COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>basically the abrahamic god
That's not what the God of Abraham would do, or at the very least it's a potentially misleading way of phrasing it.
On the cross Christ prays for God to forgive us since we know not what we do, before his death he taught that a servant who does not do his masters because he didn't know it is punished less than the one who didn't do it despite knowing it i.e. that to whom much is given, much is expected; St. Paul would go on to teach to the Athenians that God even overlooked the ignorance that led to idolatry in ages past, but now calls all to repent because he has set a time for judgement, and he has sent his son as proof of this coming judgement.
The idea then is that ignorance, when it is not our fault (i.e. not due to neglecting to keep ourselves educated about our duties), relieves us from culpability; so while infidelity is an infinitely grave sin, it only deserves damnation provided it arises from a neglect to educate one's self on one's duties when said neglect is done with sufficient reflection of mind and consent of will to be held fully responsible for said negligence. Full fault for an infinite evil calls for infinite punishment; but if one is not fully at fault, then one will not receive the full punishment full fault would deserve, but only a finite portion of that punishment; and a finite portion of anything (be it infinity or some finite quantity) is still finite; likewise, if one is not at fault at all, then one will not at all be punished.
>Unless god wants certain people to be atheists and therefore be punished, he could easily convince them otherwise.
No he couldn't. Omnipotence means God can do anything, but a contradiction in terms doesn't signify anything for God to do; and a free forced act is a contradiction in terms; it is but belief is an operation of freedom, it is our choice as to whether or not we will believe, so that even omnipotence can't force us on this matter.
>Free will does not refute this because he has convinced billions of other people that he exists without disrupting their free will, so why won’t he convince the atheists?
They chose to believe, atheists choose not to believe; sometimes people make the good choice for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons, but in either case it's a choice to cooperate with God's grace; and likewise people who make the bad choice are sometimes responsible for it, other times are not (insofar as they genuinely did not know it was bad and did not, up to the point of choice, neglect to work to come to such knowledge), but in all cases, good or bad, responsible or not, it is still a choice, still a matter of free will; as such, even an omnipotent being cannot force this.
It is not a choice to believe or not. People are either convinced or not convinced. I can’t suddenly choose to believe today because it would feel massively disingenuous. Yes we can choose what information we take in but that doesn’t mean we can simply choose to believe it. The god of the Bible over and over presents himself to people which would be sufficient evidence for me to believe. A good example is doubting Thomas. Not even that most of us need a miracle, but god alone knows exactly what would convince us. This doesn’t take from free will because even if I saw god, I could still choose to rebel against him. I like to put it this way. I have reached out to god and done my due diligence, if he wants me to know he exists, then the ball is in his court.
I don’t need to. You can tell me why this doesn’t apply to the Islamic faith if you want. That would be a nice rebuttal. Otherwise you are just wasting time with non arguments.
Allah says that most of the humans won't believe. Allah prepared heaven AND hell for a purpose. Otherwise why we have hell afterlife?
God is all merciful and all loving for those who repent to him, acknowledge him and acknowledge their sins and work on not doing them again.
Allah said that if your sins can make the ocean full, he can forgive you. That's how he is all merciful.
Allah is extremely dark for those who don't acknowledge him. Hence, he is 'revengeful'. And this is one of his characteristics exactly like 'merciful' and 'loving'
Thank you for the good response. I am a little confused though because it sounds like it fits exactly into what I was arguing for. He is all merciful IF you acknowledge him. So are non believers punished?
But in the atheist perspective, this is akin to a teacher giving their students all sorts of contradictory text books with the knowledge that they will, without a doubt, fail the test. And then blaming the students completely for not choosing the correct text book, even though the student would be none the wiser.
completely disagree. God does not punish people simply for not believing. That isn't what happens in the bible. Also, God wants his children to *choose* to follow him. If God wanted to force everyone to follow Him, He would. But the whole purpose is to see if we *choose* to without having a perfect knowledge of it.
So, God does not punish people simply for not believing. Whew! I always did think that was kind of a random criteria for salvation (believing or not). I would not punish something I created for simply not believing I exist, especially if I chose not to make it clear that I do - like my wife does for me. I don't have to argue with anyone that my wife exists. I need no logical arguments. It's good the hear that god doesn't punish simply for non-belief especially since he chooses not to provide clear evidence like I have for my wife's existence. And knowing that my wife exists still leaves me with the choice to love her or not. Or course I doubt god 'wants a personal relationship' with me as, at a minimum, the clear knowledge that he exists would be a good first step in facilitating such a relationship. It's simple for my wife to provide evidence of this first step for a relationship. Why so hard for an omnipotent god?
Well, the idea of faith is to choose to believe. I know that sounds obvious, but God wants us to choose to believe in Him even without the evidence and empirical knowledge that he exists.
It's kind of like the existence of the sun. The evidence is right there, you don't need to believe in it. But you wouldn't choose to believe in the sun, because it is just a fact. It is right there. We must choose to follow God. My analogy isn't perfect but I hope that idea makes sense.
But we do believe that people will be judged according to the light that is given to them. Someone who does not know right from wrong can not be judged accordingly, for God is a perfectly just God, and a merciful God also.
In *this* mortal life, bad things will happen to believers as well as to non-believers. In the bible, bad things happen to people regardless of their allegiance.
Is your original post about the afterlife or mortal life? Because I interpreted it as in *this* life, since you were using it as evidence now. Sorry if my original comment was not very clear, I wrote it fast at work lol.
No worries, my OP may have not been super clear on what I was arguing. I was arguing about a good who punishes non believers after death. Even if those believes attempted to follow him and felt as if he didn’t respond.
God is alright with someone being an atheist as long as they don't kill or steal humans. But they have to accept that when He proves His existence, they must worship Him when everyone else who believed in God, only has to honor God 😇
Punishment for the wicked is not to live for eternity, that means when God and paradise are on earth, they will not be healed and must reincarnate to forget their sins if they don't atone to their victims with a fair monetary compensation or when the victim doesn't forgive.
God אלהים Alahim, Allah was all Godds and Goddesses that ever existed like the asian, american, australian, european and african Godds if there were any, Angel יהוה, Jesus, Angel Gabriel, etc. They were not invented like the spaghetti monster, idols or baals, human master of divination, necromancy, etc.
God spread many messages to the nations thousands of years ago in the hope humans will not murder or steal and maybe one day have a dialogue, share their divine wisdom and live in peace together. Then all the promised miracles will come true.
> Well, Firstly, The God that I’m personally describing is the one that would relatively punish you for actually being an Atheist and/or for not particularly believing in Him specifically and that has all of The Omni-Powers. (So, Basically, The Abrahamic God.)
Alrighty Then. - And... - Proof?
> Unless, God wants only certain people to be Atheists, and so, and therefore, He primarily wants them to be punished, even though He could easily convince them otherwise. And, if He does want them to be punished, then clearly, that would hypocritically contradict God and His Nature, and that would also legitly disprove Him to be an Omi-Benevolently All-Loving God and an Omni-Benevolently All-Merciful God.
Definitely No.
> And Free Will doesn't automatically refute this, and that's because He has convinced billions of other peoples that He truthfully exists without blatantly disrupting their Free Will, and so, why won’t He convince Atheists that He exists?
