Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness

So you blindly accept that God commanded the murder of innocent children in the Bible with no reservations. What needs to be understood about commanding the murder of innocent children and babies? Do you need to "understand" someone who murders a 6-month old little girl in her crib with a hunting knife before holding him morally repsonsible for his actions? Why is God any different? I would actually hold him/her/it more morally culpible for such an action considering he/she/it is supposed to have infinite intelligence and power. Actually I am trying to understand it from a moral perspective more than anything. So God's morality is relative not absolute? Why is it that Christians call any moral system that doesn't jive with there's moral relativism when they cannot even agree what scripture in the Bible are still morally relavent today? Problem is, you don't even ask questions. You blindly accept what ever you read and disregard and ignore any of the tough questions that need to be asked about what modern humans would consider being morally inscrupulous in today's society. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt (yes, I have said this before, but it seems we have the ever revolving wheel of religious, close-minded, blinded people on EvC). I understand your mindset thoroughly. I was once closed-minded like you. I preached on street corners, handed out tracks, attended church religiously, invited people to church, baptised friends, and believed every single thing that was preached, taught and indoctrinated to me for nearly 28 years (I was baptised at 8 years old and again at 22). Who is devastating it. All I did was quote your own scripture back to you. That's it. If you don't like it, than have a chat with God.I have studied Christianity (and many other religions) exhaustively for 20+ years and found it wanting both ethically and scientifically.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi Cedre, I assume then from this statement that you have read the bible in full and upon completion of reading said text you felt that God, overall, is good.From that, it can then be assumed that you used your own personal ability to judge texts and determine their moral value, right...?Now, with that in mind, couldn't it equally go the opposite direction, couldn't we also read the bible in full, using our ability to judge texts as you did, and determine that it holds no moral value...?Would God then punish those to eternal hell who simply judged these 2000 year old texts to be of no moral value...?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Peg, That's the very definition of an appeal to personal incredulity, with a few appeals to authority thrown in."Oh wow, that's amazing, ergo God."I don't care what Newton thought. I care about the argument. His personal beleifs are irrelevant, as are yours and mine. All that matters is the strength of an argument and the evidence that supports it. Nothing else matters.Thus far, all you or the OP have submitted are logical fallacies. This means your arguments are weak, and your conclusions invalid.Further, I take extreme offense to your "every intelligent person" insinuation.So let's see Peg's reasoning, shall we? Curiously, being "reasonable" to you personally has no bearing on whether your statements or belief are accurate representations of reality. You don't know that. None of us do - it's never been observed, but neither has it been shown to be impossible. And we have a significant reason to think it may have happened int he past - we know that life did not exist at one point in time, and now it does. This means that at some point life was either magically created, or it arose from nonliving matter. Parsimony requires us to lean towards the latter so long as we haven't discovered something that makes it impossible and so long as there is no evidence in support of "magical creation."By your silly logic, nothing that has not been observed can exist. Since your own deity has not been observed, your deity must not exist. This is a silly statement that results from your personal comprehension of the term "law" as it applies to science. A scientific law is not like a legal law. A scientific "law" (and we generally don't use that term any more) simply refers to a theoretical model of a specific phenomenon that appears to be immutable. For instance, the Law of Gravity states that mass attracts mass (in simple terms, anyway - in reality it's a warping of space that is a basic property of mass). This means that we have observed that this phenomenon is universal and never seems to change. It doesn't have anything to do with a magic man in the sky who writes down in a magic book with a magic pen "gravity will make mass attract other mass."The natural laws of the Universe do not necessarily require a lawmaker. You've simply defined that to be the case...but unfortunately for you, your personal "common sense" has about as little effect on reality as a child's imaginary friend. Ah, causality. Others have already mentioned the contradiction in making "God" an "uncaused cause." Either God also requires a cause, or you're just being a hypocrite. All of the actual scientific evidence shows that the Universe simply is, and that causality is more of an illusion generated by our linear experience of time.Please, please argue that "God" exists outside of the universe independantly of time and space. I double-dog-dare you. I'd have to say "yes," in that it can be shown that your reasoning behind all three is essencially a series of misconceptions, from the meaning of the word "law" as it pertains to science to understanding that having never observed something doesn't make it impossible.So what does this say about "every intelligent person," Peg? Does your definition of intelligence include reliance on logical fallacies and improper usage of terms?

