Feed on Posts or Comments 25 July 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 26 Aug 2010 12:00 am

A great question from the forums: Do you allow your “god” to commit amazing atrocities? Why?

Found in this thread:

“…Except when my God is involved”

Dear Christians,

Do the attitudes summarized below seem familiar to you?

I’m just curious if you’re all conscious that this is what many of us non-religionists observe of your way of thinking.

  • “Killing people (including children) and genocide are immoral deeds, except when ordered or done by my God.”
  • “Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing can be eternal, except my God.”
  • “I think it’s immoral for someone else to be held accountable for my transgressions, except when the situation involves my God.”
  • “I think slavery is wrong, except when it is condoned by my God.”
  • “I think it’s wrong to torture anyone, except it’s perfectly fine for my God to torture scores of people eternally without any chance of redemption.” (Note: does not apply to the Christians who have the decency to arbitrarily disregard the verses about damnation)
  • “I think it’s wrong to punish people for the sins of their parents/relatives/ancestors, except when the situation involves my God.”

I could go on, but this should suffice.

Do you allow your “god” to commit amazing atrocities? Why?

49 Responses to “A great question from the forums: Do you allow your “god” to commit amazing atrocities? Why?”

  1. on 26 Aug 2010 at 11:31 pm 1.Ben said …

    1. Yes God’s judgments sometimes involves the taking of life. He who gives life may take it,

    2. Yes, God is eternal as well as omnipotent being and required to create and sustain a universe this vast. We see and study matter and have no reason to believe it could perform such a deed.

    3. You believe it is immoral for another to pay for your sins even when they are willing? Maybe, however you can’t pay for them therefore be glad Jesus was willing.

    4. Slavery in the Bible is a when an individual willingly sells himself into the service of another.

    5. God does not will that any are tortured in hell which is why Jesus came so you would not need to face the punishment. However earlier you claim it is not moral so…

    6. You may think God’s laws are immoral but it rally is moot. His ways are so much higher than mans. (IS 55:8) You probably think some of man’s laws are wrong as well but our personal opinion is really irrelevant.

    Hope this helps.

  2. on 27 Aug 2010 at 1:11 am 2.3D said …

    1.Ben said …

    1. Yes God’s judgments sometimes involves the taking of life. He who gives life may take it,

    So do you think that a mother should be able to legally drown her baby in a bathtub?

    2. Yes, God is eternal as well as omnipotent being and required to create and sustain a universe this vast. We see and study matter and have no reason to believe it could perform such a deed.

    Matter has one advantage over God though: it exists.

    Also, you’re begging the question. Inherent in your statement is an assumption that the universe was “created”. Suppose it always existed, the way you claim God always existed.

    3. You believe it is immoral for another to pay for your sins even when they are willing?

    Actually I think the whole concept of “sin” is immoral, let alone “paying for it”. Especially when it comes to the “sins” described in the Bible that seem to piss God off — some of them being very silly/innocuous, like masturbating, homosexuality, talking back to your parents, working on Saturday, etc.

    Humans have come up with a much better system for keeping wrongdoers out of society and/or reforming them: we get together and decide as a group what constitutes an offense. Most of the time this doesn’t agree with what the stupid Bible says, and that’s a sign of progress. Countries that follow what ancient religious texts say and incorporate them into law are quite rightly considered third world cesspools of human rights abuse (like Saudi Arabia).

    Maybe, however you can’t pay for them therefore be glad Jesus was willing.

    What did Jesus really do? Hang on a cross for a while, then die for 3 days and come back to life to exist exactly the way he did before the crucifixion. If he really sacrificed anything, wouldn’t he stay dead?

    4. Slavery in the Bible is a when an individual willingly sells himself into the service of another.

    BZZZZZZZZT! Verses available on request, detailing God’s instructions for invading armies to take victims captive and keep them as slaves (sometimes sex slaves).

    5. God does not will that any are tortured in hell which is why Jesus came so you would not need to face the punishment.

    Bullshit, if God did not will anyone to be tortured in hell, he could just scrap the whole system and make it fair. But he designs human beings with faults and desires to commit certain acts, then punishes them for doing those acts by torturing them eternally. And the only way out of it is to spend 70 years kissing his ass. What a guy.

    6. You may think God’s laws are immoral but it rally is moot. His ways are so much higher than mans.

    I disagree, man’s laws (in the Western world anyway) make a lot more sense than ordering people to sacrifice animals, stone their kids for talking back to them, or not work on the Sabbath. That’s because those laws didn’t come from God, they came from backwards sheep-fucking idiots in the desert.

  3. on 27 Aug 2010 at 12:08 pm 3.Ben said …

    “So do you think that a mother should be able to legally drown her baby in a bathtub?”

    No, a woman does not create life. God does. But as you know, woman are allowed to have babies sucked out of the womb so…

    “assumption that the universe was “created”.”

    Correct, scientist are in agreement the universe had a beginning.

    “If he really sacrificed anything, wouldn’t he stay dead?”

    No, he conquered sin and death with His resurrection.

    But he designs human beings with faults and desires to commit certain acts, then punishes them”

    No, not if you accept Christ as the payment for sin. Its not fair, we deserve hell but His grace and mercy provide a way out.

  4. on 27 Aug 2010 at 5:01 pm 4.Hello21 said …

    “Correct, scientist are in agreement the universe had a beginning.”

    Now you are assuming that every event that has ever happened also has an intelligent being that caused it to happen. That’s quite an assumption. Can you prove it?

  5. on 27 Aug 2010 at 7:20 pm 5.Susan said …

    No, scientists are not in agreement that the universe had a beginning.

    Ben, your god is immoral, and if he existed, I would have to declare myself his enemy.

  6. on 27 Aug 2010 at 7:40 pm 6.Severin said …

    3 Ben
    “Correct, scientist are in agreement the universe had a beginning.”

    They agree the EXISITING universe, universe in the present form, started form the BB.
    It does not mean it started from nothing! It started from the same matter and energy present in the universe now, which only was in another form at the “beginning”.
    Universe as we know it, started to exist in present form, had a beginning in BB, but was NOT created.

  7. on 27 Aug 2010 at 7:48 pm 7.Severin said …

    3 Ben
    “Jesus came so you would not need to face the punishment.”

    What about Egyptians, Cheneses, Persians…including their early died children, 3000 years BC, who never heard about christian god or Jesus.
    Did he “save”them too?

