Y(God) doesn't have to be either. In fact, there are an infinite amount of values Y(God) coould have in order to be greater, meaning Y(God) doesn't have to be infinite.
If Ymax(human) is infinite, then there's no way of telling God is better than the best of humans, since you can't make a relation between these two values, since it's the same kind of infinity. We also know humans aren't omnibenevolent, so this case is a dead end just by looking at the condition alone.
Combine the two, and you end up in a result that being better than any human doesn't guarantee omnibenevolence.

I'ts 4 o'clock here in the morning, so I'll have to cease for a while. I'll be back...uh...today.

Edited September 2, 2015 by laggless01

[-Unknown-]

Laggless01

.1. Allow me to serve the situation of damnation to you in a way that is not viewed by non-believers. Yes,if you continue to denounce God based on evidences you deem are contradictory or insufficient, you are indeed choosing to spend eternity apart from Him. Notice the way I structured this scenario as a choice the damned make rather than the judgement God will make. I word it this way because I believe that everyone is a part of the "elect" and that on God's end, His choice was to pursue an eternity with you to the point where he came down as a lowly man and died an excruciating death to keep that possibility alive for you. By believing in Christ, you are essentially putting CHRIST on the stand under your name in the courtroom instead of yourself. Christ lived a completely sinless life - therefore the judgement for you - as he is your token - is that Christ ascends, and therefore so do you because you believed in Him. By not proclaiming Jesus as Lord of your life, you make the decision to put YOURSELF on the stand. No human outside of Christ lives a sinless life, and the wages of sin is Death - therefore, your choice is to die and spend the afterlife away from Him - and that is perceived as Hell.

My point there is this, God came down and gave everyone an alternative - and it's on us to make the choice. Your parents seemingly have made their choices and when their time comes they won't know the pain of you being damned. If they die before you do - they won't know the pain at all and will have died with hope for you.

2. Morals are most definitely NOT subjective if we're making the assumption God exists as Jesus proclaims - although your angle is significantly more substantial than most who come up to me with that argument. Even Richard Dawkins - the kingpin of New Atheism - lives his life (against his very held beliefs no less!) in a manner that suggests morality is objective as he is quoted on detesting polygamy and affairs, which is something that under a subjective moral worldview would not need criticism as it's not 'immoral' in that sense.You mention Christ's view on Slavery. Allow me to shed some historical light on the situation here. Firstly, Israel was under the Roman Empire at the time and MOST Israelites were used to the confines of slavery as being a normal occurrence with THEM usually being the slaves in the slave-master relationship. Jesus should first not be seen as a political activist - in fact - He even goes as far as to tell the Pharisees trying to trip him on paying taxes to Caesar by saying "Give to God what is God, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Knowing this, we can begin to understand that Jesus may not have been concerned with freeing slaves so much as the slave-master scenarios in his parables reaching the ears of those He spoke to. Allow me to propose another verse to you in order to show you why Jesus may hold no concern or even support the idea of slavery and yet still defend moral objectivity.

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” - Matthew 19: 3-9

Here, we find out from Christ that not all laws were MORAL laws and that this one on divorce is provisionary because of the human condition. If we're assuming Christ is God as we should be in this scenario, we have God explaining to these Pharisees that the divorce laws were there because the people's hearts were hard. Apply this to Slavery at the time. Jesus is a an Israelite and thus doesn't have the authority in his manly sense to challenge the Roman Empire over the issue. Instead, He focuses on the slaves themselves - and urges them to take the chances at freedom that they are given and advocating faithful service to their masters as they faithfully serve the Lord by parallel comparison. The apostle Paul then gives those in captivity these words - so it would seem the early Christians were more accepting without position of the situation than they were supportive of it:

"Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it. But if you are able to gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ."

1. Morality is most likely more objective than the world would have us think.

2. Jesus may only have been accepting and not supportive of slavery.

3. Not all laws pertain to morality.

4. It's more likely the early church was anti-slavery than it was for it - and wasn't in the position to make a political statement about the issue.

NOTE: I done know how to make a spoiler view, so I duel apologize for that.