I'll take it one step further, by-passing the double-dog and going straight for the jugular by triple-dog-daring him!

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

because he is the cause?

no, argument 1 says that life does not arise from non living matter. this is a fact and there is no way around it. It does not mean that life is eternal at all...it means what it says...that life does not originate alone. All life on this planet come's from pre existing life. This is observable in nature every day. One of the definitions of law given in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is “the observed regularity of nature.”
Scientists today attribute the earth’s position in space primarily to the interaction of the law of gravity and the law of centrifugal force. So, there is no confusion... laws exist on paper and intangibly. Nature is regulated by these laws and laws dont just appear, they are devised. the law of cause and effect applies to everything. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This includes the universe...big bang?

you would need to define intelligencepersonally, i dont define it by ones beliefs but by ones self awareness, understanding of ones environment and of being able to acquire and retain knowledge. Learning from experiences, ones ability to solve problems and to respond successfully to constantly changing situations.we all have this ability therefore as i said, ALL humans are intelligent.Our beliefs are a different matter and they do not impact on our intelligence. Einstein was intelligent and happened to have some crazy beliefs.

Right, so god just happened to say, "okay, we'll make the law of gravity F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}, "Or, you know, the law of gravity might just simply be the result of, you know, mass. And the distance between two masses.You're still confusing prescriptive and descriptive law. The only confusion is on your part.

there is no dilemma.as the creator, God has the right to decide the standard for what is good and what is bad. And his standards ARE Moral because He is Morally excellent himself.And God doesnt just make laws and expect humans to live by them...he lives by the same laws himself.This is why it was his very dearest Son (Jesus) whom he sent to die for mankind. He could have sent any other angel to do the job, but he didn't, he sent his firstborn, the one who he was most fond of as the bible says.So yes you are right, God is subject to his own laws of morality.

So where did this pre-existing life pre-exist from? Some time, somewhere it either had be created or formed naturally so there had to be some kind of abiogenesis or are you saying that life has always existed?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

your rightlife arising from non living matter has NEVER been observed. That is the reality.
Yet you still reason that it must have happened at some point because there was a time on earth when there was no life, then suddenly there was. That reasoning is silly and goes against scientific knowledge about how life is formed. Its formed from pre existing life.My own diety has been observed...that what the bible is, a book of his communication with mankind. It matters not to me that this communication took place thousands of years ago, it only matters that i have something in my hand that tells me about it... You have nothign in your hand that tells you that life arises from non living matter, yet you believe it.I hear the Pot calling the kettle black! And yet, if it were not for these natural laws, you and I would not exist. So not only are they necessary for life, but they are purposeful in sustaining life.
About these laws Einstein wrote: “The scientist’s religious feelings take the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of Natural law, which reveals an Intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”There is no intelligence without personality. Im sure he does because “God is a Spirit,” and therefore he dwells in a spirit realm. Spirit carries the meaning of 'wind', breath, blow, force. Its not tangible its immaterial.The spirit realm is not governed by the same laws that govern the material world because there is nothing material in the spiritual realm, therefore, God is not governed by the natural laws of the universe... rather, he created these natural laws to house the material worldwhereas he lives outside of it in a realm that we can never venture into.

im certainly not saying life on earth has always existed. Im saying, as we know, that Life comes from pre existing life. this is evidence enough for me to believe that something must have caused life on this planetit is the only logical conclusion i can draw... life is unique and it doesnt just grow out of the groundsomeone must have created it.

And who/what created that someone?

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

So, you're saying life has always existed? Bear in mind that even the bible doesn't claim that. No it doesn't. It MUST have come from non-life at some point. No. He hasn't. I have logic. Even your bible agrees that life hasn't always existed. So, it must have come from non-life at some point. How do you know that? Yeah....Haven't you learned that an argument from autority is a logical falacy yet? I'll leave this one open for Rahvin. Yes, I'm a nice guy .

---

I hunt for the truth

this argument shows that our minds cannot comprehend some things about eternitywe assume that everything has a beginning because that is what we see in the natural material worldbut we must understand that the non physical world is not bound by the same rules as we ourselves are. If God were material, it would be a perfectly logical argumentbut the fact is that God is not a material being so we would be wrong in assuming that he is bound by the same natural laws as we are.