Faster quote "of course we don't know everything, and may never know all that there is to know, but that fact is not proof/evidence of the existence of some thing. i am not infallible and i do the best i can with the tools i have in my possession such as logic, perception, science etc. " Faster how can it be that both are true? A lack of something is proof and yet a lack of something is not proof. Very poor science. There is so much evidence of God and His existance, but many like yourself refuse to see. Life in and of itself is the biggest evidence. Man has yet to reproduce this in the labratory. He came and walked with man and yet they refused to believe. You pull out Ockam's Razor. Creation - "let there be....." it does not get any simpler than that. Trying to mathamatically come up with the possibility that something came from nothing and that this fir tree and I am related in the distant past is far more complicated than believing the creation. Darkhorse already did the probability of life for you and yet to your eyes that is not evidence. You have faith in your science, as there are many thing that have not been proven - life and the diversification of species are but two. Out of curiosity what (outside and abscence of) would be evidence for God? If you saw what? If you felt what? The scribes and pharisses saw and walked and talked with Him yet they refused to believe. They were the learned and knew the prophesies to be fullfilled and saw them fullfiled, and yet refused. Is there anything that you seeing might give you hesitation to think there might be some truth to God?
>>Faster quote "of course we don't know everything, and may never know all that there is to know, but that fact is not proof/evidence of the existence of some thing. i am not infallible and i do the best i can with the tools i have in my possession such as logic, perception, science etc. " >>Faster how can it be that both are true? A lack of something is proof and yet a lack of something is not proof. >>Very poor science. Dbl, lack of evidence for a proposition ("God exists" in this case) is, in and of itself, not evidence that the proposition is false. However, lack of evidence for a proposition combined with the expectation that if that proposition were true that evidence would be available does constitute evidence that the proposition is false. As an example of this reasoning, suppose someone claimed that there is a herd of invisible two-ton elephants stampeding through your living room. If such a claim were true there would be plenty of evidence in the form of broken furniture for example. Now you examine your living room and find no evidence for stampeding elephants. It is, of course, rational to believe that the elephant claim was false. >>There is so much evidence of God and His existance, but many like yourself refuse to see. Life in and of itself is the biggest evidence. Man has yet to reproduce this in the labratory. He came and walked with man and yet they refused to believe. That claim is very suspicious since he has not been doing any walking lately. >>You pull out Ockam's Razor. Creation - "let there be....." it does not get any simpler than that. Trying to mathamatically come up with the possibility that something came from nothing and that this fir tree and I am related in the distant past is far more complicated than believing the creation. Darkhorse already did the probability of life for you and yet to your eyes that is not evidence. No it actually makes things more complex to claim that a creator created this universe. To believe this you must go that extra step, and that adds to the complexity. >>You have faith in your science, as there are many thing that have not been proven - life and the diversification of species are but two. I think you'd better get up to speed in your natural sciences. have you ever heard of Darwin and Evolution? >>Out of curiosity what (outside and abscence of) would be evidence for God? If you saw what? If you felt what? The scribes and pharisses saw and walked and talked with Him yet they refused to believe. They were the learned and knew the prophesies to be fullfilled and saw them fullfiled, and yet refused. Is there anything that you seeing might give you hesitation to think there might be some truth to God? I would say to this that if they (scribes & pharisses) couldn't muster belief and they had "him" right there before their eyes, then how foolish it would be for me to believe many many thousands of years removed. That's what i would say.