    Why did god/Jesus chose to “save” a negligible nation in Europe, some 3 or 4000 years after first big civilisations appeared, and forgot to save millions of Chineses, Persians, South American nations, people in Australia, Indoensisa….
    Was your god an ignorant imbecile? Didn’t he know there were hubdreds of millions of people living in “sin”, who deserved to be “saved” too?

  8. on 27 Aug 2010 at 10:17 pm 8.Ben said …

    “Ben, your god is immoral, and if he existed, I would have to declare myself his enemy.”

    You are correct. Ephesians states that we are enemies of God when we are separated from Him because of our sin. Therefore I can agree with you.

    Susan, to continue. The vast majority of scientist do believe the Universe had a beginning. You can find a scientist to postulate any position you may like, but a point of creation 4.5 billion years ago is still the dominant theory. It was of course orchestrated by God. A pretty amazing work of art I might add.

  9. on 28 Aug 2010 at 1:35 am 9.Observer said …

    #8 Ben You really do not have the Big Bang thing down. Someone posted a great lecture by Hawking recently. The BB goes back to almost 16B years. That is based on empirical observations, and running the Hawking and Penrose’s equations backward. They only get to a singularity. Who knows what was before that? ( Incidentally dividing a non-zero real number by zero is a simple singularity. )

  10. on 28 Aug 2010 at 1:39 am 10.Observer said …

    #8 Ben I like your penultimate sentence better than what is usually said here. God the conductor versus God the creator. It is a step in the right direction, and marvelously heretical. I am not quite sure where the art comes into it all. In what way is the universe symbolic?

  11. on 28 Aug 2010 at 5:19 am 11.Severin said …

    8 Ben
    “You can find a scientist to postulate any position you may like, but a point of creation 4.5 billion years ago is still the dominant theory.”

    What was “created” 4.5 billion yeras ago?
    The BB was estimated to happen some 13.75 billion years ago.

    Earth was formed some 4.5 billionyears ago, but this process has nothing to do with the BB. No similarity between the two.

  12. on 28 Aug 2010 at 5:31 am 12.Severin said …

    Ben,
    I see you do recognize the BB, you only do not know how far ago it accured, and you claim it was god’s deed.
    So, according to you, this is the order how things happened:

    An all-mighty, ever-lasting god caused the BB some 13.75 billion years ago. Universe developed to some 50 or 100 billion galaxies, 400 billion stars eaach in average, following extremely complex laws of physics god invented imposed to the universe.
    Some god, I must say!

    THEN, after 13.75 billion years the same god came to earth to create man from mud and to order him to multiply by inbreeding.
    He wrote the Bible and gave detailed instructions how to beat slaves. He also sniffed burnt offerings and killed people if he did not like the smell.

    Was it that way?
    Was it the same god?

  13. on 28 Aug 2010 at 10:46 am 13.3D said …

    11.Severin said …

    8 Ben
    “You can find a scientist to postulate any position you may like, but a point of creation 4.5 billion years ago is still the dominant theory.”
    What was “created” 4.5 billion yeras ago?
    The BB was estimated to happen some 13.75 billion years ago.

    Listen, most of them think the whole thing was created in the past 6,000 years. At least this doofus is into the billions now. He’s still wrong, but he’s closer than most of the fucktards.

  14. on 28 Aug 2010 at 10:50 am 14.3D said …

    Severin wrote:

    An all-mighty, ever-lasting god caused the BB some 13.75 billion years ago. Universe developed to some 50 or 100 billion galaxies, 400 billion stars eaach in average, following extremely complex laws of physics god invented imposed to the universe.
    Some god, I must say!
    THEN, after 13.75 billion years the same god came to earth to create man from mud and to order him to multiply by inbreeding.
    He wrote the Bible and gave detailed instructions how to beat slaves. He also sniffed burnt offerings and killed people if he did not like the smell.
    Was it that way?
    Was it the same god?

    You forgot the exciting part where he turned himself into a man, so he could sacrifice himself, to himself, to prevent himself from throwing everyone in hell. (Why he couldn’t just, you know, DECIDE not to throw everyone into hell, without a sacrifice involved, no one knows.) But then he throws 99.99999% of the world in hell anyway.

    Sounds like a story written by a 4th-grader with A.D.D. A dog could swallow a Scrabble set and shit out letters in random order and it wouldn’t make any less sense.

  15. on 28 Aug 2010 at 1:38 pm 15.Horatio said …

    “A dog could swallow a Scrabble set and shit out letters in random order and it wouldn’t make any less sense.”

    Isn’t that the atheist theory for the formation of the universe? No wait, a dog has some intelligence so that cannot be it.

    Actually the age of the universe is anywhere between 10-20 billion years ago depending on methodologies and many many assumptions. In another 50 years that number will change again. Its all good Ben, these guys tend to major in the minor. Point in fact, regardless of the date (4 billion or 30 billion) the universe did not create itself. 3Ds dog took a random dump and whamo a universe. It does sound like s 4th grader story.

    3D, since you tend to major in the minor, ADD does not require a period after each letter. (sigh) LOL.

  16. on 28 Aug 2010 at 7:23 pm 16.3D said …

    15.Horatio said …

    “A dog could swallow a Scrabble set and shit out letters in random order and it wouldn’t make any less sense.”
    Isn’t that the atheist theory for the formation of the universe? No wait, a dog has some intelligence so that cannot be it.

    No, you’re thinking of the Biblical story about how God created man. (Except it was clay, not shit.)

    Actually the age of the universe is anywhere between 10-20 billion years ago depending on methodologies and many many assumptions. In another 50 years that number will change again.

    Sure, estimates get revised over time as we develop better ways of examining our surroundings. I think it’s pretty safe to say, though, that science will never build a telescope that discovers that God sneezed soul-phlegm into a mud-man’s nostrils 6,000 years ago.

    Its all good Ben, these guys tend to major in the minor. Point in fact, regardless of the date (4 billion or 30 billion)

    What about 6,000? You forgot 6,000, you know, the date that comes from the Bible that you believe in.

    the universe did not create itself.

    No, but God created himself, right?

    3Ds dog took a random dump and whamo a universe.

    No, that was my analogy for how the stupid Bible was written. In reality, the universe always existed, with no creation. Kind of the same way you think God always existed, with no creator. Except with no intermediary fairy story about a man in the sky that makes earthquakes and gives people AIDS.

