Pro-religion VS. Anti-religion

[mongoose]

We need a thread in which we can actually discuss the various arguments in, this way we can avoid "blemishing" either of the two most sacred threads.

I guess you can start by copying stuff from either one of those two threads and debating it here...

[Removed_user_012521]

Religion is a legtimate belief. There has to be for both practical purposes and in al actuality a governing body over all scourses of life.

[mongoose]

I think you're missing the point of this thread, which is to allow the debates that had to be stopped in the other threads to continue. It's more of a SIN VS. FAITH thing.

[Maron]

I think you're missing the point of this thread, which is to allow the debates that had to be stopped in the other threads to continue. It's more of a SIN VS. FAITH thing.

He is in FAITH lol

anyway... is this what you meant?

#1: The theodice problem:
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by God he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?

It is true that God cannot be both almighty and good if you restrict Him to our level - three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this God is not the God of reality or Christianity, since both the Bible and science would indicate that God must exist in more than three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The Bible says the universe cannot contain God (1), indicating He must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began (2), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. A single dimension of time (a line) has a beginning point and can only travel in one direction. Two dimensions of time (a plane) has no beginning or ending so that a being existing in such a plane would be free to move to any point along any line of time within that plane.

Both of these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science. According to particle physics and relativity, at least nine dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. God must be able to operate in all of those nine dimensions in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews indicates God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us (3). Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (4). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Therefore, if God created the universe, He was acting before the creation of time, indicating He exists in at least two dimensions of time. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future.

The main problem with this argument is a lack of understanding of the reason for the creation of the universe. The universe was not created to be good. God created the universe as a temporary testing site for creatures to choose to love Him or reject Him. God is good, but He has allowed His creatures free-will to do whatever they want within their limited dimensionality. God has designed the universe to operate under a set of physical principles, which He, only occasionally, suspends. If God were to suspend the laws of physics on a regular basis the universe would be a universe of chaos and unpredictability. Such as universe would not be a good testing ground for confused mortal beings. The purpose of the universe is to allow God's creatures the choice to love Him. Love is not possible without free-will. Therefore God chooses to allow His creatures the ability to do evil for the purpose of permitting them also to love. If God controlled everything we did, we could not demonstrate love, since we would be pre-programmed to respond. A computer cannot love, but free-will beings can.

The temporary nature of the universe and created beings requires that the universe operate under the law of entropy. If there were no entropy, we could not be tested since we would, by definition, be eternal and not have to face the mortality of our existence. Such an existence would not require our dependence upon God, since we would never have to face Him. The law of entropy guarantees our mortality and that we will suffer pain and death at some point. Neither pain nor death is evil from a Christian perspective. For example, pain is a necessary function in our lives. If we could not feel pain, we would end up causing serious damage to ourselves. Whenever I get burned, I move my hand rapidly away from the source of the pain. If I had no pain receptors, I would probably continue to burn my hand until I noticed the smoke. This would obviously not be a good thing to do. Likewise, death is required in a universe governed by entropy. Without animal death, very soon all the carbon on the earth would be bound in living organisms, with none available for photosynthesis.

Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.

Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination.

from:http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

[Turnus]

I have a feeling this will just turn into the Existence of God thread (or die), as most of these sorts of threads do. So I won't repeat any arguments that have already been done to death.

But, to quote Voltaire: Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer (If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him).

As Evan (of FAITH) said above, Religion has to exist to carry out practical functions in society, and is certainly crucial in the original formation of societies. However, I think that there could be a point in the development of societies where religion becomes obsolete in light of discoveries about the true (as opposed to mythological) nature of the universe, and the people do not need invented ideals to bind them together. Perhaps we are quickly approaching this time, perhaps not (or perhaps we should already be there), but even if religion is currently needed for society to function, this fact wouldn't make religious beliefs any less untrue.

[mongoose]

Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination.

So if I give someone the ability to kill, and they use it, it's not my fault at all? If God can defy the laws of logic, why doesn't he create a world with perfect free will and no evil?

Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God.

Evil does not equal things that I don't like, it's things that are harmful to sentient beings.

The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.

If I let a convict out of prison, and he kills 12 people, it's evil at all then?

[Atheist Peace]

Religion is a legtimate belief. There has to be for both practical purposes and in al actuality a governing body over all scourses of life.

Of course it's a legitimate belief. So is a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a belief in the Easter Bunny, a belief in magic, etc.

It isn't really saying much.

[RusskiSoldat]

Religion is a legtimate belief. There has to be for both practical purposes and in al actuality a governing body over all scourses of life.