1. I believe that depends on countless things that would take too long and probably lose a lot of peoples attention to go through, such as "Cosmic Laws" etc

2. I never knew that a god that is the so-called very apitamy of Good would allow something to go wrong not do anyting about, Unless he's trying not to a against something like a rule or law possibly above him (possibly meaning another being or thing greater than him) that would cause him problems but then again isn't god the so called most if so can't he make things a certain way (for make of understanding and/or/ comprehension) wanting like that and not really moving a thought? If there were such things as "he's trying to teach or tell me something or he "Trialing" me (wow quotes in quotes (lol))" then why would a god supposedly need to do that in the first place why couldn't he make a world that he wanted in the first place Im mean the bible already tells you that he a supposedly perfect god failed by literally telling you how "One day he will make a perfect world..." that was in Genesis to Exodus meaning Genesis: so called the first people Adam and Eve partook of the apple doesn't matter who or how many he fucked up by making "imperfect beings" in a world that was supposedly perfect and by even having a tree that was there perfectly ware of shit he did he purposely made them still and he supposedly purposely made them with the desire they had already had if you want say well the Bible does tell you (not directly) that all of "evil"/sin was basically in/of/or in itself that tree. Now it doesn't have to be evil but you get the point of basically that treat "bad" things about it and ironically he said that it was **his** tree ,*pause and think about that*, and a fucking snake called the devil later on was in that fucking tree wait a minute aside from the fucking devil being in that tree why is he there in the first place what kind of fucking (dumbs) god makes a world that he suppossedly wants perfectly. I would say more but I there is so much, even excluding Christian god going to Christianity alone will be a novel and/or series in itself I have been christian and went Deep Web like deep into it and it was there that I found out some truths and left it.As far as slaves no god that actually the imagery of christianity would make there god look like would allow such to be and or come unless something above it prevented it.

3. Morailty: (for the sake of understanding) The way an entity sees something aligned with amongst what it also sees as so so called "seperations" . (also for the sake of what perceive to be "human" understanding) What an individual/entity sees as good or evil. Laws are there to decide what is good or evil based upon what the creator/creator of those laws see. So virtually all laws are fundamentally made off of/from morality (Using logic that the majority choose to "Understand" and/or"Follow"

4. America was By Catholics and is Run by Christians last time i checked. That Includes coming up with the Idea of slavery and Allowing it. The reason why It was changed is because of the current fact that Christian have different points of view on "earthly" things

I forgot to say this in the beggining of my comment.

NOTE:I'm not taking sides but will challenge the side that I think is "doing better" for a lack of much better at the current time.

As far as my belief of wether god(s) exist or not I USUAL won't tell but Due to I so called find as to be "Recompense" I'll answer If request due to fact that pretty much everyone shared on my topic just know it might be long If I decide to go into details.

Ideas on God and the creation of the universe are always changing for me. I grew up in a family that was loosely religious, my dad was catholic and my mum was christian and i occasionally went to sunday church with an older sister. I believed in this religion simply because i was brought up with it, the same way a primary school child learns maths because they learn it from school, it was just life. I wasn't told to question what i was taught, from religion to maths.(I should say here my mother was adamant that I should be the one to make my own decision on my religion while i was growing up, not someone else, but i was still taught these views through church and my primary/lower school)

In my teen years I started questioning my religion and why i believed in it, and why other people would do the same.

I no longer believe in any organised religion. The same way a Hindu wouldn't believe in the Christian Faith, or a Catholic wouldnt believe in the Muslim faith(although a quote comes to mind right now thats something like "religions are all strands of the same rug, just different colours" - someone that isnt me).

I have plans to re-read the bible as well as other religious texts such as the Qur'an, not so I can follow these religions but just so I can understand their followers better.

For me, I don't need a god or a religion to do the right thing(...most of the time), and don't really like the threat of an eternity of flames as a way to reinforce this.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents into this, since the community seems to be.(didn't mean any hate if any of my comment came across that way)

I'll say it like this:

You want change. (advanced translation: I thought of the same thing as well I duel like that you doing such for yourself please don't be discouraged share your experiences if that is what you choose, for I would like to hear about your experience.)

It'd be interesting to have a thread that discussed life philosophies rather than simply the subset of such called religions. I'm not sure if discussing such would be going off topic here, but I will give a short opinion summing up my opinion on god/God.

I, personally, think the existence of a deity is unlikely. I also think that if a deity exists, then no modern religion has gotten their desires or commands quite correct, as every single one has been muddled and distorted over time and there are so many with equal claims to legitimacy. I don't see the idea of multiple gods as absurd; in fact I find it far more likely than a single god who simply chooses to torment some and uplift others. I consider myself somewhat of an antitheist, though; in my opinion religion has had an overall harmful influence on humanity as a whole.