  17. on 29 Aug 2010 at 7:39 am 17.Severin said …

    15 Horatio
    „Isn’t that the atheist theory for the formation of the universe? No wait, a dog has some intelligence so that cannot be it.“

    Yes, Horatio, you must be right. Mr. Lemaitre who developed the BB theory was not an atheist, but a catholic, and what can you expect from a catholic?! Mr. Einstein, on whose works Mr. Lemaitre based the theory, was an atheist, of course (or, was he?), and total unintelligent idiot.
    A pleyade of scientst which worked on the theory were either atheists or catolics, or simly: unintelligent idiots.
    Mr. Howking is an idiot, of course! What can HE say, if the Bible says god created light before sun and made man from dust (mud, clay).

  18. on 29 Aug 2010 at 11:26 am 18.Boz said …

    Severin thank you. The common theme as you outlined above, all were theist of some sort. Therefore BB makes since in that light.

  19. on 29 Aug 2010 at 11:50 am 19.Severin said …

    Horatio, Boz,

    I attache here a short list of “atheists” and people “less intelligent than dogs”.
    I admit I just cherry-picked it from a looooong list of such unintelligent idiots. I do hope you will not mind about such a “method” as you know positively they all were just atheistic idiots, so who cares!
    here you are:
    Archimede, Euclid, Pitagora, Ptolomey, N. Bohr, W. Pauli, G. Galilei, G. Bruno, A. Lavoisier, L. Meintner, S. Hawking, A. Einstein, J. L. Lagrange, P. S. Laplace, I. Newton, B. Pascal, I. Radon, E. Schroedinger, E. Torricelli, A. Avogadro, P. Berg, J.J. Berzelius, R. Boyle, H. Cavendish, M. and P. Curie, F.J. and I.J. Curie, J. Dalton, H. Davy, M. Faradey, E. Fermi, D. I. Mendeleev, V. Prelog, A. Volta, J.D. van der Waals, B. Franklin, C.A. de Coulomb, J. Watt, A.M. Ampere, A. Volta, J. Fourier, J.C.F. Gauss, G. Ohm, C. Doppler, J.P. Joule, H. von Helmholz, W.T. (Lord) Kelvin, J.C. Maxwell, E. Mach, J. Gibbs, O. Reynolds, L. Boltzmann, H. Poincare, H. Herz, N. Tesla, W. Roentgen, A.H. Becquerel, H.A. Lorenz, M. Planck, N. Copernicus, J.R. Oppenheimer……

    Oppenheimer, Fermi, Einstein, and a bunch of other unintelligent idiots and atheists were responsible for a-bomb, based on the exactly the same idiotic, non-scientific priciples on which the BB theory was based.

    How was it that the US government chose THEM to make the a-bomb, not a bunch of bishops?

  20. on 29 Aug 2010 at 2:17 pm 20.Horatio said …

    Cherry picking indeed! You even add guys who were not atheist like Einstein, the Catholic cleric Copernicus and Oppenheimer the Jew! No time to go through the whole list. You really are an easy mark but you are a lot of fun.

    But alas, I guess all the theistic scientist are idiots Sev? Hmmm? You cherry pick which scientist you believe and which you don’t? History records most scintist have been of some religion so wake up!

    Bragging on scientist who made the bomb? Two Jews leading the way? They were chosen because they were bright not omnipotent. If they were omnipotent they would have never developed the bomb.

    Boz, you scored!

  21. on 29 Aug 2010 at 2:55 pm 21.Severin said …

    15 Hoatio
    “Isn’t that the atheist theory for the formation of the universe? No wait, a dog has some intelligence so that cannot be it.”
    20 Horatio
    “You even add guys who were not atheist like Einstein, the Catholic cleric Copernicus and Oppenheimer the Jew!“
    „History records most scintist have been of some religion so wake up!“

    Now please put your mark on what you really wanted to say:
    a) Jew scienists are irrelevant (Jews are all ignorants knowing less than a dog)
    b) Atheist scientists are irrelevant (atheist scientists are all ignorants knowing less than a dog)
    c) Only religious scientists know what they are doing
    d) Lemaitre was an atheist
    e) Lemaitre was not an atheist
    f) A-bomb was based on Einstein’s theory
    g) A-boomb was not based on Einstein’s theory (it worked only because god decided to support two ignorant Jews?! He also supported the USSR scientists the same way!?)
    h) The BB theory is not based on Einstein’s theory
    i) The BB theory is based on Einstein’s theory
    j) Einstein is an atheist when I (Horatio) need him to be it
    k) I claim any BS, no matter what, so far it fits to my believes

  22. on 29 Aug 2010 at 4:50 pm 22.Ben said …

    Anyone have a clue what Severin is talking about?

    All I stated was the BB only makes sense with God creating the event. In actually thought that was simple and straight forward. What caused the BB is rarely discussed.

    Horatio is right about your silly list. Are you really attempting to claim:

    BEN FRANKLIN and BLAISE PASCAL were atheist?

    Where did you get this ridiculous list?

    Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager?

  23. on 29 Aug 2010 at 5:52 pm 23.Observer said …

    #22 Ben It is quite clear from your postings that most things regarding rational thought and science do not make sense to you. God provides neither necessity nor sufficiency to the Big Bang. There is no axiomatic construction which admits such a case.

    Pascal’s wager is more about the existence of “God”. It is an illustration of a Type I error versus as Type II error. As for what looks like belief in his declining years, it is pretty well understood that folks often are not at their best when very old and/or sick.

    As for Franklin, he was either a deist, or an atheist. Again, taking people out of their historical context is not good. There were folk living in Franklin’s time who were alive during the Salem Witch Trials. One did not come out and say they were atheists even if they were.

    Einstein wrote in his personal correspondence he saw no reason to believe a God. What is more to the point, is that as science has advanced, virtually no physical scientists believe in “God”. This is true of the Life Sciences as well (think Darwin). Of course, I am excluding social scientists, physicians, and engineers.

  24. on 29 Aug 2010 at 5:59 pm 24.Severin said …

    Ben
    I did not address to you.

    Where and when did I say I am offering the list of atheists?

    It was obvious that some of you gentlemen (maybe not you personally), do not recognize achievments of atheist scientists, but reject them because of their atheism. I tryed to show that great scientific achievments do not depend on scientist’s religion or nationality, but on their ingeniousity.

    I also wanted to show that many religious scientists did a lot of honest job, although their achievments oposed their own religion. They followed their feeling of scientific honesty, not the feeling of their religious affiliation.