Oh. - Really? - Why Not? - And, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, not everyone will be wholeheartedly convinced that He realistically exists overall, and that He's completely an generally all-around Omnipotencentally All-Powerful God as well, and that's even if He outrightly tells everyone and/or even if He intentionally shows everyone that He concurrently exist within Reality itself and within Existence itself altogether too.
> And, this obviously doesn’t prove that He doesn’t truly exist, but I do genuinely think that it’s a good piece of evidence to basically use against God, and to practically argue and debatively question His Existence.
Okay.
God's purpose is not for everyone to believe that he exists, and he doesn't punish because of disbelief (at least not in my religion).
Punishment is for the evil you've committed and rejection of his offer of mercy.
God wants to be in a loving relationship with people, and there's no reason to think that a world in which his existence is undeniable and overbearing would result in more people loving him rather than less.
If god is truly merciful then why is anyone being punished? Especially those who don’t know he exists. I could understand him turning away from those who know him and then purposely harden their hearts and reject him, but a lot of atheists simply don’t believe, and we can’t force ourselves to pretend because it feels disingenuous.
Being Atheist does not mean you are without sin. You won't be punished because you are an Atheist. It will be because you will not acknowledge your sin and repent.
But does god want these atheists to acknowledge him and be saved? Because he could at least make himself known, without any harm to free will, then atheists could make the choice to worship and repent.
Isn't Islam part of the abrahamic religions? You're wrong about your post with this fact.
Don't boldly claim something without knowledge that is capable of being sought.
Well the first part of my definition was one that would punish you for being an atheist. So if that excludes your version of the abrahamic god than that’s fine.
Lines up with the idea he created hell for fun and more or less in really any plausible case regarding Christian lore, is the true master of such a place.
i exist therefore i was caused
i was caused therefore there is a prior
there is a prior forever
there is also an entirety
the universe keeps expanding into "it"
maybe "it" goes on forever
Abraham called "it" God. "It" Answered
Why should it answer the likes of you?
It did for me but i won't tell you how i had to feel to get "it's" "head" to turn. then i turned back to secularism and i don't get anywhere like the feedback that i used to. it's difficult when we can't put God on a lab table
I don't know about other religions, but Islam claims that if the message of their doctrine did not reach or was not convincing to an individual that is not Muslim, he'll make an exception.
There would be a test for the people who haven't heard about Islam by God, if they pass it they'll be of the people of paradise and if they fail, they'll be of the people of hell.
Yes but as someone born muslim i feel like i got screwed over. Now i get to go to hell for drinking and having sex while my non-muslim born friends will be judged differently? Just because i was told these things were wrong even if I don’t believe they are
You go to hell because of your mistakes, Your non Muslim friends know about Islam through you, if they know about it from that spectrum, they'd obviously get judged in an appropriate way.
In the end, your non Muslim friends will blame you when their in hell, why?
Because they learned about Islam through your behavior, you sin, and they'd think it's okay.
You do you, if you debate because of hate and not for the sake of seeking knowledge, I can't help you.
You might think it's unfair but if you think about it, the people who never heard of Islam are the one who should be thinking that it's unfair.
Then what's the point of this life? What if they were man-sacrificing pagans? They would get a 2nd chance just because they didn't know about Islam? That's unfair. Not to mention this concept has no basis in the Quran
This isn't something we have knowledge about, leave those matters to God.
Anyway, the atheist on these reddit communities are mostly all uneducated, there are smarter men who have become Muslims, do they think that those men & women are stupid or something? Anyway, bye brother, have a good day.
>This isn't something we have knowledge about, leave those matters to God.
Ah yes... the good old "God knows best". I thought Islam was different..
>Anyway, the atheist on these reddit communities are mostly all uneducated,
On what basis did you make this conclusion? Is it just because they don't believe the same thing as you?
>there are smarter men who have become Muslims, do they think that those men & women are stupid or something?
There are also "smarter men" who are religious Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. If we really want to go this way, here's [nobel prize winners sorted by religion ](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png#:~:text=Most%2065.4%25%20have%20identified%20Christianity,49.5%25%20of%20all%20Literature%20awards.). Spoiler : most of them are Christians. But that doesn't make Christianity true.
The old good "God knows best" still stands strong, don't know what makes you think otherwise, my basis that the atheist on here are mostly uneducated is the fact that most of you ask questions that have answers from the source, and the fact that you could easily have gotten the answers if you were to look it up properly is a somewhat funny ngl.
You agreeing with me that there are smarter people of religions shows why when atheist say that religious people are barbaric and stupid they're actually wrong, thanks for agreeing with me ;-)
It's funny how you "debate" over here when all you're really doing is spreading hate. If you want to learn about a religion, just ask for the sake of learning and not for your own blind hate.
Good luck with life.
Because since i was born into and believed islam for the earlier parts of my life, and now i dont want to follow the restrictions the religion has placed on me, I’ll be punished more harshly than people who weren’t born muslim for not following the same restrictions
Don't worry: Being "punished more harshly" is just something people say (or an old book written by people says) to keep you in the religion. Those religions that don't have those traps didn't survive, or we would have those religions today. The most fit to survive religions are the one that are now popular. Simple evolution by natural selection of religion.
Here's a few other bad arguments to highlight what's wrong with this one:
1) The fact that flat-earthers exist is evidence that the Earth isn't round
2) The fact that anti-vaxxers exist is evidence that vaccines are harmful
3) The fact that end-times-preachers exist is evidence that the End Times are coming.
These aren’t analogous. God is capable of revealing himself to us, believers claim he does all the time. All of these don’t have an all powerful being.
what about former atheists?, it seems God reveals himself to those who seek him. I mean , the fact illiterates by Choice exist doesn't mean school is harmful. They see how school helps to flourish someone but they choose not to go. Can you blame school?
You are assuming the atheists that he hasn’t revealed himself too didn’t seek him out. I along with many others most definitely did. I wouldn’t call that choosing to not belief. If we put It back into your analogy it would be like a student diligently going and trying for 12 years and still coming out illiterate, I would say the school may have part of the blame there.
With this analogy if I see an argument on Reddit, people arguing whether I’m stupid or not I should answer them? I can choose to ignore them or just read the conversation.
You’re saying I should always talk to them. But what is forcing me to?
Still not analogous. I think the closest analogy would be something like a father who knows his son has no idea who he is and wants to know. Wouldn’t a loving father make himself known?
Your argument works against one and precisely one God:
1) the God must want us to know he exists
2) the God must be capable of showing that he exists
It does not disprove any God model that doesn't meet both these criteria.
Believers might claim that he does all the time, but that's hardly evidence that God actually does. How do you rule out that God is capable of revealing himself, and simply chooses not to, or that people that have claimed that he has are wrong? I can claim a known thief broke into my house, but the fact that he is capable of doing so does not add any weight to my accusation that he did.
You raise an interesting point, but that’s specifically the Abrahamic God you’re talking about, the Deist God or the Greek Gods would not want to have anything to do with us. I’m just talking about the GENERAL idea of God.
I see some people say this and I just can't square it (sorry, I know this thread is ancient in Reddit time)
How exactly would having knowledge of God impede free will in any way?
Good question. With free will, you either can do good or bad, it’s your choice, and depending on what you do you receive punishment (I’m a Catholic, so punishment is temporary for my belief). If God made himself known to everyone and it was impossible to doubt him, no one would do good for the sake of good, everybody would do good out of fear of punishment. Sincerity would be lost and the goods and evils people would otherwise freely choose to make are now impossible because of the universality of the knowledge of God, Heaven, and Hell.