hi, i find it intriquing how you deduced that i believe in a higher power based on my post on this thread. yes, god must have created evil---- perhaps so good could exist. i do not believe that "good" could exist absent of "evil" surf
surf, the existence of morality doen not necessarily require the existence of god. a perfectly accptable natural explanation for morality is that it evolved as rules of behaviour that allow people to work effectively togther. good & evil is simply a man-made construct. if there were no life there would be no morality. on a barren and lifeless universe of rocks there is noone to make the distinction between good and evil. it is meaningless. when we come on to the scene only then does morality emerge. :-/
Faster: I find it interesting that you, the cool headed rationalist, can claim the booby prize of being the angriest, most insult driven personality on this thread. All the silly foolishness you accuse me of is demonstrated in your own posts. But then, I didn't expect you to have anything. You require unassailable if/then propositions for the existence of God, yet you provide none of your own for why He is not there. You attack my reasoning, then provide no better foundation of reasoning for your own beliefs. Let's get this good and evil thing straight right now: When atheists get desperate, they commonly resort to the problem of pain. i.e. some variation of 'If God is real, why does he allow evil in the world, why doesn't he solve all our problems.' This line of argument does not wash. It does not fly, understand? Let's talk consistency here. Let's get our ducks in a row. If there is no higher power, there is no good and evil. This is very important so I will say it in all caps in case you missed it: IF THERE IS NO HIGHER POWER, THERE IS NO GOOD AND EVIL. You, faster, who so desperately want to claim I am wrong, believe in nothing beyond atoms and chemical processes. You say that nothing is enough. It is not nearly enough, but hey- you want to believe in nothing? Fine. But if NOTHING is what you stake your claim on, then NOTHING is what you get and NOTHING is what you must defend. Let's get straight on our logical conclusions here. Let's do a logic chain: 1) If right and wrong exist, then right and wrong must be defined by an objective standard. If there really is 'right,' there must be some absolute definition of what 'right' is, even if we cannot easily define it. Same thing with 'wrong.' If there is a true sense of 'wrong,' it must have definition even if not easily definable. 2) If man is the ultimate measure- if the buck stops with man and does not go higher- then THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG, ONLY OPINION. If this is it, then this is it. If I am a collection of atoms and Hitler is a collection of atoms, what makes my view more right than his? NOTHING, faster, NOTHING. If man reigns supreme, then no man can claim objective measure of another. This is very IMPORTANT and I am using CAPITALS because to an intelligent person such as myself it is very OBVIOUS. You piss and moan about how there is nothing but chemical reactions and scientific process, and then you try to reject God on the grounds of the MORALITY that you spent fifty posts REJECTING? Without God we have no morality faster. With no higher standard, man is the only measure. If the buck stops with man, we have NO morality. ALL we have are societal contracts held in place through the use of force. We may TALK of morality, but it is inconsistent. And for YOU to even pretend for a SECOND that good and evil exist, while at the same time promoting NOTHING of value whatsoever beyond SCIENCE, is the HEIGHT of HYPOCRISY. Do you understand the BIG WORDS? By your TRUE rationale faster, mass murder is not evil. It is simply inconsistent with the goals of a productive society. Paedophilia and raping children are not wrong. They are simply discouraged because they are distasteful to a productive society. Insane dictators who murder millions of people are not wrong. They simply need to be stopped with a greater use of force marshalled against them than the force available behind them, because they are against the grain of a productive society. Therefore a higher authority can NOT be ruled out by an appeal to good and evil, because the EXISTENCE of good and evil REQUIRES the existence of a higher authority in the FIRST PLACE. Is that if/then enough for you? regarding God as the author of good and evil: God is the creator and sustainer of all things. A blade of grass does not wave in the wind without his sovereign pleasing. Among the things that God created is free will. God created man in his image, and thusly gave man the ability to reason beyond his own point of consciousness. God gave man the ability to discern between right and wrong. When man chooses wrongly, evil is perpetrated. So: in his sovereignty, God allows evil to exist and even gives evil the appearance of flourishing- but only for a time. God ultimately uses all things for his purpose and to fulfill his grand design- just as he has used the ravings of faster to spur this discussion. Note also that the objective standard of 'good' is God himself. Good is defined by the higher authority. Therefore, evil must be defined by higher authority also. If the buck stops with God- and it most definitely does- then that which pleases Him is good. That which DISpleases him is evil. Again, the demonstration that we need an objective standard ABOVE man to discuss absolute morality, because if man is the final arbiter there is no morality, only chaos and force.