    I wanted to show, too, that some great theories which are dead today (Newton)were not just rubbish, but great base for further achievments.

    Do you put equal marks between yourself and Horatio and Boz?
    Do you think their way of reasoning and their beliefs are equal to yours?
    Do not rush!

  25. on 29 Aug 2010 at 6:07 pm 25.Severin said …

    Ben,

    Pascal’s Wager is a good, inetlligent joke. It enabled pascal to keep relatively comfortable position in highly religious and highly hostile surroundment.

    Wasn’t G. Bruno burnt only 50 – 60 years before, and wasn’t Galileo persecuted only 20 – 30 years before?

  26. on 29 Aug 2010 at 7:39 pm 26.Horatio said …

    “I attache here a short list of “atheists””

    Seems pretty clear to me Sev. Backtracking?

    Buster stop with “when people get old” and “witch trials”. Lets see…….I think most scientist claim to be atheist so that their colleagues will accept their work. They really are theist.” LOL

    Witch trials and age are quite the lame argument. I see it as wisdom and experience. You will too when you get there.

    You see Buster, we can make assumptions all day long. Pascal was actually a strong Christian. Einstein has many a quote which indicates he believed in a Creator – around and around she goes…..but I still bank of Pascal’s Wager.

  27. on 30 Aug 2010 at 10:09 am 27.Severin said …

    26 Horatio
    “Backtracking?“

    Let’s do it!
    The story began with your#15, in which you said:
    „Isn’t that the atheist theory for the formation of the universe? No wait, a dog has some intelligence so that cannot be it.“, implicitly claiming that atheist scientists are not relevant/reliable, because they are:
    a) atheists
    b) stupid (less intelligent than dogs)

    I, then, gave a list of scientists who DID something for human society, stressing (by putting the word „atheist“ in quotation marks) that wether scientists are/were atheists, theists, muslims, Jews, Arabs or Hunagrians, makes no difference, if they were ingenious, which OBVIOUSLY DOES MAKE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE TO YOU (you even mentioned Oppenheimer as a Jew, I could not reach for what purpose, except maybe to deminish his relevance because he was a Jew).

    Even religious scientists (I agree majority of them WAS religious in past, which is not the case today) were HONEST, putting their scientific honesty BEFORE their religious feelings! Didn’t they all work AGAINST religion? They DID, and were persecuted, or at least heavily criticsed from all churches, all the time. Today, ll churches „persecute“ all scientist oposing them, too!

    So „stupid“ theist/atheist scientists practically without any exception, WORKED AGAINST RELIGIONS, following their ingeniousity and their personal scientific honesty. They DID NOT CARE if their achievments will or will not opose some idiotic biblical or other dogmatic teachings.
    THEY DID NOT CARE!

    You are in a big problem now: you have a bunch of stupid/incompetent Jew/atheist/theists/Hungarian scientists who all together CONFIRMED the theory of Einstein, who was an atheist according to you (#20: „…You even add guys who were not atheist like Einstein…“), or a theist, according to Boz (#18: „…all were theist of some sort.“), but whose theory was the very base for the BB theory as well!

    As allways YOU are cherry picking the „facts“ to fit your needs.

    Please mark my optional claims in #21 for yourself, to finally find what you really want to say.
    You may additionally mark (or not) the next one:

    l) How is it that the USA government used for such a big and important project a bunch of scientist without previously exploring their national or religious opinions?

  28. on 30 Aug 2010 at 1:01 pm 28.Horatio said …

    “Isn’t that the atheist theory for the formation of the universe? No wait, a dog has some intelligence so that cannot be it.“

    Oh Sev, you are so silly. My quip with 3D was to poke fun at atheist who believe the UNIVERSE was created without intelligence behind the formation. Sorry, I should have explained that to you.I just assumed that was readily and easily understood for most.

    My pointing out of Oppenheimer as Jewish was to invalidate your list of atheist. Unlike atheist who believe Jews are delusional I have the greatest of respect.

    Now, back to “The list”. Next time you post a list, how about checking the names so as not to set yourself up as deceitful and disingenuous. Oops, too late.

  29. on 30 Aug 2010 at 3:18 pm 29.Severin said …

    Horatio,
    Thank you for your explanation.
    I only can not understand what is deceitful in my list, if I clearly put the quotation marks in the right place, but maybe my poor English made confusion.
    I never use any tricks in my coments, but it is possible that I can not always express in English exactly what I want.

    Also, I personally do not think Jews are specifically delusional because they are Jews, and I think no atheist has such an opinion.
    Atheists generally think ALL religious people are delusional, which includes religious Jews, orthodox and all other christians, muslims, etc.
    Religious people are delusional, not nationalities!

    About the BB: we discussed it many times, and I never got any answer to the simple question I posed many times:
    Whay was it necessary matter/energy to be created?

    The BB theory includes beginning of universe, NOT beginning of matter/energy. The BB theory does NOT say universe was created from “nothing”!
    WHY is it so difficult to imagine the obvious fact that matter/energy just existed from ever, without any cause and without any reason.
    WHY would any “reason” (plan, intention, will) be involved in existance of universe?
    Absolutely no need.

    The question “why would matter/energy exist from ever” is applicable to god too, you oonly do not want to apply it to god.
    The question “who created matter/energy is also applicable to god, and you also nly REFUSE to apply it.

    If you say god existed from ever, WHY couldn’t we say: matter/energy existed from ever and transformed in various forms according to natural laws?
    What is so wrong in such a way of reasoning, which, unlike biblical BS, has at least SOME logic behind, and already SOME indicative, logical prooves, supported by a lot of mathematics and visible facts.
    Like god, only MUCH more acceptable, because MUCH more logical.

  30. on 30 Aug 2010 at 7:55 pm 30.Zach said …

    God allow such suffering to alert us that there something wrong with the world, God’s Creatures, and or that person. We do this to ourselves because if we don’t follow the Bible. God is going to make us suffer for those choices

    Why God Allows Suffering

    1. To Alert Us of Issues with the Body
        What God Could be telling us through pain.

    A. Somethings wrong with the world
    B. Something is wrong with God’s Creatures
    C. Somethings wrong with me

    God gave us the ability to make choices with that there is a risk of making the wrong choice

    Think of being able to choose from being a free thinking creature where bad choices leas to suffering of a robot without pain what would choose Which  one brings God more honor? Which would love God more?