Which is why government was created.

[Ragabash]

But god loves all, doesnt he/she.

Question is:

Would you like to see anything bad happen to your loved ones if you would have power to stop it to happen(And no, others wouldnt suffer from stopping it).

I can imagine god caring about humanity(If he would exist), after all we are his creation and obsession recording by the bible, but he isnt loving us if he exist. And if he doesnt love us that puts bible in completely different light.

[RZZZA]

Umm...debate is not stopped in my thread, it is only temporarily frowned upon in the pro-religon thread because they are trying to get their bearings first. What is so hard to understand about that? It doesnt mean you should spam the forum up with this type of stuff...

[Maron]

yes god does love us, but he wants to know which ones of us really love him

[Ragabash]

And so god creates evil to torture our lives to see who really loves him.

God should have figued out that while he let evil exist some people wont love him anymore.

If you are married and your husband/wife literally breaks your legs and hands and lock you up in a cellar for 5 years, you could stop loving him, and most likely would.

I know its harsh example, but its made that way to show issues in bible.

We can come to conclusion that god doesnt want to see who loves him back as much as he wants to test human limits for love.

[Atheist Peace]

You guys are truly funny.

[Ragabash]

You guys are truly funny.

Someone have to be. :original:

Join the fun club AP. I know you have some funny stories about thread subject you could share with us.

[+Convert+]

As a firm Catholic i follow only God's law, which places me inline with most of man's as most of western law is from the ten commandments. If asked i would gladly die for god and truly believe that the west has Sinned greatly from Killing unborn to man on man sex. truely the time of judgement is coming in the form of islam who will out breed us and will overcome whatever we throw at them.

Killing a soldier in a unjust war like iraq is murder, the USA illegally invaded for oil and have killed 100K since.

[Richard the Lionheart]

As a firm Catholic i follow only God's law, which places me inline with most of man's as most of western law is from the ten commandments. If asked i would gladly die for god and truly believe that the west has Sinned greatly from Killing unborn to man on man sex. truely the time of judgement is coming in the form of islam who will out breed us and will overcome whatever we throw at them.

Islam came a long time ago. :wink:

[Ahiga]

Islam came a long time ago. :wink:

I'd say that the upmost latest of religious movements have been either atheist/agnostic/secular, or new-agey. The latter has not shown any hallmarks of emerging as a well recognized faith, but the latter has gotten a lot of weight in it's momentum. I don't think we will be seeing any dramatic changes in the three people of the book faiths for a long time. Even with the onset of secularism or atheist/agnosticism, it's deeply rooted in some of the population. For Eastern religions, I'm not so sure, but I think their inherant flexibility when compared to western monotheisim (Hinduism, at least in what I have read, allows for belief in many gods, one particular god, or even no 'gods', so long as you follow it's key aspects.) will keep it enduring. What would be particularly interesting is if we manage to go beyond this planet and begin to colonize a lot further, and see how religion deals with this aspect (Ditto for if we discover any form of life outside the earth, though naturally the religious will explain this as still being of God's hand).

[Sam]

As a firm Catholic i follow only God's law, which places me inline with most of man's as most of western law is from the ten commandments. If asked i would gladly die for god and truly believe that the west has Sinned greatly from Killing unborn to man on man sex. truely the time of judgement is coming in the form of islam who will out breed us and will overcome whatever we throw at them.

You can throw away the tin-foil hat, there is no 'growing threat' in the form of Islam.

[Ragabash]

Nice article Maron, but it didnt provide me with answer I was looking for.

I still think that religions can mess your head and logical sense of right and wrong bad time.

[Zenith Darksea]

I very much dislike the use of words like 'predestination' in this context, because they are highly misleading. Certainly in the Orthodox Christian view of matters, foreknowledge does not equate to predestination. God exists outside of time, and as such can look in on the universe at any possible moment. It is not a case of predicting the future, because for God there is no future or past - such relative time only exists for man. Thus within the temporal sphere of the universe man is able to make all his own choices for his own vision of the future, but God, looking on time from a different perspective, is not limited by any concept of future. In other words, there is no 'prediction' for God, and no 'predestination'. However there is knowledge.

Now, as for the question, "Why didn't God just make the rules of logic so that there could be free will without choice between good and evil?" This is a fruitless question. We here are only able to debate in terms of logic that we understand, and so hypothetical systems of logic are incomprehensible, or at least impenetrable, to man. I'd say that only God could answer such a question.