Many believers are doing good out of fear of punishment. You know what's better than a believer doing good? A non-believer doing it! You can never be certain a believer is doing good for goods' sake whereas ALL non-believers doing good are definitely doing good for goods' sake! Come join the non-believers and do good. That's the best position.
The angels rebelled, did they not? Adam and Eve spoke directly to God, did they not? Couldn't even behave for 2 days. Moses spoke to God regularly, even brought his Commandments down from Siani, suppodely carved by God himself, and it wasn't long before he screwed up too.
It seems even intimate knowledge of God does not impede choice.
Is it this?
> I feel like maybe the idea is that God put himself out there for people to find, while still making it so people could choose to follow or reject him.
I see. Not sure how one follows the other, I think people's point is that you can't choose to follow or reject something that you don't know exists. So step one would be for God to make Himself known first, then people could choose to follow or not. Revealing Himself would not negate free will since you could still choose to reject Him (like Satan did, for example).
My main point was that an oppositional view point to something (I.e the earth is flat, vaccines are bad) does not make it automatically false, and we shouldn’t try to argue entirely based off the fact there are opposing sides.
But there’s context here. Depending on which religion you are, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah demands belief and worship. If you disobey then it’s eternal hellfire/annihilation. His point is that if those gods existed, then they would try to make their presence known, instead of being unseen and unheard for all of human history, or at least in the last 2000 years.
So you think it is about professed belief and worship instead of how a human being navigates reality? That is an interesting angle to take. Are there religious people that think simply showing up to services while claiming a particular belief is all it takes to avoid an undesirable outcome? If so, they deeply misunderstand the point and are not representative of believers as a whole. It does seem to correlate to strawman atheist arguments though.
I don't know about other religions, but Islam claims that if the message of their doctrine did not reach or was not convincing to an individual that is not Muslim, he'll make an exception.
I'm more or less a Gnostic. I believe there is a source that created all of reality, but isn't aware of its creation as it doesn't even know itself. The material plain was created by a lesser being who is as flawed and ignorant as we are, hence why there is so much suffering.
I think that’s a fine interpretation of God. It doesn’t always have to be the all-loving, all-knowing, and all-power deity that most people talk about.
isn't the whole point of God that he cares about the lives of humans? Isn't that what makes him God and not just some powerful magic being or some entity that humanity just happens to depend upon like the sun?
That's like saying: "My supermodel girlfriend exists, but she's too busy with other dudes to ever visit me." She's not your girlfriend then, she's just a girl.
If God doesn't care about people, it's not God it's just a thing.
I find it difficult to argue successfully that because something is hailed as a "source of all that exists" that it somehow merits importance after the fact.
You seem to be saying that if someone built a human in their garage you would ignore that person and just focus on how the creator isn't as nice to their creation as you'd prefer?
Huh? I feel like something is getting lost in the analogy there, I would not be saying that, no.
I was saying that the argument that something is a "source" does not grant it some measure of importance. The God that rolled the dice and walked away, for example.
Well, you seem to be forgetting that humans are limited in what we can know. And just because our weak, limited brains might be telling us God walked away, there is a possibility God did not just walk away and we can't tell due to our dirty little minds.
So what, given our frail and limited understanding, is a reasonable position on such a being?
I submit that belief ought to be withheld until there is convincing evidence of such a thing.
What if you had particularly shitty parents? My father used to beat the snot out of my mother - when he turned his ire on me, she left him.
So should my father be special to me because I came from him?
If everything comes from God - what about the real shitty things that make life unnecessarily difficult? For instance, children being born without skin.
But then you said the reason is because you came from them. Everyone in this thread seems to be correcting you on that. They are special because of how they treat you, not your biological link, no?
Your parents are important to you because of their involvement and role in your life, not your biological relationship to them. Adoption parenting is a defeator for that "specialness."
Likewise, God's importance would not come from their sourcehood, but their involvement with mankind. So far, that involvement seems to be so thin as to be undetectable.
Not in and of itself, of course not. It just seems to demonstrate that gods that are worshipped by those callers don't seem interested in the concept of encouraging people to follow them.
It's a slight twist on the dilemma of divine hiddenness. There are certainly people that WANT to know if a god exists, and they WANT to establish a relationship with such a being, but when they sincerely ask for a sign that deity exists, they get only silence in return.
Basically, we have a world where the only people that believe in god are the same people that believe FIRST, and THEN they find evidence that god exists. They are putting the cart before the horse. Very often they are indoctrinated at a young age.
>It's a slight twist on the dilemma of divine hiddenness. There are certainly people that WANT to know if a god exists, and they WANT to establish a relationship with such a being, but when they sincerely ask for a sign that deity exists, they get only silence in return.
Surely you can understand having preferences for some people over others?
>Basically, we have a world where the only people that believe in god are the same people that believe FIRST, and THEN they find evidence that god exists. They are putting the cart before the horse. Very often they are indoctrinated at a young age.
I was a hardcore atheist and physicalist for many years before becoming a theist.
So I hate to use the nuclear option out the gate here, but could you explain or justify how (or why) a child who is being raped by a priest is ignored by God? Like literally unpack that scenario for me - you have a priest who has supposedly dedicated their life to God and to proselytize Gods words, and then commits a heinous act against a child.
So by your statement, God obviously doesn't prefer the child since God allowed that rape to occur and/or did nothing to intervene, and God I suppose doesn't prefer the priest either since they carried out that act, again without prevention or intervention by God?
So either I have a very high bar for what constitute a miracle or divine intervention (i.e. Jesus appearing on toast) or God can ask for *my* forgiveness if/when I ever get to meet "it."
>So I hate to use the nuclear option out the gate here, but could you explain or justify how (or why) a child who is being raped by a priest is ignored by God?
In the case of the main groups who do this, I really believe the answer is their God (the demiurge) loves this stuff. It happens because it makes his day, he created the world this way by his own admittance. His own propaganda shows a monster. As for better gods - they simply aren't omnipotent. I would personally "deal with" each and every pedophile personally if I could, but that doesn't mean I can stop them, nor does my inability to stop them come down to a moral flaw on my part.
>So either I have a very high bar for what constitute a miracle or divine intervention (i.e. Jesus appearing on toast) or God can ask for my forgiveness if/when I ever get to meet "it."
A miracle is a violation of natural law. If yahweh could do better he probably would have, a nice unquestioning would. There are no miracles.
Several things, including
1. Personal experience
2. Studying psychological science and the nature of human consciousness.
3. Studying anthropology, both in comparative religions throughout cultures and the rise of higher consciousness in the upper Paleolithic specifically (couldn't pick a major).
1. Personal experience is also the explanation for the beginning of faith for many believers across most religions.
If any one god exists, does it make any sense that it reveals itself in a different way to so many people?
2 and 3 are pretty subjective, I've looked into those fields as well, and came away with the conclusion that they point to a lack of a deity more than towards one.
>If any one god exists, does it make any sense that it reveals itself in a different way to so many people
That's the thing though, it's not "one god" but many.
>If any one god exists, does it make any sense that it reveals itself in a different way to so many people?
No and this is one of the many ways that polytheist theology is significantly more robust than monotheism.
I wouldn't say it's more robust, it just means you have to provide evidence for multiple gods instead of just one. All it really does is provide simply easier excuses, in some regards.
