Is it not possible to have both? Couldn't you have there be a God but have God's will or beliefs be mis-interpreted or manipulated by man? I realize you could never prove this, per se... Asking proof of something that happened when the only facet of proof one could provide was written or verbal recall is a dangerous concept. At what point is anything solid "proof"? Does that mean if you don't witness or can't witness anything with your own two eyes that it is unprovable and therefore incorrect? BTW, your earlier statement that Christian religions declare final resting place based upon morality is untrue. There are sects / individuals that do not believe in that theory. Keep in mind I'm merely trying to explore and push the discussion.
I'm just playing along with e-blazer's thinking is all I could've sworn I mentioned earlier that the different sects of Christianity interpret it differently. If I didn't, then I apologize and did not intend to generalize. and i don't mean to say that no proof=no existence. All I'm demanding is that if one is going to make such a claim, I wanna know how he/she came to that conclusion. Was it indoctrination? Faith? Anecdotal evidence? Reason and rationale? Experiments? I touched on this earlier that as our standards for evidence increased in matters of truth and the universe, so has our understanding and findings. If your two eyes alone can discern the evidence or information, you either use other methods or you try to break past the limitations you have in your insight and senses. Nobody likes the answer to a question to be "I don't know" or "it was magic". So we try to investigate further. This is the beauty I see in science-it is not only self-correcting and has the highest standards thus far for proof, but also it is always skeptical. You can believe in creationism along with a myriad of other things, but ultimately there is an objective truth. Whether we know or believe what is the objective truth is or not, we can only so far rely on certain standards of evidence. In the mean time, we can speculate all we want, but we can't reach truth yet without trying to prove our hypothesizes.
So why call him god or an all good god if he enables evil in his creation? How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows? Even if it is omniscient and omnipotent only within that system, that still leaves you with the problem it would be rendered powerless to change anything within that system. The two are logically incompatible.
Actually, I didn't say anything about the subject of knowledge and truth vs belief and faith. I simply pointed out that there can be no proof, in the scientific or mathematical sense that you are insisting upon, on the subject of the existence or lack thereof of a god or supernatural being. The fact that science can't test for something says nothing about the ultimate truth regarding this issue. God either does exist or does not and that fact is not dependent upon proof or belief or any other human interpretation of the matter. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of proof. Faith is a matter of personal decision as to what you believe to be most likely, based upon everything you have observed regarding our existence. For me, I look at the origin of the universe and believe that it is unlikely that such a thing could occur without a god. The same is true of my thoughts on the origin of life. I look at the Bible and the description of the moral failings of mankind and the need for reconciliation with the creator rings true. I look at all of these things and more, and for me they make sense. I don't have the ability to make them real to you. It's a personal journey. Each of these passages reflects a decision to deny god. If God created mankind because he desired a relationship with us, which is what the Bible teaches, and we won't even go the single step of acknowledging his existence, then we are choosing not to be eternally in relationship with him...which is what hell is.
again, no that is just not true. god can be all powerful, all knowing, good, and perfect and evil can still remain in the world. if god wanted to create people with free will, the ability to go against god and the choice of "evil" is necessary.
Evil, or sin, is choosing to do that which is not God's will. God is all about personal choice. He doesn't want a bunch of mindless automatons to worship him. He wants people to freely choose to believe in him and follow him. You can't have the ability to choose to deny God without the consequence of sin or evil. They go hand in hand.
And what reasoning do you have that there is an existence outside of our universe? And pay attention to the vocabulary you are using- "deny god" This inherently assumes that a god exists yet there is no knowledge of such an existence. I know belief in a god is currently based on faith. I'm talking about knowledge though. Not faith. I know what faith is, and I do not consider it something to be equal to knowledge. Tell me, do you believe that a male god created the earth and heavens in six days ten thousand years ago despite what we have found out about the universe? This is pretty much a summary of the argument which Im making: [video=youtube;w_2W8Nzqm5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_2W8Nzqm5c[/video]
You guys are missing the logical fallacy pointed out in the paradox. If the god you mention is all this, then there shouldn't be such a huge fallacy. Furthermore, why make denying him an evil?
Well there could be something like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan. If we stop believing it dies. But that's just making up loopholes for loophole sake. oh sweet, I'm cool with that! I was worried about those lakes of fire and stuff. But not believing in santa claus doesn't sound too bad to me!
I happen to believe that self-interest leads to a better society. My self-interest leads me to do all sorts of things that makes a better world, for me and my family. No one wants people starving, homeless or uneducated. No one wants garbage rolling through the streets. No one wants rampant crime. In other words, there is a whole set of actions one would consider selfless that are in fact completely self-interested.
The paradox of omnipotence and omniscience and logical fallacy of an absolute moral being. An all knowing being wouldn't be open to such fallacies.
yeah, that's what i'm trying to talk about! I don't think we need a god to tell us this is a good thing.
But if he prevents, it means he changed his mind-eliminating the possibility of him being all knowing.
Well, what if omnipotence and omniscience were based upon human's understandings of those things at that time? That would make sense. It's like people excluding either creationism or evolution. Why couldn't there be both? But to follow up on something Rocketeer said and e-blazer touched upon... So I would think that a child getting hit is evil. I understand that the person hitting the child could be considered evil for turning against God's will/word, whatever. But wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient God, regardless of whether he/she/it/they/them believes in free will intercede to protect the life and well-being of one who follows God's word? In other words (no pun), while the person doing the hitting is acting out of free will, the child is not. Yet the child is punished by "evil". Explain?
Not really. Him (and we use that term loosely) changing his mind would have nothing to do with the ability or inability of him to be all-knowing. It might just mean he changed his mind.