    God took a “risk” creating a being that would do the unthinkable – rebel against their Creator God.  Genesis 2 3
    Failure = Sin

    Romans 1:18-32; 5:12,15,18

    “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” — C.S.Lewis

    Genesis 3, 19 17,19 ,16, 23,24

    Romans 8: 19-22
    In Summery suffering in the world is caused by sin’s entrance  to the world.

    B. Something caused by people
    Pain caused pain in other peoples lives 

    C. Suffering can also be caused by Satan and demons

    Job 2:10 Shall we accept Good from God and not trouble?

    Hebrews 12
    Rev. 3:19
    Ps. 32:3,4
    Hebrews 12:5,6

  31. on 31 Aug 2010 at 9:28 am 31.3D said …

    30.Zach said …

    God allow such suffering to alert us that there something wrong with the world, God’s Creatures, and or that person. We do this to ourselves because if we don’t follow the Bible. God is going to make us suffer for those choices
    Why God Allows Suffering
    1. To Alert Us of Issues with the Body

    Yes, we know how pain receptors work. But he is God. Why not just remove the ‘issue’? Why does a baby need to be born with a horrible deformity or disease? What purpose does that pain serve?

    God gave us the ability to make choices with that there is a risk of making the wrong choice
    Think of being able to choose from being a free thinking creature where bad choices leas to suffering of a robot without pain what would choose

    What did an infant buried under rubble in an earthquake “choose”? What bad choice did he make to deserve being crushed to death?

    What a horrible, sadistic worldview you have. The universe is a much nicer place, when you realize that good things happen for no reason, bad things happen for no reason, and it’s our job to learn ways to deal with the bad things and appreciate the good things, as much as possible.

    Which one brings God more honor? Which would love God more?

    Who the fuck knows what God would love? He’s a sadistic psycho who likes the smell of burning animals and torture. I don’t care what honors him.

    God took a “risk” creating a being that would do the unthinkable – rebel against their Creator God.

    No, actually, he knew what would happen in the future (because he is God), and still set the punishment as eternal torture (knowing that they would break the rules), therefore he pre-set the game so that he could torture people forever in hell.

  32. on 31 Aug 2010 at 11:48 pm 32.Observer said …

    #30 Zach That is just f*cking insane. I feel bad for you.

  33. on 01 Sep 2010 at 12:56 am 33.Horatio said …

    Buster

    I think such an act on Insane is immoral and possibly rape. That is something I expect from a mombian dalit or someone with the same level of insecurity.

  34. on 08 Sep 2010 at 5:33 am 34.Christian said …

    On 30 Aug 2010 at 3:18 pm, Severin said:

    “About the BB: we discussed it many times, and I never got any answer to the simple question I posed many times:
    Why was it necessary for matter/energy to be created?
    The BB theory includes beginning of universe, NOT beginning of matter/energy. The BB theory does NOT say universe was created from “nothing”!
    WHY is it so difficult to imagine the obvious fact that matter/energy just existed from ever, without any cause and without any reason.
    WHY would any “reason” (plan, intention, will) be involved in existence of universe?
    Absolutely no need.
    The question “why would matter/energy exist from ever” is applicable to god too, you only do not want to apply it to god.
    The question “who created matter/energy is also applicable to god, and you also only REFUSE to apply it.”

    Response:

    I begin by apologizing for the times Christians gave superficial answers to your questions. Every question deserves a thorough answer, and, unfortunately, most Christians cannot provide thorough answers to critical questions. This is for two main reasons: the “Christian” is only nominal or is too ignorant to answer. First, please acknowledge that Christianity is the largest religion in the US. Many people merely claim Christianity as a religion (a set of rules and practices), and they do so because it is common, or because it is family tradition, or some other reason like that. These people do not really look into it enough to know the principles necessary to defend it. Second, due to our culture, church (in general) has become a place where people go to hear what they want to hear and not to learn about the Bible: anything they learn from it comes directly from the pastor’s mouth, and things that do not come from the pastor’s mouth, they do not learn. Therefore, most Christians are ignorant: they are not perfect.

    With all honesty and respect, Severin: this blog excerpt was only written out of the ignorance of your heart and mind. Think, please, sir: you are advancing the idea that matter/energy exists (and has existed) eternally, and, furthermore, that the universe, in all its complexity, generated randomly from an explosion of the matter/energy (the explosion having no cause or reason); this is utterly ridiculous. Not only you, Severin, but other atheists reading this reply, please notice that:
    1. This idea requires belief, as there is no proof whatsoever that matter/energy existed forever or that the Big Bang ever occurred. (Atheists, do not run from the word “belief.” Obviously, this is a belief. Atheists claim to not believe in anything, but they believe in the undocumented existence of the Big Bang, and, even if not, they believe in nothing, which is believing in something. By this explanation, atheism is no less belief or religion than Christianity: Christians just believe what is obviously shown to them by God.)
    2. This idea supports the concept of eternity, one of the concepts that repel atheists from reasonably considering God’s existence. (support in the existence of matter/energy without beginning or end)
    3. This idea negates the Law of Causality, which is widely accepted in science and which states that to every effect, there is a cause which causes that effect. (negation in the explosion of the matter/energy without cause and in the creation of precisely assembled organisms, with precisely made organs, living under the precise conditions of the environment: all without a cause for precision from the explosion)

    Severin, you are right; I do refuse to apply your question to God (I do not ask, “Who created God?”), but there is reason why I do not: there is no use in asking such a question. It would help you all to know that, whereas atheists use inductive reasoning (not accepting as truth anything until observed, hypothesized, and theorized), the Christian reasoning type is deductive, with God’s existence, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, holiness, righteousness, and perfection all being givens. (These are all expressed and evident in God’s book, The Holy Bible, which is not an artificial collection of mythological, psychological, and fictional rubbish but rather is a collection of 66 smaller books, written by 40 different authors, beginning in 1445 BC, over a period of 1500 years, having been passed from generation to generation with extreme accuracy even since the Dead Sea Scrolls and validated by more historical copies than all other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament only being documented by over 20,000 known manuscripts: this is fact. This is the historical accurate [study Flavius Josephus's "Antiquities on the Jews" and P. Cornelius Tacitus's "The Annals"] and scientifically accurate [www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml]
    book whose prophesies concerning the past have held 100% accurate as no other and whose doctrine and principles have persuaded billions, including once hard-core atheists: G. Zeinelde Jordan, Josh McDowell, A.S.A. Jones, and Rev. R. G. Rindfuss.) God is real; He is always right: given, then other questions may be asked, and science still takes place. “What?”, “Where?”, “When?”, and “How?” are the questions that are usually answered by science and reason (some Christians are real scientists like anyone else; Christians do not “blindly believe” anything), but the “Why?” questions usually go unanswered because we cannot explain, through logic, why God does what He does. Logic does not answer every question, and this is what leaves atheists confused. Computers only “know” what man programs it to “know,” and in the same way, man only knows what God designed him to know. Therefore, even with man’s greatest device of reasoning (logic), at its highest level, the exists an irreconcilable gap between the knowledge of man and the knowledge of God. Since God has already existed, and He created man later, man cannot know all about God’s existence or God’s nature: he only knows what God tells him. This is why God’s existence does not logically make sense; it does not need to: God proves Himself through other means , through His Bible, through miracles, through personal revelations, and through evidence of creation itself (study Romans 1:20). Despite all of this evidence, God knew that a group of people would arise who would not accept His Divinity, and He predicted this in Romans 1:21-22: God knew beforehand that you would be skeptical, but He allowed you to decide for yourself because He is sensible and values free will.

