Don't get me STARTED on conspiracy theorists. They just get so obsessed with the conspiracy.. then even when the person comes out and says it was made up .. they say 'they must have got to them'. NOONE GOT TO THEM! IT WAS JUST A LIE! Sidetracked :|
That doesn't make for a very benevolent God, does it? He made these two humans, told them not to do something in full knowledge that they would do it, and then punished them (and all humanity) when they eventually did?
My main arguement in this whole debate is that (In religious perception) god can see the future! I'm saying that religious people SAY THEMSELVES that god knows what Happened/Is Happening/Will Happen, But just chooses not to interfere! (except for a couple of specific cases). Again, when god talked to ABRAHAM, he knew the Israelites would be enslaved for 400 years by the egyptians...do you think it was a lucky guess? Or do you think God actually knows what will happen in the future, but just chooses to hardly ever interfere with it? Oh, and another example of god predicting the future: When the Hebrews recieve the Torah from that mountain thingy (I don't know it's name in english), they are also given a handful of rules (not the 10 big fundamental rule thingies...ANOTHER set of rules). In THIS set of rules, there is a whole section talking about how an Israely KING should act. HOLD IT!!!! A King? Wtf? There was no "King" for the israelites back then...and there wouldn't be...for about 1000 years (from the moment they got the Torah). But what's this? 1000 years later, the Jewish people get "Fed Up" with having God as their ruler, and ask of him to pick a KING for them. Samuel (who was God's chosen prophet at the time) is FURIOUS, and talks to god, saying that the Israelies are a bunch of wanks, and that God should just give up on them. But God tells him not to worry, and that HE HAD ALWAYS KNOWN this time would come. He even makes Samuel re-read the same set of rules (the ones that the Israelites recieved 1000 BEFORE that time) to the jewish people, in a last attempt to change their minds. And again, there are MORE occasions in the bible, in which god predicts the future. Sorry Dark, but you shouldn't mess with a Jew on these kind of things (Again, I dont believe in god >.O I'm just well-educated on the subject).
It is a valid response as it furthers the discussion of God's existence. It only seems like a cop-out since the right questions aren't being asked in reply to it. To understand the Masterplan argument, one must seek deeper into the discussion and question not only the free will or good and evil, but the metaphysical levels without proving God with God. I'm going to assume that you belive that you exist, but what are you basing that belief on? If you write a play, will the version of it be the exact same no matter what actors are playing the roles? No, because their interpretations and styles will be different. The play however, will still continue start and end as planned. Why would God's Masterplan not be open to free will to take part in the details? I won't argue against you on following the bible word by word, as I think all religious writings are meant to be used as guidelines and not law. Much of it is also meant as a way to cope (sp?) with problems from the time they were written, especially health issues. I won't defend the fanatics, I think they are just as wrong as you seem to think. I might also add that I am not a beliver myself, I'm an agnostic who haven't found a belief or disbelief that suits me yet.
No, it is a cop out. It is nothing more than saying "I don't know, none of us do, we just believe anyway even though it doesn't make any sense". Have you noticed how religious people are oh-so quick to point out the "missing link", one small flaw in the otherwise entirely rational theory of evolution, and yet they don't see anything wrong with answering every question that stumps them with "God works in mysterious ways"? There is nothing valid about a counterargument that is essentially an admission of not knowing. Wether I exist or not is a terrible comparison to make. I, like you, am a self aware person. I can see myself, I can think, act, move. There's no debate about that unless you want to move into the paranoid metaphysical. Even if you choose to compare life to a written play and believe that it is an example of how life can supposedly be "free" as well as scripted, it's a remarkably poor analogy. What is the point of our choices if they change nothing in the long run? What's the point in Lady MacBeth choosing to wring her hands and screech and shout, if she'll end up washing the blood from them anyway? This particular analogy may be a working suggestion of how life can be planned and somewhat free at the same time, but it is one that offers a horrifying pointlessness as a consequence.