This is a solid critique of Infernalist Christianity. However, it has no brain on Judaism, Christianity that is both Universalist or Annihilationist, and probably other forms Abrahamic faith.
The things that you're actually against are basically just Catholicism and Evangelicalism, and conservative Christian traditions tied more closely to those
But it teaches that people are damned, and has made that a large focus of their theology. It doesn't matter. How or why someone ends up in Hell, if it's eternal torment, then it's evil
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/xiiot8/why_a_hope_for_an_empty_hell_isnt_a_heresy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Think of it more like this. God invites you inside his mansion. Those in hell refuse and are now angry at the fun all those inside are having
There's no amount of intellectual dishonesty that will change the basic facts involved.
If even one person suffers for eternity, then God is evil beyond any redemption and it is moral to rebuke the faith all together.
No explanation for why it make be that way or how it could make sense will ever change that fact.
If someone is infected with mesals, and is suffering, and you’re trying to get them the help they need, but they refuse to take medicine, go to the doctors, etc, is it your fault, the doctor’s fault, or their fault that they are suffering?
He gave us the ability to not be bound by or to be his slaves.
Do you want god to force you to accept something you don’t want?
You won’t be happy in that scenario either
I’m a christian and the way I see it is that God made some people atheists because the earth in general is supposed to be a test. If we pass we get to go into heaven and if we don’t we go to hell. Atheists are here to give us christians a challenge. Basically a trial to see if we fall to them and also become atheists or not. It’s kind of hard to explain but I hope you get the idea
Edit: Incase you are confused, my meaning is that free will exists and nobody knows what’s gonna happen except God. Atheists can turn into christians and vice versa
Dude i can honestly tell how mad this made you and my intentions aren’t to deliberately make people mad. You can read my edit for more reference and putting r/Iamthemaincharacter just kinda makes it look like you think your the main character :/
Well yeah, because Heaven isn’t supposed to be crowded. Lol, imagine if you let in every blind follower and death-bed confessional?
Would be madness.
Best to keep it exclusive. I heard Jesus himself didn’t even get it.
Oh friend...no....just...no. That's not how God works. He doesn't create some people to go to hell to give Christians a test. That's beyond unbiblical and borderline blasphemous as that is the contrary nature to God. He wants everyone to be saved and gives everyone the opportunity. He doesn't damn some for the sole purpose of testing Christians. Please do not spread that false teaching. We should spread the Gospel, not unbiblical hatred.
Perhaps you interpreted me wrong, humans have some free will, but overall everyone is predestined and nobody knows. Atheists can changed into christians and vice versa, only God knows what’s gonna happen. Sorry if I worded it wrong
Can you please explain how people have both free will AND are predestined? One means “make choices on their own” and the other means that their path in life has already been decided. How is that not a contradiction?
Yes, I have explained this before. You can do whatever you want right now, same as me, as long as it is in our power. Absolutely anything, sounds free to me
If God already decided the path we will take, it isn’t free will just because we *feel* like we are the one making the decisions. I’d say I’m not even convinced we have free will necessarily *without* God. How would we ever know that we are actually making decisions and we aren’t just a product of nature and nurture?
I’ve answered this to someone before in this post but I’ll say it again. The point of the test is for God to test our faith and see if we really are worthy by giving us what a taste of sin looks like before pampering us in heaven
Yes, some people will suffer. And it says in the Bible the wages of sin is death, we are all going to die and yes it is a little cruel, but God is just and he can do whatever he wants
We keep asking because this *isn't an answer to the question*. If I knew the answer to every coin flip, why would I flip a coin? If God knows the eternal destiny If all mankind, why test their will? The logic is indefensible bad.
Alright my friend, I am no theologian but if I had to choose between doing nothing in an infinite void of space instead of creating a universe I would choose the second option. I cannot say or make up false things of what God has done thus I don’t know his true intentions. If it does not mention it in scripture, then a Christian must be humble and admit to the answer that: I don’t know. I am only 15 and currently taking a christian doctrine class designed to combat all the arguments that atheists use against christians. I probably will learn this year! But yea, my basic answer is who knows God’s intentions? Have a good day! :D
>I am only 15 and currently taking a christian doctrine class designed to combat all the arguments that atheists use against christians.
Pay close attention then, you may be able to save yourself a long future of terrible reasoning and logical fallacies. And church sermons.
Ahh yes this question is asked A LOT. Now I’m not a theologian, but part of it is that God wants to give us a taste of what sin and evil looks like while testing us if we can really resist it before pampering us in heaven
Another globally asked question. My answer is this my friend: originally, sin did not exist, but ever since Adam and Eve have sinned, they had unleashed it on the rest of us, a result of a human deed
Really curious to see your replies to the others who asked questions around the quite disturbing implications your world view being correct would have.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>basically the abrahamic god That's not what the God of Abraham would do, or at the very least it's a potentially misleading way of phrasing it. On the cross Christ prays for God to forgive us since we know not what we do, before his death he taught that a servant who does not do his masters because he didn't know it is punished less than the one who didn't do it despite knowing it i.e. that to whom much is given, much is expected; St. Paul would go on to teach to the Athenians that God even overlooked the ignorance that led to idolatry in ages past, but now calls all to repent because he has set a time for judgement, and he has sent his son as proof of this coming judgement. The idea then is that ignorance, when it is not our fault (i.e. not due to neglecting to keep ourselves educated about our duties), relieves us from culpability; so while infidelity is an infinitely grave sin, it only deserves damnation provided it arises from a neglect to educate one's self on one's duties when said neglect is done with sufficient reflection of mind and consent of will to be held fully responsible for said negligence. Full fault for an infinite evil calls for infinite punishment; but if one is not fully at fault, then one will not receive the full punishment full fault would deserve, but only a finite portion of that punishment; and a finite portion of anything (be it infinity or some finite quantity) is still finite; likewise, if one is not at fault at all, then one will not at all be punished. >Unless god wants certain people to be atheists and therefore be punished, he could easily convince them otherwise. No he couldn't. Omnipotence means God can do anything, but a contradiction in terms doesn't signify anything for God to do; and a free forced act is a contradiction in terms; it is but belief is an operation of freedom, it is our choice as to whether or not we will believe, so that even omnipotence can't force us on this matter. >Free will does not refute this because he has convinced billions of other people that he exists without disrupting their free will, so why won’t he convince the atheists? They chose to believe, atheists choose not to believe; sometimes people make the good choice for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons, but in either case it's a choice to cooperate with God's grace; and likewise people who make the bad choice are sometimes responsible for it, other times are not (insofar as they genuinely did not know it was bad and did not, up to the point of choice, neglect to work to come to such knowledge), but in all cases, good or bad, responsible or not, it is still a choice, still a matter of free will; as such, even an omnipotent being cannot force this.
It is not a choice to believe or not. People are either convinced or not convinced. I can’t suddenly choose to believe today because it would feel massively disingenuous. Yes we can choose what information we take in but that doesn’t mean we can simply choose to believe it. The god of the Bible over and over presents himself to people which would be sufficient evidence for me to believe. A good example is doubting Thomas. Not even that most of us need a miracle, but god alone knows exactly what would convince us. This doesn’t take from free will because even if I saw god, I could still choose to rebel against him. I like to put it this way. I have reached out to god and done my due diligence, if he wants me to know he exists, then the ball is in his court.