    Let me answer the original question: “Do you allow your ‘god’ to commit amazing atrocities? Why?” First of all: why do you refer to these acts as atrocities? Atrocious, by definition in Merriam-Webster, means “extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel”: by what moral standards do you measure atrociousness? God sets the moral standard; therefore, whatever He does is right: those acts cannot, then, be atrocities because God performed them. Second, I do not allow God to do these things; I do not need to: God does what He wants to do regardless. I do not always understand why God does certain things: God does not always explain, but I know for sure that what God does is right because He is God. God never performs or even wish to perform atrocious things: it is not in His nature to do so.

    “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” I Peter 3:15, The Holy Bible (King James Version)

  35. on 08 Sep 2010 at 9:03 am 35.3D said …

    34.Christian said …

    Think, please, sir: you are advancing the idea that matter/energy exists (and has existed) eternally, and, furthermore, that the universe, in all its complexity, generated randomly from an explosion of the matter/energy (the explosion having no cause or reason); this is utterly ridiculous.

    However, you are advancing the idea that God, more complex than anything in the universe, and even more complex than the entire universe as a whole, has existed eternally, and was generated randomly, having no cause or reason.

    If we accept your allegation that “eternal matter” is ridiculous, then by your very same logic the idea of an eternal superbeing is many times more ridiculous.

    If simple things like oxygen, hydrogen and carbon atoms need a creator, then surely something so much more complex as God would need an even more complex creator.

    Of course that’s the point where you run into the turtle thing. And that’s where most monotheists start calling people names to change the subject.

    But I can help untangle the logical ball of yarn which you have made such a mess out of. The real flaw in your logic is that eternal matter isn’t actually ridiculous, it makes perfect sense. We know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; from the most simple to the most complex, all experiments confirm this. If it can’t be created, it’s not a very labor-intensive deduction process to come to the conclusion that it always existed. And if it can’t be destroyed, then it’s fairly simple to conclude that it will always be here. The end.

    1. This idea requires belief, as there is no proof whatsoever that matter/energy existed forever or that the Big Bang ever occurred. (Atheists, do not run from the word “belief.” Obviously, this is a belief. Atheists claim to not believe in anything, but they believe in the undocumented existence of the Big Bang, and, even if not, they believe in nothing, which is believing in something. By this explanation, atheism is no less belief or religion than Christianity: Christians just believe what is obviously shown to them by God.)

    This is an old trick — conflating two different meanings of the word “believe/belief” and pretending they are the same thing when they aren’t. You are right that atheists do ‘believe’ things — when there is a strong hypothesis and supporting evidence, but no conclusive proof, we “beieve” whatever our logical thought process determines to be the seemingly most plausible thing. And this can vary from person to person and that’s why scientists disagree sometimes, because all the evidence isn’t in, or whatever. And that’s OK.

    If new evidence comes in tomorrow — say a mountain sprouts up in the middle of a city, or Severin’s pot of water never evaporates — then we CHANGE our beliefs to conform with REALITY.

    This is a much different ‘belief’ than what Christians commit themselves to. They “believe” what they “believe” even when it flies in the face of evidence, in fact many say that the lack of evidence strengthens their belief and they see believing in things which contradict reality as a positive (“faith”). As such, they will distort, cherry-pick and maneuver events in the real world to conform with their beliefs, rather than observe their surroundings and come to a conclusion.

    Same word, meanings 180 degrees opposite each other. However I give you credit for advancing a parlor trick which is several degrees more intellectual than the typical crap vomited up by the usual moron Christians who post here.

    This idea supports the concept of eternity, one of the concepts that repel atheists from reasonably considering God’s existence. (support in the existence of matter/energy without beginning or end)

    No, eternity exists! WE don’t exist IN it, though.

    3. This idea negates the Law of Causality, which is widely accepted in science and which states that to every effect, there is a cause which causes that effect.

    Cause and effect are constructs understood in the framework of the stable universe we live in. A universe with no time (“pre”-BB) does not necessarily have the same causality rules as the universe we live in now. Stephen Hawking said that asking what was “before” the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole — it’s a senseless question.

    Severin, you are right; I do refuse to apply your question to God (I do not ask, “Who created God?”), but there is reason why I do not: there is no use in asking such a question. It would help you all to know that, whereas atheists use inductive reasoning (not accepting as truth anything until observed, hypothesized, and theorized), the Christian reasoning type is deductive, with God’s existence, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, holiness, righteousness, and perfection all being givens.

    Agreed. That’s why you all make such shitty arguments and lose debates all the time, and look foolish when you try to integrate the Bible with science. It’s because the Bible is stupid.

    Your problem is you read the stupid Bible and then try to cram the universe into a framework that fits the book, instead of reading the book and coming to the logical conclusion that it’s stupid.

    Let me answer the original question: “Do you allow your ‘god’ to commit amazing atrocities? Why?” First of all: why do you refer to these acts as atrocities? Atrocious, by definition in Merriam-Webster, means “extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel”: by what moral standards do you measure atrociousness? God sets the moral standard; therefore, whatever He does is right: those acts cannot, then, be atrocities because God performed them.

    Oh OK. So in your opinion, under certain circumstances, bashing a baby’s head in with a rock till he is covered in his own blood is acceptable, and other times, it’s not.

    Well, truthfully, I applaud you for your honesty; lying trolls like Horatio and Xenon on this blog will not give a straight answer about that.