additional thought: If you were a king and wanted to discern the true loyalty of your servants, how would you do it? Ordered respect would be the norm in your presence. Only if you appeared to depart for a time might hidden feelings be unmasked. If you looked into your servants' hearts, the truth would be visible. But only by letting the drama play out would the truth be visible to all. If you were a king and wanted to discern the true faith of your servants, how would you do it? In comfort and security they would never have reason to doubt you, never have reason to fear. Only if the road was hard and the future uncertain would they be required to trust you. Only if pain and grief knocked loudly at their door would they be required to lean on you. Only if the enemy appeared strong would they call on your strength. It is easy to trust when nothing is at stake, quite another when everything is at stake. If you were a king and wanted to discern the true wisdom of your servants, how would you do it? You would leave the path in plain sight but make it hard to find. You would allow your enemies to set up obstacles and roadblocks, both outside the faith and within, that your servants might gain strength and understanding in overcoming them. You would warn of false prophets and bad teaching within the faith itself, but would require your servants to dig out the inconsistencies and turn away the pernicious influences rather than doing the work for them. You would make it easy for the humble, hard for the proud. You would have us stumble when we shelter the things you despise most: arrogance, ego, small mindedness, pettiness, inflated sense of self. You would make it easy to blow off the truth and mock trivialities instead. You would make it hard to put aside distractions and listen to heart and mind with no bias except desire to know what makes ultimate sense, what is ultimately real. If you were a king and wanted to discern the true submissiveness of your servants, how would you do it? You would make it clear to them that there is only one true power, only one true ruler. You would do as you please and apologize to no one, set the standards of your own hand and have your entire kingdom abide by them. You would answer questions in a way and time of your own choosing, if at all, and your answer would be your answer. Period. Inquiries would be welcomed, sought wisdom granted, humble searching rewarded, grateful worship accepted- but arrogant rebellion crushed. If you were a king and wanted to demonstrate mercy and justice, how would you do it? You would show mercy by granting forgiveness of those who truly seek it. You would accept gifts of worship and service if born of the proper gratitude. But being just, you could not sweep wrongdoing under the rug. Atonement would be required before forgiveness. A price must be paid. Blood must be shed. If you were a king and wanted to demonstrate the limitless scope of your power, how would you do it? Perhaps by laughing at the worldy trappings of power, the pathetic popsicle stick shacks erected by man. If you walked the earth you would not seek the glory of military might, or the silly oohs and aahs of monetary wealth, or the short term satisfaction of sending your enemies tumbling with a flick of your finger. No- to a true king, to a creator and sustainer of the universe, the world's myopic definitions of success and power would have all the immediacy and gravitas of kindergarden sandbox games. As a king you would reject shallow notions of power and thus demonstrate what true power is. Your followers would beg of you to set up camp on a patch of dirt and enforce your rule with a sword, not realizing that your plan is to demonstrate the grandness of your rule over the entire time scale of the entire universe, that your power is so vast and immense it would hurt a man's mind to even try and conceive of it without proper preparation and baby steps of forethought. In the end, you would display a full panorama of your attributes, all the elements within your character that were reflected in your creation: logic, reason, beauty, creativity, compassion, mercy, love, justice, righteousness, patience, anger, wrath. You would show infinite patience, waiting as you do beyond the boundaries of space and time and not just knowing but deciding beforehand how the story will end. You would show infinite love through compassionate sacrifice. And ultimately you would mete out infinite wrath to those who would stand against you- not by destroying them, but by casting them away from your presence fully and completely for all time. To those who reject you, you would grant them rejection as a final request. This is the last mile. This is why we are here, it is why our hearts beat, it is what our hearts and minds whisper to us when our eyes are opened. It is the Real. The majority view is meaningless. One man and the truth is a majority. Do not measure out smugness against the folly of your fellow men. Right or wrong, your neighbor's reasoning should ultimately have little bearing on your own. In the end, it does not matter what you think of God. It only matters what He thinks of you.