I'm not here to discuss what other people belive, I'm here to talk about what you and I belive, and to hopefully get an answer out of this question. It might seem pointless, but you never know. So when science say that it doesn't know what happened before the Big Bang, one of the greatest of recognized theories, we are still to belive that it is a valid theory? You should know that the hypothetical-deductive theory that scientists work from is actually saying that there is no proof for anything, just probability. That is an admission of not knowing. Actually, it was a segway towards Descartes' proof of God. You can see yourself, think, act and move? You are saying that you rely your belief in your existence on your impressions of the world. So when you are sick, do you still interpret the world as the same? If you were to become blind, would you still see yourself? When you are sleeping, do you always think of yourself as an existing being or have you ever seen a dream as the events were occuring to another person, making you merely an observer? Impressions are flawed, as they can become distorted. So how do you prove your own existence? I guess it was a pretty lousy comparrison, but hey, breaking down theories only leads us closer to the answers, doesn't it? Let me compare it to a movie instead then with the extras being the humans with free will, and the main characters being the key people which work under divine influence of some sort. The extras may still have their own stories (although we don't hear about them in the movie), but they don't change the actual story with it's key events. My point is that there is much room for free will as it doesn't have to interfer with key events casued by a divine entity.
No, you seem to missunderstand, although it's probably my fault. If a scientist were to say "Well there are some things we just don't know" in response to a question about the Big Bang, that wouldn't be a cop out. That would be an admission of not knowing. Just like it would be an admission of not knowing if someone were to say "I don't know how God does it, I just believe that he does". When I say it is a cop out, however, I'm refering to how some people use the term "God works in mysterious ways" to answer questions they can't as if it is a valid and real response that actually answers a question, which it does not. However, a scientist can offer a rational theory if you ask for one, and present evidence to support it - and that is exactly what I was asking of religious people on this thread. The flaws in that particular theory/proof have been exposed inumerable times over the course of history. I am because I can say "I am". Because I know I'm a sentient, conscious being, I am one. I think, therefor I am, so to say. And that's all well and good, but I was never really talking about God's endgame or his ultimate plan or anything like that. I was asking how it is possible for God to know the future, to know what we will do before we will do it, without events being predetermined.
Faith is a huge part of religion. Calling it a cop-out is extremely ignorant, but quite understandable. You may recall my analogy of our intellectual capacity being that of a baby, and God's that of an adult. Well go look at it again, that is the only way I know how to explain the need for it to you. And also, there are many more than one "missing link" in the theory of evolution, yet this discourages no one from whole-heatedly accepting it. The difference is that you guys don't even have faith to explain your flaws. lolz.
Yes, and calling the "we just haven't found it yet" response to missing link questions a cop out is insulting too, but it's also accurate. An admission of not knowing, regardless of how smugly you say it and nomatter how much you want to believe it's a valid response, is not a real answer. I came here asking for rational explanations for the question I asked. A cop out answer is never a rational explanation, as I just explained. Yes, I saw it. It was very simple. It also does nothing to alter the fact that answering a question with "God works in mysterious ways" is a cop out to avoid giving a real answer for something you can't. I'm sorry, I don't think you understood me. I'm not saying there is only one missing link. I'm reffering the "missing link criticism" of evolution, not any individual missing link in a species' evolution. No, we have constantly progressing science. The problem is, that nomatter how many gaps we fill in, it's never good enough for religious people, because their line of thought is by its own very nature irrational. Where a Scientist sees something and thinks "I wonder how that works? Let's find out." a religious person sees it and thinks "God did it." And somehow, the Scientist's approach to it will offend the religious person. Don't believe me? Go ahead and google a phrase like "the evils of technology and science". Just wait till you see how many otherwise very reputable Christian sources think science is evil. After all, critical and rational thinking is the bane of any religion. If everyone started to think rationally and thought like the scientist instead of the religious person, there'd be no one left to pass the collection plate to, would there?
Let me explain this to you. I really don't care if you think it is a valid answer or not. But for me as a Christian, I have to assume that the things I don't understand are either intentional (to strengthen my faith) or simply because on this earth I will never be smart enough to understand exactly what the smartest being (by far in away) put into place (under the assumption the God exists). My mistake And I gave you an extremely plausible one. As far as I could tell we (together) found no real hole in it now I must admit, that I've no idea that it is for sure that the theory is right or wrong. I simply don't know, but despite this, it met your criteria. Yet for some reason, you seem as altogether dissatisfied as you were when posting this thread.