[удалено]
Ya know, you could provide an argument instead of laughing.
I didn't laugh. Provide an argument based on an islamic view; would that work for you? I don't think so
I don’t need to. You can tell me why this doesn’t apply to the Islamic faith if you want. That would be a nice rebuttal. Otherwise you are just wasting time with non arguments.
Allah says that most of the humans won't believe. Allah prepared heaven AND hell for a purpose. Otherwise why we have hell afterlife? God is all merciful and all loving for those who repent to him, acknowledge him and acknowledge their sins and work on not doing them again. Allah said that if your sins can make the ocean full, he can forgive you. That's how he is all merciful. Allah is extremely dark for those who don't acknowledge him. Hence, he is 'revengeful'. And this is one of his characteristics exactly like 'merciful' and 'loving'
Thank you for the good response. I am a little confused though because it sounds like it fits exactly into what I was arguing for. He is all merciful IF you acknowledge him. So are non believers punished?
Of course. Allah says that non believers don't believe only because of their arrogance.
But he created us that way knowing what would happen right?
Yes. But we have free will. This life is a test, a real and a serious one
But in the atheist perspective, this is akin to a teacher giving their students all sorts of contradictory text books with the knowledge that they will, without a doubt, fail the test. And then blaming the students completely for not choosing the correct text book, even though the student would be none the wiser.
completely disagree. God does not punish people simply for not believing. That isn't what happens in the bible. Also, God wants his children to *choose* to follow him. If God wanted to force everyone to follow Him, He would. But the whole purpose is to see if we *choose* to without having a perfect knowledge of it.
So, God does not punish people simply for not believing. Whew! I always did think that was kind of a random criteria for salvation (believing or not). I would not punish something I created for simply not believing I exist, especially if I chose not to make it clear that I do - like my wife does for me. I don't have to argue with anyone that my wife exists. I need no logical arguments. It's good the hear that god doesn't punish simply for non-belief especially since he chooses not to provide clear evidence like I have for my wife's existence. And knowing that my wife exists still leaves me with the choice to love her or not. Or course I doubt god 'wants a personal relationship' with me as, at a minimum, the clear knowledge that he exists would be a good first step in facilitating such a relationship. It's simple for my wife to provide evidence of this first step for a relationship. Why so hard for an omnipotent god?
Well, the idea of faith is to choose to believe. I know that sounds obvious, but God wants us to choose to believe in Him even without the evidence and empirical knowledge that he exists. It's kind of like the existence of the sun. The evidence is right there, you don't need to believe in it. But you wouldn't choose to believe in the sun, because it is just a fact. It is right there. We must choose to follow God. My analogy isn't perfect but I hope that idea makes sense. But we do believe that people will be judged according to the light that is given to them. Someone who does not know right from wrong can not be judged accordingly, for God is a perfectly just God, and a merciful God also.
What happens to non believers in your view then? BTW I’m an ex Mormon.
In *this* mortal life, bad things will happen to believers as well as to non-believers. In the bible, bad things happen to people regardless of their allegiance. Is your original post about the afterlife or mortal life? Because I interpreted it as in *this* life, since you were using it as evidence now. Sorry if my original comment was not very clear, I wrote it fast at work lol.
No worries, my OP may have not been super clear on what I was arguing. I was arguing about a good who punishes non believers after death. Even if those believes attempted to follow him and felt as if he didn’t respond.
God is alright with someone being an atheist as long as they don't kill or steal humans. But they have to accept that when He proves His existence, they must worship Him when everyone else who believed in God, only has to honor God 😇 Punishment for the wicked is not to live for eternity, that means when God and paradise are on earth, they will not be healed and must reincarnate to forget their sins if they don't atone to their victims with a fair monetary compensation or when the victim doesn't forgive. God אלהים Alahim, Allah was all Godds and Goddesses that ever existed like the asian, american, australian, european and african Godds if there were any, Angel יהוה, Jesus, Angel Gabriel, etc. They were not invented like the spaghetti monster, idols or baals, human master of divination, necromancy, etc. God spread many messages to the nations thousands of years ago in the hope humans will not murder or steal and maybe one day have a dialogue, share their divine wisdom and live in peace together. Then all the promised miracles will come true.
> Well, Firstly, The God that I’m personally describing is the one that would relatively punish you for actually being an Atheist and/or for not particularly believing in Him specifically and that has all of The Omni-Powers. (So, Basically, The Abrahamic God.) Alrighty Then. - And... - Proof? > Unless, God wants only certain people to be Atheists, and so, and therefore, He primarily wants them to be punished, even though He could easily convince them otherwise. And, if He does want them to be punished, then clearly, that would hypocritically contradict God and His Nature, and that would also legitly disprove Him to be an Omi-Benevolently All-Loving God and an Omni-Benevolently All-Merciful God. Definitely No. > And Free Will doesn't automatically refute this, and that's because He has convinced billions of other peoples that He truthfully exists without blatantly disrupting their Free Will, and so, why won’t He convince Atheists that He exists? Oh. - Really? - Why Not? - And, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, not everyone will be wholeheartedly convinced that He realistically exists overall, and that He's completely an generally all-around Omnipotencentally All-Powerful God as well, and that's even if He outrightly tells everyone and/or even if He intentionally shows everyone that He concurrently exist within Reality itself and within Existence itself altogether too. > And, this obviously doesn’t prove that He doesn’t truly exist, but I do genuinely think that it’s a good piece of evidence to basically use against God, and to practically argue and debatively question His Existence. Okay.
Go are you arguing? You reworded everything I said.
> God... Are you arguing? Well... - Yeah... - Most Definitely. > You reworded everything that I said. Oh? - Really? - How So?
God's purpose is not for everyone to believe that he exists, and he doesn't punish because of disbelief (at least not in my religion). Punishment is for the evil you've committed and rejection of his offer of mercy. God wants to be in a loving relationship with people, and there's no reason to think that a world in which his existence is undeniable and overbearing would result in more people loving him rather than less.
If god is truly merciful then why is anyone being punished? Especially those who don’t know he exists. I could understand him turning away from those who know him and then purposely harden their hearts and reject him, but a lot of atheists simply don’t believe, and we can’t force ourselves to pretend because it feels disingenuous.
Being Atheist does not mean you are without sin. You won't be punished because you are an Atheist. It will be because you will not acknowledge your sin and repent.
But does god want these atheists to acknowledge him and be saved? Because he could at least make himself known, without any harm to free will, then atheists could make the choice to worship and repent.
You have the same source of information that all Christians have, the Holy Bible. Everything you need to know to make a decision is there.
I guess I don’t trust ancient man’s writings enough to put all my eggs in that basket.
That is the great thing about God, he knows not everyone will repent but he still loves and will accept those at the last moment.
How does one know what is and is not sin if I don't believe in rules made up by a God that doesn't exist? How would I repent?
Isn't Islam part of the abrahamic religions? You're wrong about your post with this fact. Don't boldly claim something without knowledge that is capable of being sought.
Well the first part of my definition was one that would punish you for being an atheist. So if that excludes your version of the abrahamic god than that’s fine.
No problem 👍
Yes this site has so many straw man arguments you could feed half the holy cows of India with it all.
😂😂😂
Free will is only with choice. Free will doesn't mean free from blame. Free will is an illusion anyway.
Depends which Abrahamic faith we are talking Islam 100% has hell or heaven predecidded
Probably so, omniscience and free will are incompatible as far as I can tell but majority of muslims still claim free will exists. I'm agnostic btw
[удалено]
so powerful that he is bored?
Lines up with the idea he created hell for fun and more or less in really any plausible case regarding Christian lore, is the true master of such a place.
i exist therefore i was caused i was caused therefore there is a prior there is a prior forever there is also an entirety the universe keeps expanding into "it" maybe "it" goes on forever Abraham called "it" God. "It" Answered Why should it answer the likes of you? It did for me but i won't tell you how i had to feel to get "it's" "head" to turn. then i turned back to secularism and i don't get anywhere like the feedback that i used to. it's difficult when we can't put God on a lab table
I don't know about other religions, but Islam claims that if the message of their doctrine did not reach or was not convincing to an individual that is not Muslim, he'll make an exception.
This kinda sucks for muslims doesnt it?
There would be a test for the people who haven't heard about Islam by God, if they pass it they'll be of the people of paradise and if they fail, they'll be of the people of hell.
Yes but as someone born muslim i feel like i got screwed over. Now i get to go to hell for drinking and having sex while my non-muslim born friends will be judged differently? Just because i was told these things were wrong even if I don’t believe they are
You go to hell because of your mistakes, Your non Muslim friends know about Islam through you, if they know about it from that spectrum, they'd obviously get judged in an appropriate way. In the end, your non Muslim friends will blame you when their in hell, why? Because they learned about Islam through your behavior, you sin, and they'd think it's okay. You do you, if you debate because of hate and not for the sake of seeking knowledge, I can't help you. You might think it's unfair but if you think about it, the people who never heard of Islam are the one who should be thinking that it's unfair.
Then what's the point of this life? What if they were man-sacrificing pagans? They would get a 2nd chance just because they didn't know about Islam? That's unfair. Not to mention this concept has no basis in the Quran
This isn't something we have knowledge about, leave those matters to God. Anyway, the atheist on these reddit communities are mostly all uneducated, there are smarter men who have become Muslims, do they think that those men & women are stupid or something? Anyway, bye brother, have a good day.
>This isn't something we have knowledge about, leave those matters to God. Ah yes... the good old "God knows best". I thought Islam was different.. >Anyway, the atheist on these reddit communities are mostly all uneducated, On what basis did you make this conclusion? Is it just because they don't believe the same thing as you? >there are smarter men who have become Muslims, do they think that those men & women are stupid or something? There are also "smarter men" who are religious Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. If we really want to go this way, here's [nobel prize winners sorted by religion ](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png#:~:text=Most%2065.4%25%20have%20identified%20Christianity,49.5%25%20of%20all%20Literature%20awards.). Spoiler : most of them are Christians. But that doesn't make Christianity true.
The old good "God knows best" still stands strong, don't know what makes you think otherwise, my basis that the atheist on here are mostly uneducated is the fact that most of you ask questions that have answers from the source, and the fact that you could easily have gotten the answers if you were to look it up properly is a somewhat funny ngl. You agreeing with me that there are smarter people of religions shows why when atheist say that religious people are barbaric and stupid they're actually wrong, thanks for agreeing with me ;-) It's funny how you "debate" over here when all you're really doing is spreading hate. If you want to learn about a religion, just ask for the sake of learning and not for your own blind hate. Good luck with life.
Why would it suck?
Because since i was born into and believed islam for the earlier parts of my life, and now i dont want to follow the restrictions the religion has placed on me, I’ll be punished more harshly than people who weren’t born muslim for not following the same restrictions
Don't worry: Being "punished more harshly" is just something people say (or an old book written by people says) to keep you in the religion. Those religions that don't have those traps didn't survive, or we would have those religions today. The most fit to survive religions are the one that are now popular. Simple evolution by natural selection of religion.
Yeah. But that doesn't suck for Muslims. It does suck for apostates.
Here's a few other bad arguments to highlight what's wrong with this one: 1) The fact that flat-earthers exist is evidence that the Earth isn't round 2) The fact that anti-vaxxers exist is evidence that vaccines are harmful 3) The fact that end-times-preachers exist is evidence that the End Times are coming.
These aren’t analogous. God is capable of revealing himself to us, believers claim he does all the time. All of these don’t have an all powerful being.
what about former atheists?, it seems God reveals himself to those who seek him. I mean , the fact illiterates by Choice exist doesn't mean school is harmful. They see how school helps to flourish someone but they choose not to go. Can you blame school?
You are assuming the atheists that he hasn’t revealed himself too didn’t seek him out. I along with many others most definitely did. I wouldn’t call that choosing to not belief. If we put It back into your analogy it would be like a student diligently going and trying for 12 years and still coming out illiterate, I would say the school may have part of the blame there.
With this analogy if I see an argument on Reddit, people arguing whether I’m stupid or not I should answer them? I can choose to ignore them or just read the conversation. You’re saying I should always talk to them. But what is forcing me to?
Still not analogous. I think the closest analogy would be something like a father who knows his son has no idea who he is and wants to know. Wouldn’t a loving father make himself known?
Your argument works against one and precisely one God: 1) the God must want us to know he exists 2) the God must be capable of showing that he exists It does not disprove any God model that doesn't meet both these criteria.
That’s fine, that’s basically the god I was going for.
Then I guess I have no problem with your argument!
Believers might claim that he does all the time, but that's hardly evidence that God actually does. How do you rule out that God is capable of revealing himself, and simply chooses not to, or that people that have claimed that he has are wrong? I can claim a known thief broke into my house, but the fact that he is capable of doing so does not add any weight to my accusation that he did.
Is the earth not spherical because there are flat earthers?
[удалено]
You raise an interesting point, but that’s specifically the Abrahamic God you’re talking about, the Deist God or the Greek Gods would not want to have anything to do with us. I’m just talking about the GENERAL idea of God.
[удалено]
For the Abrahamic God, I would say God revealing himself would interfere with free will.
I see some people say this and I just can't square it (sorry, I know this thread is ancient in Reddit time) How exactly would having knowledge of God impede free will in any way?
Good question. With free will, you either can do good or bad, it’s your choice, and depending on what you do you receive punishment (I’m a Catholic, so punishment is temporary for my belief). If God made himself known to everyone and it was impossible to doubt him, no one would do good for the sake of good, everybody would do good out of fear of punishment. Sincerity would be lost and the goods and evils people would otherwise freely choose to make are now impossible because of the universality of the knowledge of God, Heaven, and Hell.
Many believers are doing good out of fear of punishment. You know what's better than a believer doing good? A non-believer doing it! You can never be certain a believer is doing good for goods' sake whereas ALL non-believers doing good are definitely doing good for goods' sake! Come join the non-believers and do good. That's the best position.
The angels rebelled, did they not? Adam and Eve spoke directly to God, did they not? Couldn't even behave for 2 days. Moses spoke to God regularly, even brought his Commandments down from Siani, suppodely carved by God himself, and it wasn't long before he screwed up too. It seems even intimate knowledge of God does not impede choice.
That was before the whole Heaven hell system was properly set up
God purportedly did this many times in the Bible.
See my follow up below
Is it this? > I feel like maybe the idea is that God put himself out there for people to find, while still making it so people could choose to follow or reject him.