Yeah that was the point but out my ignorance I pretty assumed that religion was a type of philosphy which it "is" or "can be" but it is group based and not individualistic so as some type of gratitude I will make topi no that if you already haven't because that too is something that I want to know about people or one of "endless" things

[Chase]

The first idea, looking at both of your responses Laggless, that I do want to impart with you is the idea of shifting covenants. A covenant is a divine agreement between God and Man, and God made several of these agreements with various men, starting with Adam and finally giving us the New Covenant under Christ Himself.

The covenant of works, also called the covenant of life, was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all mankind as a federal head. (Romans 5: 12-21) It promised life for perfect and perpetual obedience and death for disobedience. Adam, and all mankind in Adam, broke the covenant, thus standing condemned. The covenant of works continues to function after the fall as the moral law.

The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who have faith in Christ. He also promises the Holy Spirit to the elect to give them willingness and ability to believe. Christ is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. The following covenants are building block agreements and show a progression of terms throughout biblical history:

• the Noadic covenant made with Noah regarding the destruction of men for their corruption - and selection of Noah as the figurehead for humanity post-flood.
• the Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham regarding the initial formation of Israel and the blessings that would come from Abraham's lineage.
• the Mosaic covenant made with Moses about the return and redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage.
• the Davidic covenant made with King David about the establishment of Israel as a sovereign nation with continued support from the Lord - as well as the solidification of the House of David's offspring.
• and finally the New covenant with Christ.

Throughout these covenants we know that one thing has remained consistent. "The wages of sin is death." - but we also know that God's righteousness doesn't always make Him look appealing. That however, isn't the point when it comes to justifiable wrath that was agreed to by man prior. Adam lost his right to living eternally in the garden for being disobedient and was not struck down unjustly. What we are forced to realize here is that instead of God being cruel and leaving that one covenant intact God repeatedly gives the Israelites offer after offer - culminating with paying the price HIMSELF so that the choice is given to us. You can't sanely make the argument that God is unforgiving when you take the Crucifixion (which is extra-biblically proven to be a historical event!) of Christ into account as well as the concept of shifting covenants.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a hard topic to discuss because of the implication of an outdated cultural norm being enforced by genocide these days. However, let's take a look at the scenario under the implication that we don't think God exists at all. If you were to go to the supposed site of those two cities we would find two things. Firstly, we would find signs of civilization that is dated to around the time Sodom and Gomorrah would be thriving, and secondly we would find sulfuric rock build up and uninhabitable land indicative that SOME catastrophic event had occurred! Looking at it from the skeptic's point of view we are forced to confirm that the cities were in fact destroyed. Our only recalling of the events comes in Genesis, where the philosophy of the time period suggests that the two cities had caused God to become wrathful with their sinful behavior. If that's the general philosophy of the time, you can't blame the writer of Genesis for sensationalism - and the debate must be brought to what is the cause and not a denial that the event never even happened.

What does this mean? That as far back as the Book of Genesis, the Bible has scientifically-supported instances of historical reliability. The questions we have to ask now are why or what caused these historical events to take place. NOT -IF- they took place. To discredit the Bible as a non-reliable source based on contradiction is negligence regarding the covenants, and to discredit the Bible as a non-reliable historical source is just being being ignorant of actual history. Does this mean you should take everything the Bible reads word-for-word literally? NO! ...but it does mean you can use it in a scholarly manner and that you should read it in it's given literary format.

Allow me to make 5 statements and put you in the position to challenge them.

• Actions made out of Racism and Homophobia are always wrong.
• Rape is always wrong.
• Drowning a baby to death for SPORT is always wrong.
• Hitler was 'immoral' by committing genocide - and genocide is always wrong. (Because Godwin's Law is just amusing.)
• Happiness is better than Suffering.

There should be an inherent absurdity in trying to refute these claims. Why? Because these are objective moral truths. You have to think of morality like it's a one-topping pizza - if you pick up a slice of the pie, and it's got pepperoni on it, the rest of the pizza should have pepperoni. Remember my claim from before? (Some -OR- all morals are -not- contingent?) That would be a slice of the 1-topping objective moral value pizza. These five statements are a slice of the objectivism pizza. Therefore, morality MUST be objective, because parts of it are very much so. This means there is absolutely no room for moral subjectivity and any future opposition must hold to moral relativism (based on cultural norm) - which again is weakened by the fact that there are still objective values within.