I'm sure you'll forgive me for pointing out the gaping flaw in your little tirade there, but you're certainly altogether too eager to (very poorly) defend this phrase against being called a cop out, for someone who "doesn't care". Offensive or not, the phrase is an admission of not knowing under the guise of a real answer. This is the very definition of a cop out. It did meet my criteria. It was a relatively reasonable explanation and the first to be posted so far. Just because the thread discussion continued afterwards doesn't mean I don't agree that it was a viable answer. Believe me, sunshine, you're neither special nor smart enough to bring a thread to an end just because you had one solitary attack of the clevers.
Arkley, read what I wrote...I'm jewish and I know my shit I've learned what I said there from many people who are all VERY knowledgeable in all matters of the bible. I think it answers your question pretty clearly (It's somewhere at the end of page 2 or at the beggining of page 3).
Alright, I've thought of a (relatively) new way to explain this to you! yayfermeh. This obviously does, under no circumstances, meet any of the criteria in your original post. Just to get that out of the way I realize that is a slight repetition of things said before by me, but srsly, whatever. You say that religion is false because it doesn't make sense (basically). I am saying that if everything in religion made sense, then it would be false. The reason being that all religions say that there is an entity higher then all of us, if we were to understand everything he did, then he would not be much of a higher entity. I know I've said (very) similar things before, but try reading this with an open mind. (restated): Religion only makes sense if there are things about it that don't make sense (sounds terrible, I know)
Ugh, stop second guessing yourself. I've read a few of your posts and it's really bugging me. If you're defending your belief, why would anything argument you present be ridiculous or terrible? I understand that you're anticipating the reception or maybe even just don't know how to express yourself properly, but you need to be confident when sharing your faith. Otherwise, people will just rip your defense apart.
In the post of mine you quoted, I was not second guessing myself at all. I was purposefully being overly-explanatory so that the guy i was conversing with couldn't rip at any little error in my post. For example: I gave him a similar explanation before, and he wouldn't accept it because it did not meet the criteria of his original question. By explaining myself first, I made it so that he couldn't attack that part of my post. For example: I said "sounds terrible, I know" at the end of my post so that he could not quote me and say something like, "Religion only makes sense when it doesn't make sense? do you know how terrible that sounds?" Not exactly sure what you are talking about-- feel free to link or quote-- but i'll be sure and clarify the intentions of all my posts so as not to bug you. really, i'm sorry for whatever inconvenience you've suffered. P.S. just in case you think im being too apologetic, just know that this is a fine example of sarcasm.
These arguments make me angry. People argue over something that can't be proven on either side. Although some of you may have very valid points, it's like arguing over what flavor is best. It's all what you believe. When I was iffy about my believes, I had several... several conversations and arguments with my friends about it. I had very religious friends, and non religious friends. No one tries to prove their side right, it's all about proving the other person wrong. Spoiler haha, like in "Thank You For Smoking" Yes, it's the easiest form of debate, but just once, I'd like to see someone's whole argument consist of reasons why they are correct, as well as addressing the common counter arguments. To me, that is a solid argument. And as for those - "Well what started it all? There has to be SOMETHING to start it all!" and "Haha you think we came from monkeys!" as well as the "So lemme get this straight, you believe in an invisible, all powerful being in the sky?" Belittling people's beliefs isn't really going to 'win them over', now is it? I can understand trying to convince someone that there is/isn't a god when they are not happy with their current beliefs, but why try and convert a completely content atheist/religious person/i-don't-care-about-religion-at-all person? Mkay, even though this post is slightly incoherent, it made sense in my head. thank you for your time. I can understand accepting that you don't understand something, but please, don't give up. Try and learn as much as possible about everything all the time. Don't just simply give up and say "I'll never be smart enough to understand such a grand concept." I said that about trig, and now I'm making an A in AP trig. I accept that I'm not sure what started the big bang, but I currently have three books on my shelf that try to explain it. I'm looking forward to being able to understand my beliefs fully and hope you won't stop trying to understand what you believe in.
fully agreed actually. however, this thread was created around an assumed hole in religion, which is why it came across this way to you, i think. thanks for the encouragement, but understand that i am not going to stop trying to understand my faith. In the post of mine you quoted i was trying to make the point that there are definitely things in my belief system that do not make complete sense to me, but that should not sway me towards disbelief. If anything it should move me towards a stronger faith.
Good question, but God doesn't decide what we are going to do. He just knows what our choices will be. He doesn't force the choices upon us, he just simply knows what we will choose.
There is no God, only our ability as individuals to create and interepret our own unique and personal realities. In that sense, I guess we are all Gods of our own worlds.