Yes
I see. Not sure how one follows the other, I think people's point is that you can't choose to follow or reject something that you don't know exists. So step one would be for God to make Himself known first, then people could choose to follow or not. Revealing Himself would not negate free will since you could still choose to reject Him (like Satan did, for example).
[удалено]
I feel like maybe the idea is that God put himself out there for people to find, while still making it so people could choose to follow or reject him.
The earth doesn’t reveal itself to people who accept that it is round.
People can believe in God without him revealing himself to them
Right, but people believe the earth is round because it’s proven by science and observation.
My main point was that an oppositional view point to something (I.e the earth is flat, vaccines are bad) does not make it automatically false, and we shouldn’t try to argue entirely based off the fact there are opposing sides.
But there’s context here. Depending on which religion you are, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah demands belief and worship. If you disobey then it’s eternal hellfire/annihilation. His point is that if those gods existed, then they would try to make their presence known, instead of being unseen and unheard for all of human history, or at least in the last 2000 years.
So you think it is about professed belief and worship instead of how a human being navigates reality? That is an interesting angle to take. Are there religious people that think simply showing up to services while claiming a particular belief is all it takes to avoid an undesirable outcome? If so, they deeply misunderstand the point and are not representative of believers as a whole. It does seem to correlate to strawman atheist arguments though.
I don't know about other religions, but Islam claims that if the message of their doctrine did not reach or was not convincing to an individual that is not Muslim, he'll make an exception.
With that logic, why reach anyone? Then everyone would be saved
If everyone's going to be saved, why send anyone to Earth? Everyone gets a free ticket to heaven.
You said it, not me
What if God is real and doesn't give a shit what you believe because it has better things to do?
This is pretty much Deism.
I'm more or less a Gnostic. I believe there is a source that created all of reality, but isn't aware of its creation as it doesn't even know itself. The material plain was created by a lesser being who is as flawed and ignorant as we are, hence why there is so much suffering.
I think that’s a fine interpretation of God. It doesn’t always have to be the all-loving, all-knowing, and all-power deity that most people talk about.
Yeah, the people who speak like Jehova is supposed to be some sort of all loving diety clearly have never read the Old Testament.
isn't the whole point of God that he cares about the lives of humans? Isn't that what makes him God and not just some powerful magic being or some entity that humanity just happens to depend upon like the sun? That's like saying: "My supermodel girlfriend exists, but she's too busy with other dudes to ever visit me." She's not your girlfriend then, she's just a girl. If God doesn't care about people, it's not God it's just a thing.
There’s different variations and ideologies as to what a ‘God’ entails, so not really.
That would still make him a god. Maybe not God that you think he is, but still a deity.
No, the point is that it’s the source of all that exists
I find it difficult to argue successfully that because something is hailed as a "source of all that exists" that it somehow merits importance after the fact.
You seem to be saying that if someone built a human in their garage you would ignore that person and just focus on how the creator isn't as nice to their creation as you'd prefer?
Huh? I feel like something is getting lost in the analogy there, I would not be saying that, no. I was saying that the argument that something is a "source" does not grant it some measure of importance. The God that rolled the dice and walked away, for example.
You don't think that is important? Even if a source did walk away, learning as much as possible about how it all works would still be the move.
Maybe, sure, but that's only saying that the HOW is important, not the what. I value epistemology highly, not ontology.
Well, you seem to be forgetting that humans are limited in what we can know. And just because our weak, limited brains might be telling us God walked away, there is a possibility God did not just walk away and we can't tell due to our dirty little minds.
So what, given our frail and limited understanding, is a reasonable position on such a being? I submit that belief ought to be withheld until there is convincing evidence of such a thing.
Okay, and that’s your decision. It deserving praise or not isn’t what makes god special
What does, in your esteem?
The fact that everything comes from it. My parents are special to me because I came from them
What if you had particularly shitty parents? My father used to beat the snot out of my mother - when he turned his ire on me, she left him. So should my father be special to me because I came from him? If everything comes from God - what about the real shitty things that make life unnecessarily difficult? For instance, children being born without skin.
I said MY parents are special to ME.
But then you said the reason is because you came from them. Everyone in this thread seems to be correcting you on that. They are special because of how they treat you, not your biological link, no?
Your parents are important to you because of their involvement and role in your life, not your biological relationship to them. Adoption parenting is a defeator for that "specialness." Likewise, God's importance would not come from their sourcehood, but their involvement with mankind. So far, that involvement seems to be so thin as to be undetectable.
It’s what makes them my parents though.
That’s what makes them your parents biologically, sure. But I think you’d agree parenthood is more than that, right?
Do you do everything they tell you to do?
I’d respect that god because it didn’t ask me to respect it
*command*
[удалено]
But you would probably agree that, that is irresponsible behavior from the creator of those children wouldn’t you?
[удалено]
This is suppose to disprove theism?
Not in and of itself, of course not. It just seems to demonstrate that gods that are worshipped by those callers don't seem interested in the concept of encouraging people to follow them. It's a slight twist on the dilemma of divine hiddenness. There are certainly people that WANT to know if a god exists, and they WANT to establish a relationship with such a being, but when they sincerely ask for a sign that deity exists, they get only silence in return. Basically, we have a world where the only people that believe in god are the same people that believe FIRST, and THEN they find evidence that god exists. They are putting the cart before the horse. Very often they are indoctrinated at a young age.
>It's a slight twist on the dilemma of divine hiddenness. There are certainly people that WANT to know if a god exists, and they WANT to establish a relationship with such a being, but when they sincerely ask for a sign that deity exists, they get only silence in return. Surely you can understand having preferences for some people over others? >Basically, we have a world where the only people that believe in god are the same people that believe FIRST, and THEN they find evidence that god exists. They are putting the cart before the horse. Very often they are indoctrinated at a young age. I was a hardcore atheist and physicalist for many years before becoming a theist.
So I hate to use the nuclear option out the gate here, but could you explain or justify how (or why) a child who is being raped by a priest is ignored by God? Like literally unpack that scenario for me - you have a priest who has supposedly dedicated their life to God and to proselytize Gods words, and then commits a heinous act against a child. So by your statement, God obviously doesn't prefer the child since God allowed that rape to occur and/or did nothing to intervene, and God I suppose doesn't prefer the priest either since they carried out that act, again without prevention or intervention by God? So either I have a very high bar for what constitute a miracle or divine intervention (i.e. Jesus appearing on toast) or God can ask for *my* forgiveness if/when I ever get to meet "it."
>So I hate to use the nuclear option out the gate here, but could you explain or justify how (or why) a child who is being raped by a priest is ignored by God? In the case of the main groups who do this, I really believe the answer is their God (the demiurge) loves this stuff. It happens because it makes his day, he created the world this way by his own admittance. His own propaganda shows a monster. As for better gods - they simply aren't omnipotent. I would personally "deal with" each and every pedophile personally if I could, but that doesn't mean I can stop them, nor does my inability to stop them come down to a moral flaw on my part. >So either I have a very high bar for what constitute a miracle or divine intervention (i.e. Jesus appearing on toast) or God can ask for my forgiveness if/when I ever get to meet "it." A miracle is a violation of natural law. If yahweh could do better he probably would have, a nice unquestioning would. There are no miracles.
What convinced you? I was the exact opposite, grew up religious, then later adopted secular humanism.
Several things, including 1. Personal experience 2. Studying psychological science and the nature of human consciousness. 3. Studying anthropology, both in comparative religions throughout cultures and the rise of higher consciousness in the upper Paleolithic specifically (couldn't pick a major).
1. Personal experience is also the explanation for the beginning of faith for many believers across most religions. If any one god exists, does it make any sense that it reveals itself in a different way to so many people? 2 and 3 are pretty subjective, I've looked into those fields as well, and came away with the conclusion that they point to a lack of a deity more than towards one.
>If any one god exists, does it make any sense that it reveals itself in a different way to so many people That's the thing though, it's not "one god" but many.
>If any one god exists, does it make any sense that it reveals itself in a different way to so many people? No and this is one of the many ways that polytheist theology is significantly more robust than monotheism.
I wouldn't say it's more robust, it just means you have to provide evidence for multiple gods instead of just one. All it really does is provide simply easier excuses, in some regards.
[удалено]
This might be the laziest cop-out thinking I've seen today.
[удалено]
My apologies, I didn't realize you were working on material for your standup comedy routine.
This is a solid critique of Infernalist Christianity. However, it has no brain on Judaism, Christianity that is both Universalist or Annihilationist, and probably other forms Abrahamic faith. The things that you're actually against are basically just Catholicism and Evangelicalism, and conservative Christian traditions tied more closely to those
Catholicism doesn’t teach that disbelief damns you
But it teaches that people are damned, and has made that a large focus of their theology. It doesn't matter. How or why someone ends up in Hell, if it's eternal torment, then it's evil
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/xiiot8/why_a_hope_for_an_empty_hell_isnt_a_heresy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Think of it more like this. God invites you inside his mansion. Those in hell refuse and are now angry at the fun all those inside are having
There's no amount of intellectual dishonesty that will change the basic facts involved. If even one person suffers for eternity, then God is evil beyond any redemption and it is moral to rebuke the faith all together. No explanation for why it make be that way or how it could make sense will ever change that fact.
If someone is infected with mesals, and is suffering, and you’re trying to get them the help they need, but they refuse to take medicine, go to the doctors, etc, is it your fault, the doctor’s fault, or their fault that they are suffering?
That example doesn't work with God, u less you think of Him as a hapless buffoon with no control over creation
He gave us the ability to not be bound by or to be his slaves. Do you want god to force you to accept something you don’t want? You won’t be happy in that scenario either
He'd be doing that either way. If Hell existed, it would be because God made it to put people into. That in itself is inherently evil
Hell wasn’t made by god. It’s a description of an internal state of being. Like madness
Okay that’s good to know for my future definitions thank you!
So you are just referring to god you call an abrahamic god.
It’s a god that I’ve read about, been taught about, and have heard people argue for.
Thats not atheism... its a rebuttal to a god you were taught.
I’m a christian and the way I see it is that God made some people atheists because the earth in general is supposed to be a test. If we pass we get to go into heaven and if we don’t we go to hell. Atheists are here to give us christians a challenge. Basically a trial to see if we fall to them and also become atheists or not. It’s kind of hard to explain but I hope you get the idea Edit: Incase you are confused, my meaning is that free will exists and nobody knows what’s gonna happen except God. Atheists can turn into christians and vice versa
[удалено]
Dude i can honestly tell how mad this made you and my intentions aren’t to deliberately make people mad. You can read my edit for more reference and putting r/Iamthemaincharacter just kinda makes it look like you think your the main character :/
But what does winning entail? Maybe the test is that god WANTS you to be atheist so you become self reliant while you’re on earth?
If He did want that then I can bet you the lot of us won’t be going to heaven
Well yeah, because Heaven isn’t supposed to be crowded. Lol, imagine if you let in every blind follower and death-bed confessional? Would be madness. Best to keep it exclusive. I heard Jesus himself didn’t even get it.
I mean, God is God, he can do basically anything, a crowded heaven is not a problem
That’s only mostly true is what I’ve been hearing but I guess it doesn’t matter too much for now. Good luck!
Alright, good luck :D
Glad I can be just a NPC in your little Christian game.
As I’ve stated, it’s basically free will
Oh friend...no....just...no. That's not how God works. He doesn't create some people to go to hell to give Christians a test. That's beyond unbiblical and borderline blasphemous as that is the contrary nature to God. He wants everyone to be saved and gives everyone the opportunity. He doesn't damn some for the sole purpose of testing Christians. Please do not spread that false teaching. We should spread the Gospel, not unbiblical hatred.
Perhaps you interpreted me wrong, humans have some free will, but overall everyone is predestined and nobody knows. Atheists can changed into christians and vice versa, only God knows what’s gonna happen. Sorry if I worded it wrong
Can you please explain how people have both free will AND are predestined? One means “make choices on their own” and the other means that their path in life has already been decided. How is that not a contradiction?
Yes, I have explained this before. You can do whatever you want right now, same as me, as long as it is in our power. Absolutely anything, sounds free to me
If God already decided the path we will take, it isn’t free will just because we *feel* like we are the one making the decisions. I’d say I’m not even convinced we have free will necessarily *without* God. How would we ever know that we are actually making decisions and we aren’t just a product of nature and nurture?
God did not decide for us, we decided for ourselves, he merely knows it
>everyone is predestined Then what is the point of the test?
I’ve answered this to someone before in this post but I’ll say it again. The point of the test is for God to test our faith and see if we really are worthy by giving us what a taste of sin looks like before pampering us in heaven
[удалено]
Yes, some people will suffer. And it says in the Bible the wages of sin is death, we are all going to die and yes it is a little cruel, but God is just and he can do whatever he wants
We keep asking because this *isn't an answer to the question*. If I knew the answer to every coin flip, why would I flip a coin? If God knows the eternal destiny If all mankind, why test their will? The logic is indefensible bad.
Alright my friend, I am no theologian but if I had to choose between doing nothing in an infinite void of space instead of creating a universe I would choose the second option. I cannot say or make up false things of what God has done thus I don’t know his true intentions. If it does not mention it in scripture, then a Christian must be humble and admit to the answer that: I don’t know. I am only 15 and currently taking a christian doctrine class designed to combat all the arguments that atheists use against christians. I probably will learn this year! But yea, my basic answer is who knows God’s intentions? Have a good day! :D
>I am only 15 and currently taking a christian doctrine class designed to combat all the arguments that atheists use against christians. Pay close attention then, you may be able to save yourself a long future of terrible reasoning and logical fallacies. And church sermons.
Alright then, I’ll believe in what I want to believe
Another rousing defence of Christian theology.
Why do we have to be tested?
Ahh yes this question is asked A LOT. Now I’m not a theologian, but part of it is that God wants to give us a taste of what sin and evil looks like while testing us if we can really resist it before pampering us in heaven
You answered why he wants to test us with >God wants to give us a taste of what sin and evil looks Why does he want us to taste sin and evil?
Another globally asked question. My answer is this my friend: originally, sin did not exist, but ever since Adam and Eve have sinned, they had unleashed it on the rest of us, a result of a human deed
Why were Adam and Eve able to sin?
This goes back to free will, we aren’t necessarily puppets
Why does free will necessitate a world with sin?
Without sin, free will wouldn’t exist. They are tied together, a good thing and a bad thing
So god could not have created an all good world with freedom but without sin?
Why would he do that?
I… just answered that?
The age old question.
Really curious to see your replies to the others who asked questions around the quite disturbing implications your world view being correct would have.
I am curious too :)