    Of course, it’s still pretty horrifying that you believe stoning people do death or burning them alive can be acceptable, even sometimes; but at least you’re up front about your lack of morals.

  36. on 08 Sep 2010 at 9:38 pm 36.Severin said …

    34 A Christian
    “3. This idea negates the Law of Causality,…“

    Do YOU recognize the Law of Causality?
    If you do, how can you just stop in chain of causality at the „place“ called „god“, and just ignore the question: „Who/what created god?“
    Stopping at this „place“, you in fact violate the Law of Causality, and deny its logical value!
    It is logically inadmissable to say: „god created universe“, without posing the question „who/what created god?“. It is logically inadmissable not to ANSWER that logical question.
    You can not do this just because you like it, without creating big illogical gap.

    So, if you „artificially“ (and logically inadmissable!) stop the logical chain of causes and effects by positioning a god on the „beginning“, who „just is/was/will be”“ (exists), without any reason, without any cause (not to speak about how complex must he had been!), then WHY is god better candidate to be positioned there, than matter/energy?
    We have all necessary proofs matter/energy exist (today), and no proofs (including logical ones) that any god ever existed.
    You can, if you wish, put the equation mark: matter/energy/time/space = god, but this is only the matter of names, not the matter of logic.

    Causality is clearly „built in“ natural laws.
    Things happen FORCED by inevitability of natural laws, which are immanent to matter/energy/space/time.
    There is NO „why“?
    The question „why“ includes free will, and there is no force and no „free will“ to stop inevitability of processes run by laws of nature.

    Gasoline will ALWAYS, INEVITABLY burn if you input enough energy to it (a burning match). It will NEVER FAIL TO BURN, because natural laws rule the processes: IF (you have all necessary conditions), THEN (the process will run).
    There is NO force to stop gasoline to burn if all conditions for the process are present!
    Try to stop water to evaporate from an open pot!

    If there is no „why“ for god, why would a „why“ be applied to matter/energy?
    Because you say so? Because you like it?

    Of course, by all logic, if there is no force, or „free wil“ to STOP natural laws to act, why do we need a supernatural force with free will to START them?

    God who „just is“, more complex than the entire universe, with free will to do something, does not fit ANY logic, and can not pass ANY logical examining, except if you put the equation mark: God = matter/energy.

  37. on 09 Sep 2010 at 1:13 am 37.Christian said …

    Sirs, you have totally missed the purpose of my excerpt: it is not that Christians do not use logic and science. Christians use these to learn about animals, plants, processes, etc. We do not merely believe any statement to be fact without testing it: we use scientific thinking just as atheists might, but we do not use logical processes to learn about God because LOGIC DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXPLAIN GOD. Logic will not answer every question in life. God cannot be explained by logic, period. God is supernatural, and HUMAN METHODS, SUCH AS LOGIC JUST CANNOT EXPLAIN SUPERNATURAL THINGS. (Logic explains the natural, not the supernatural.) The fact that something does not make sense does not make that thing incorrect. No, it does not make sense that many teenagers remain in love with those who are not in love with them, but that does not mean that they do not. It does not make sense that God would love the people who hate Him, but He does. It does NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE that God lives forever without beginning or end, but He does. Once again, this is not something that you can understand alone but only by God. This exceeds any act of the mind, and it requires humility and teachability: if you are not willing to be shown by God, you will not learn anything from Him. (God is sensible to give you free will.) But, IF YOU WILL NOT TEST GOD, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND. I DO NOT just expect you to suddenly “become saved,” but I suggest you try this:
    -Just for the sake of testing God, assume for 30 days that He is real; just assume.
    -Read through the ENTIRE BIBLE (approx. 72 hrs) keeping both the purpose of each book and the purpose of the whole in mind. Do your research and study about the Bible’s origins, its prophecies, its histories, and its scientific content as you go.
    -Tell God that you do not have time to mess around, and if He is real, then to persuade you. (Remember, keep an open mind.) If you do not choose to “waste your time with God,” then, I warrant you, God will not waste His time with you. In other words, God will not try to show Himself to you if you are just trying to be skeptical. (This is why Christ responded the way he did in Matthew 4:6-7.)

    Warning: God sometimes uses EXTREME measures to persuade people; so, be fully aware of what you ask for.

    You can call us uneducated, dumb, stupid, and narrow-minded all you wanted, but it does not matter: we are by human standards, but not by God’s standards, and God is not any of the above. God has given us Christians the confidence to accept these accusations because we know that the rest of the world might live and believe a certain way, but if it does not match God’s standards, it is wrong.

    GOD WILL NEVER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN LOGICALLY, LOGIC IS NOT THE ANSWER.

  38. on 09 Sep 2010 at 1:35 am 38.Holy Bible said …

    “There are things about him that people cannot see—his eternal power and all the things that make him God. But since the beginning of the world those things have been easy to understand by what God has made. So people have no excuse for the bad things they do. They knew God, but they did not give glory to God or thank him. Their thinking became useless. Their foolish minds were filled with darkness. They said they were wise, but they became fools. They traded the glory of God who lives forever for the worship of idols made to look like earthly people, birds, animals, and snakes. Because they did these things, God left them and let them go their sinful way, wanting only to do evil. As a result, they became full of sin, using their bodies wrongly with each other. They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshiped and served what had been created instead of the God who created those things, who should be praised forever.” Romans 1:20-24

  39. on 09 Sep 2010 at 6:55 am 39.Severin said …

    37 Christian
    “GOD WILL NEVER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN LOGICALLY, LOGIC IS NOT THE ANSWER.”

    Thank you, Christian, I can live without god, not without logic.
    My “fuses” burn when faced to lack of logic, and it is not good for my mental health.
    I can not accept anything without at least a trace of logic to support it.

    I read the Bible more than twice in my life, and I found there both ugly and illogical things, which told me nothing.

    To exercise addressing to an imaginarry creature out of logic is for me the worse than trying to address to my neighbour’s chimney: at lest I can see the chimney exists. So I will avoid it too.

    I gave you some examples of beliefs through history of human race, and you can find thosands of such things on Internet.
    Why don’t you try (for yourself) to train your mind by trying to say to yourself: WHY am I believing in Biblical god, why not in Allah or any other god people believe or believed in?

    WHAT is the difference, if there is no logic in believing in god?
    You just said that all religions are the same, so why Biblical god, not another one?

  40. on 09 Sep 2010 at 11:12 am 40.Biff said …

    #37 “Thank you, Christian, I can live without god, not without logic.”