I actually said that Jesus was NOT a political activist. We happen to know that he was a poor carpenter from Nazareth living under the heavy iron fist of a conqueror in Rome, and that he had disciples and preached a message that was far different than the religious leaders of the time were okay with. It didn't matter if Jesus was personally against slavery or not. His purpose on the earth wasn't to free slaves from their earthly masters, but free slaves from their own sin nature - which is infinitely more valuable than escaping human captivity under the notion that God exists.

I am not the one to speak about Muslim conviction - although I can justifiably say that you can't get to heaven by sacrificing other people in the Christian worldview. Period. You'd have to debate a Muslim about that if one. I'm not best suited for that scenario.

Having watched the Vsauce video I have a few statements:

• causing the loss of ANY life that isn't justified by agreement is morally wrong. There isn't a moral dilemma presented here so much as there is an unavoidable perilous situation. In both the first scenario (fork in the tracks)AND the second scenario (the overweight man), death is unavoidable. There is no moral obligation for the bystander because there is no way to completely avoid someone dying here.
• Vsauce and the narrator admit that the dilemma has it's own faults.
• I personally believe I have equal philosophical standing with Vsauce, if not better.
• The actual 'test' is to test for how a person thinks in said scenario - not to determine morality. The question isn't right or wrong, but do you think rationally, or emotionally?

Looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah - we have to look at who is actually making the choice. We know from the active covenant (the Old Covenant with Adam) that during the city's existence that disobedience would be punished by death. The historical claim by the author of Genesis is that the citizens of those two locales chose to be disobedient to God and thus chose their fate. This concept is known as "Free Will" - meaning that we as humans are allowed to make our own decisions as God has made us with the ability to do so. In the case of S&G - God was forced to punish those people because that is what they chose. It's the same case with you and choosing to not believe based on your own research. You are given the ability by God to defy Him - It's just....not a good idea.

This also illustrates the beauty of a relational God as opposed to one that solely cared about sovereignty. He wanted his creation to choose and accept Him on their own free will, and even after it didn't pan out and he wanted to destroy the entirety of the human race - He kept that inherent free will.

Why should people think God is omnibenevolent? In my opinion, it comes down to three basic premises.

• God created us.
• God gave us the ability to make our own choices.
• God pursues us even after we make BAD choices - to the point of dying in our place - without taking away our right to make our own choices.

Now, you can argue if omnipotence and omniscience and omnibenevolence is logical within human confines - but I would be much more interested in you disproving these possible attributes when dealing with a supernatural being that is beyond human logic.

[Eviora]

Well, if we're talking about beings that are "beyond human logic", nothing that any of us - you included - has to say is relevant. May as well believe whatever in that circumstance. I'm definitely not convinced that any such beings exist. =p This seems like too convenient an excuse to throw away distasteful arguments.

[Chase]

That's the impasse though. There's no way to prove that God is or isn't any of those omni's using human reasoning. That's where faith comes in - on BOTH sides.

[Eviora]

Well, empirically, as a race we find that logic usually works when applied correctly. If you think about what logic is, it's really just about consistency, right? So your out here is that god can be inconsistent. But would that really be fair of him? He wants us to believe in him, right? If he does, wouldn't it be awfully silly of him to then smash into pieces the methods of understanding that have been so reliable for us in all other matters? It seems to me like that would undermine his goals - I mean, it's certainly enough to make me dismiss the whole endeavor, because it feels like I'm guessing what to believe at random!

Edited September 2, 2015 by Eviora

[Chase]

My out here is most definitely not that God can be be inconsistent. In my argument about the changing covenants I highlight how consistently God pursues His people. My "out" - if you want to call it that, is more of a limitation. I can safely argue that no human is going to be omniscient - and I don't think God had it in the cards for humanity to know everything so much as he wanted us to believe in Him on our own accord without putting him through the meat grinder that is logic. What ends up happening in these circumstances is that if we logically accept something, such as the viability of mathematics, we have a logical understanding of math and lack an intimate relationship with it.

I wasn't always a believer - and in fact, I fell out of the same learned Christianity as Lil' Rupe above for complete skepticism myself. I felt exactly the same way. I used to throw up paradox after dilemma in order to rationalize how being a person of faith is irrational.

God didn't make us to be rational, but to be relational.

My re-affirmation experience consists of two things. Personal experience with God, and the same arguments I've tried to spout in this thread. I'm in no way trying to convert or even make completely rational the Christian worldview. I'm trying to teach the logic because I am convicted to defend my views as the militant atheists out there are willing to attack them. I do this not because it makes sense, but because I personally have seen Him at work and would hate for someone to buy into the idea that He doesn't exist without first looking at all sides.

Aside from that, it's not my place to change anyone's mind. I engage in debates to teach, and to learn.

[Eviora]

Well, being rational and relational aren't mutually exclusive. However, when presented with the idea of a supernatural being, I generally will engage the subject using logic because I lack an intimate relationship with that being. You may argue that I actually do have such a relationship whether I know it or not, but that actually doesn't matter - because I don't believe I have the relationship, I use logic.

Sidequest! In one of your above posts you were talking about the idea that people who don't believe in your particular god are choosing to be separate from him for all eternity. I couldn't disagree more, and let me explain why.

Suppose, for a moment, you were a contestant on a game show. You're shown two boxes, and told that one of them contains a check for a million dollars and the other contains a nest of wasps. The two boxes are distinguishable, but nothing about them suggests which contains which item. If you could choose between the prizes, you would obviously take the money, right? But the reality is you can't tell. You may end up with the wasps just because of a bad guess. But that doesn't mean you wanted to be stung!

Now, let's translate this game to the process of choosing a religion. Suddenly, the two boxes are replaced with thousands (established religions), plus there are uncountably many more invisible boxes in the forms of gods no one believes in. The only way to win could be to choose none of them, or exactly one of them, or some specific group of them. Without some sort of unambiguous guidance, there's no way you win this game.

That's the position many of us are in. I speak for myself when I say I don't want to suffer for eternity, but that doesn't mean I'll make the right choice. You may say all the evidence of your god is there if only I would look, but I have looked - and just about every religion says that! The simple fact of the matter is that one can try to read into one's life for its entire duration and never come an inch closer to the right answer.

I'm certainly not omniscient - and whatever god would probably know that. So if that god needs me to believe and truly wants what's best for me, he/she/they'll give me more than vague hints and ancient texts, and certainly won't do things that shatter the hand best suited to reach for the relationship you mention. One such hand is logic.

And that is why a god of the type you describe would choose not to require us to go beyond human logic.

[Chase]

When discerning which religion one SHOULD pick - one SHOULD be practical - I'll give you that one. My argument though is that there is more physical evidence and there is a given lifeline with Christianity as opposed to other religions. Like you said - the physical evidence -IS- there, and while I won't challenge your having looked into it, I will list what Jesus gives you that other religions simply don't. Period.

• Christianity provides the most accurate theistic cosmological design by affirming that the universe has a definitive beginning, is prone to decay, is formed from nothing, and that the universe is still expanding.
• Christianity provides intrinsic meaning to humanity.
• Christianity is the only religion to provide redemption for sinners as opposed to goals the sinner would need to achieve before hand.
• Christianity provides an anchor that is historically refutable (the Resurrection.), so if you're wrong and you find out before you die, you can change course.
• Christianity provides the gift of the Holy Spirit.
• If the Scripture is correct on the matters of afterlife, Christianity provides eternal life for one of the more simpler criteria out there for those that pursue it.
• "Real" Christianity provides a second chance as opposed to an agenda.
• and most importantly - Christianity provides you with the love of a father who would die for your well-being without forcing you to change your mind.

I wish I could say "just call yourself a Christian and all of your dreams would come true!" or sell it to people like it's a Buick - but this is likely the least satisfying post for you even though ti comes across like salesmanship.

If you don't search for truth and if you don't look for truth, you shouldn't expect anything to change. It's the point where we start saying "I believe there isn't" and do nothing about it that we stop looking. If you don't want to suffer and you don't see enough from me or from the rest of your life to convince you of a saving worldview, fine - but it would make more sense if you were in the position to where you don't want to suffer to spend your whole life searching in the chance that you would eventually find the salvation you want.

The tough jerky for anyone to chew back in the first century for anyone - and the same even today - was that Jesus was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. I can't be the one to convince you that He is. That's on you. But if you're not going to pursue or look or try and you're going to waste your days arguing against a supernatural being who can save you with human logic - then you won't ever be satisfied in that manner.

I'm not saying this to be rude - but because I've been there. I know my Jesus enough to leap into faith without sight only because I've seen Him at work. For some of us, no matter how much we want to make the claim - logic isn't going to do it.

There's no debate to be had if you're going to say "well, I don't believe it, so 'there'" I've been open minded enough to say that I would debate the circumstances in an assumption that God doesn't exist - but I can't debate deflection. It's you all's God given choice to just dismiss me.