    You seem to be getting along quite well w/o logic. Creation =Creator. See the logic yet you deny this reality and believe in a universe which created itself. Lets look at this logically.

    A universe with no intelligence or plan creating itself or an omnipotent being with intelligence and purpose creating a universe? The later is observed daily in all areas of our daily life from flat irons to cities. Therefore it is logical. Your theory is never observed in daily life and therefore denies logic.

    You can live without God, sure. Most of us like to live in reality.

  41. on 10 Sep 2010 at 9:14 am 41.Severin said …

    40 Biff
    “The later is observed daily in all areas of our daily life from flat irons to cities.”

    “Our” does not include me!

  42. on 10 Sep 2010 at 6:38 pm 42.Observer said …

    #37 Christian You hit it on the head when you say logic has nothing to do with believing in “God”. Social anthropologists and psychologists are doing experiments with toddlers/small children where their behavior is better managed with the notion of an imaginary all-seeing entity. Others have shown that believing in a “God” provides comfort to those with few opportunities, and or those who are facing high risk, tragedy, or other serious situations. The notion of “God” and “it’s for a reason” and “God will help me” etc. are the only things that make it possible for some folks to move forward.

    I believe virtually all atheists, nihilists aside, want to see durable rational institutions as the foundation of society. Some, such as myself, despair at the encroachment of ignorance and religion into what should be the secular institutions of the government and society. Look at the attention the garbage minister from Florida is attracting for wanting to burn a Koran. There are much bigger problems facing our country and the world. The world would be a much better place going forward if we could, as a first step, educate children so we could eliminate all Abrahamic religions.

  43. on 10 Sep 2010 at 6:49 pm 43.Biff said …

    Severin, let me assure you that from flat irons to cities they have designers and they have purpose.

    Therefore, since we see similar patterns for our universe therefore we conclude a designer. It is a logical progression.

    QED

  44. on 11 Sep 2010 at 5:02 pm 44.3D said …

    40.Biff said …

    Creation =Creator. See the logic yet you deny this reality and believe in a universe which created itself.

    Begging the question (i.e., assuming as a given that which is required to be proven).

    When asked, how do we know the universe was created? Your answer is that it was created. This is not logic, this is circularity.

    In reality it’s entirely possible that “creation” wasn’t actually created, but always existed, and the term “creation” is a misnomer that has been absorbed into common speech.

    Which is OK, because linguistics and logic are separate fields. I mean a lot of people say “God’s green earth” and say “Goddammit” when they stub their toe, too — that doesn’t “prove” there’s a God any more than your silly circular “Creation = Creator” nonsense.

    Lets [sic] look at this logically.
    A universe with no intelligence or plan creating itself

    Uh oh. I was all ready to look at this logically with you. But then you abandoned logic before finishing the first sentence. “Creating itself” is again assuming a point that hasn’t been proven. Try again, and this time use logic.

    or an omnipotent being with intelligence and purpose creating a universe? The later [sic] is observed daily in all areas of our daily life from flat irons to cities. Therefore it is logical.

    No, it is not logical, because we see things that make the idea of an omnipotent God absurd, all the time. Like inherent flaws in the design of the human body, mental disorders arising from simple chemical imbalances, designing a woman’s plumbing and sewage system right next to the snack bar, etc.

    Not to mention all the horrifying natural disasters that happen every year and kill millions of people, usually in the most devout countries which worship God piously (most likely because devout religious countries are usually backward and don’t have the infrastructure to help prevent maximum damage from natural disasters).

    Any honest observation of the world ends up in, “Why would God allow that to happen and design it that way, if he is perfect?” The answer is usually gibberish.

    Viewed through the lens of natural processes without God involved, those things make a lot more sense — earthquakes happen, they’re a geological event. Tsunamis happen. Flaws in the body happen because evolution isn’t perfect, it only favors traits that help survival, but doesn’t “zero out” the bad or unnecessary traits. Et cetera.

    In other words, in short, if you pull your head out of your asshole, you will see a clear blue sky. And then you will thank scientists for allowing you the opportunity to live an extra 50 years through innovations and medicine, and to live comfortably through the inventions of cars, computers and plumbing. Instead of pining away for the Good Old Days of drinking shit water, dying from a toothache, and burning witches. Give it a try.

  45. on 12 Sep 2010 at 8:32 am 45.Severin said …

    43 bIFF
    “It is a logical progression.”

    As logical as stories about flat earth and diseases comming from whitches.
    We learnt it was not right, but, hey, what can I do if you still believe such stories, just replacing whitches with a god.

  46. on 20 Sep 2010 at 1:19 am 46.Paul - Canterbury Atheist Blog said …

    You forgot one…..

    “I forgive my god aborting 1 in 4 pregnancies”

    Cheers.

    Paul.

  47. on 21 Sep 2010 at 12:31 am 47.Ali said …

    To all responses:

    This was an interesting and challenging blog to read. I was an extremely heretical person for most of my life until I begged for revelation, and God revealed himself to me. (Yes, the Abrahamic God!)
    I did not see Him, I did not audiably hear Him, I did not touch Him or have any sensory perception of Him. But He spoke to me louder than ever. Since that day about 3 and a half years ago, I have had more miracles and encounters with God than I ever would have imagined. I just pray that God does for you what He’s done for me. My life has had a lot more ups and downs since then, but slowly I am being refined. Be it today or in 10 years time, if you seek Him with all your heart, you WILL find Him. I thought I was beyond salvation, redemption, deliverance etc. and He proved me wrong. He offered me forgiveness even though I was the worst of all sinners. May God do the same to all of you! God Bless!

  48. on 13 Nov 2010 at 7:07 pm 48.Himangsu Sekhar Pal said …

    IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD?
    Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
    “The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
    Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support for our project.
    God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.
    Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration that there is also a God. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they do not know that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then scientists have shown that both the total mass and energy of the universe including God are zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God is also light, and therefore He is spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.
    Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
    It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero.
    So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
    But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.
    H. S. Pal

  49. on 29 Nov 2010 at 10:07 pm 49.MYSELF said …

    To the original poster of this, (should you ever read this again) I can only say one thing. It is completely impossible to have an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god. So partially I agree with you. If there is a god and he/she/it is all seeing, all powerful and kind then he would do something. Seeing as this all powerful whatever does nothing if he exists, then he/she/it might just not be benevolent. Just because a god does nothing doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. No offense it is a very good argument.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply