My Beliefs- GDR

So you would have me reject the evidence I see around me when it comes to discerning the nature of Tom. If the evidence changes then our understanding of Tom's nature should change as well. Isn't that similar to how science works?

Absolutely not - you should seek out evidence that supports your hypothesis for the existence of Tom, but abandon creating stories to fit your beliefs.You imagine Tom. That is no use to anyone. You just make him up - you have no evidence at all to support the existence of Tom.Everything that you claim as evidence has much simpler natural explanations - your Tom is redundant.To get to where you are now, the previous notions of Tom have had to be abandoned (hence Faith's jeers - she represents the beliefs that you would have held 100 years ago).You're pushing Tom inevitably into the secular.

I wasn't trying to prove Tom's existence with that point. I am only saying that what we can observe is consistent with a deity that is good, kind, just and has given us free will. We both know that there is no concrete or objective evidence for a deity whether we call it Tom or anything else. If we are going to believe in Tom, or reject him for that matter, it is on either theological or philosophical grounds. Fair enough but what we can't know is whether or not Tom was required for those natural explanations to exist. Actually this view of Tom isn't exactly new. It is quite consistent with C S Lewis who was arguably one of the largest influences on religious thought in the last century. However, as I said to Stile, if Tom actually exists with the characteristics that I have suggested then we should expect to see our views evolve. That is part of the point. How is that? The secular would just deny his existence.

As usual you cherry pick. You look at the good, stuff and say that's consistent with a good kind God, but ignore all the bad and unkind stuff.Traditionally the bad and unkind stuff is ascribed to Satan and our fallen state but I suspect you're not a fan of that model. Either way, that is simply made up too - it too is consistent with the story because the story is made to fit. We can make up endless stories that fit our cherry picked facts and we have. Fairies put coins under children's pillows in place of their first teeth.The fact that our societies improve is simply evidence that WE improve - absolutely no Gods required. We don't need the unevidenced god story to explain how our society improves. The secular does not have an opinion about god, it just gets on with improving our human conditions without god's help. You then says that god planned it that way and the secular just shrugs and gets on with it. As our society improves, your beliefs become increasingly redundant, which is what we're seeing happening all over the Western world.

If this were correct, I would agree with your conclusions.My point is that this isn't correct.You are right that we are subject to the "moods, food intake, drug intake, etc of the mother" (plus the other millions of environmental stimulus you've mentioned) as we grow.
And I agree that these factors do play a role in making us individuals.But you cannot ignore the fact that there are also simple DNA differences that "instill our basic survival instincts" at different levels for different people. Yes, and this does explain a lot of our variability.
But the part you are ignoring is that your very DNA... was a luck-of-the-draw as well.What I'm saying is that it's quite possible that another baby could have been born from your exact same mom-and-pop, and they go through the exact same loving home and advantages you had... but just because their DNA makeup is slightly different from yours... they are not so good at hockey (or maybe better at hockey than you).In that same differentiating way, we can have people who are unable to be as moral as you, or who have the potential to be more moral than you... simply because of the luck-of-the-draw in the "spark" given to them at birth. Environmental factors after life begins (even in the womb itself) do play a part, but they are not the only source of our differences. My point is that this statement is factually untrue.Well, I suppose it depends on how you define "just."If by just we mean "all people start off with an equal, fair chance of being moral and choosing good."
Then, no. Not all people start off with this at all. Some are at quite a disadvantage simply because their "hearts" are not built the same as others and do not contain the ability to acknowledge "good vs. evil" the same way as other people.Sometimes this happens through environmental factors, but I'm not talking about those differences. I admit that if environmental factors were the only source of variability, then Tom's spark would be distributed fairly and he would be a just god.What I'm talking about is that regardless of environmental factors, there are natural, DNA-coded differences in people that cannot be helped in any way that can cause people to be different in terms of having the ability to be moral. This is a fact.If you're going to define "just" as something like "it doesn't matter if all people are treated fairly... just as long as society moves towards being more just..." Then I suppose you could then call Tom "just."
But I would then contend that this is not just at all.The ends do not justify the means for labelling an all-powerful god as "just" if even 1 human being is left behind without even the chance of being a decent person.Tom could still be just if he wasn't all-powerful... then he'd just be trying his best. But if he's all powerful... then the only explanation is that he wants that one person to be left behind and not have a fair-start like everyone else.

Of course you see that: you've lived life on easy mode. Middle class white dude with loving parents raised in a western society. You've molded your god the way you see life which is through your rose colored privilege glasses. Your god has been good to you.Now, go tell the little kid that just got raped by his step dad that "god is kind loving and just". Go tell the infant girl in Africa that just got gang raped by a bunch of AIDS ridden assholes that think raping her will cure their AIDS that "god is kind loving and just". Go tell the young boy who is homeless because his mom is a junkie that "god is kind living and just". Shall I continue?No, what we actually observe is luck of the DNA draw. You were lucky enough to born into privilege and thus see life through those lenses. Just stop being so dense as to think that the world actually IS that way and that their is actual evidence to back up your privilege.

I'll tell you one thing. science based counseling wont ease their hurt any quicker, if at all.

Spouting crap again I see. Psychologists and scientifically trained counselors help people deal with their hurts every day. What the hell does your god do to help them?

It isn't a matter of picking just the good stuff. It is the fact that the world is gradually evolving into a kinder and more just society in general. That doesn't mean that we don't still have a long way to go even in western societies.Actually we don't know if it requires a god(s) or not. We only observe the world the way it is and come to our own conclusions. If Tom exists and he is subtly influencing the hearts minds and imaginations of people then we presumably would quickly notice the difference if he were to withdraw. However, we just know how things are and we refer to the subtle influence as conscience and we can't know one way or the other if our conscience is Tom nudging us or if it just how things are completely naturally.

And you'd be completely right... for some people.
And you'd also be completely wrong... for other people.People are different.Some people require the feeling that a being greater than anything is overseeing them and making sure others "get their due" in the end regardless of whether or not they can show it to be true.Other people require the idea that things make sense and have a concrete base with no loose ends regardless of how they feel.Most people can go either way in varying degrees depending on their mood and the subject being discussed.To think that one is better than the other in "all situations" is ludicrous and easily shown to be completely false.One point is for sure, though... that if you think you have "the answer for everyone and everything" and you force what you think will help others onto all of those who are in need of help in the same way... you are definitely going to cause more damage than was there originally. The damage may not be visible right away, but it's there, and when discovered it will run deeper than the original pain it was meant to help ease.Betrayal from those who said they would help you is incredibly damaging in a way that goes beyond physical pain.
Be careful when you're helping others, make sure you're helping others and not helping your own beliefs.

But yet again you cherry pick. Had you been alive in early parts of the 20th century you would have lived (or more likely died) in two world wars followed by devastation and poverty. Where was the subtle influence of you god when millions of people were being slaughtered?If the worst effects of global warming come to pass, billions will die and be displaced. You're alive in a comfortable time and place - you just got lucky, billions didn't.You're simply wanting something to be true that you have absolutely no evidence for and plenty against. i really don't get it.

I have picked two sentences out of your post that, hopefully you’ll agree, sum up the points that you were making.I get your point completely. I have twin grandsons who are very different in their looks and their outlooks. However, everyone is born with the potential to rise above whatever spark they were born with. I would contend that it isn’t where you finish but how you finish.You seem to agree that it matters how moral we are. If we are nothing but a collection of mindless particles that have somehow combined to become sentient beings with a sense of morality without any ultimate destination or purpose then why worry about how moral we are. If our life consists only of what we experience here then why not just have the best time in whatever way we like and make the most of it that way? Yet, again, here you are agreeing that it matters that we are moral or not.If we are born with a weak spark then what would be wrong with finding our pleasure through immorality? If we are born with a strong moral spark then we can find our pleasure more altruistically. Who is to say which is the better path. Yet, you as an atheist, (correct me if I’m wrong in that), and me as a theist both agree on which is the better path. I’m sure we both abhor Hitler, or closer to home Clifford Olson and we would agree that they have taken the wrong path. How do we know that? I’m suggesting that there is a universal absolute morality that exists and that it is a part of our being. I contend that that is the spark of Tom in all of us whether it be weak or strong.So, if this life is all there is and there is no ultimate purpose or destination then why do you care about how moral someone is? Why would you think it unfair that someone received a weak moral spark? Maybe someone with a weak moral spark is getting more pleasure out of life by being immoral than someone who has a strong moral spark and is behaving morally?Our experience is, and you appear to agree, that it does matter how moral we are. If it actually does matter then there must be a reason that it matters. There must then be an ultimate purpose and destination to our lives. And if Tom is just then there will ultimately be justice.We can never know someone else’s heart but I can certainly conceive of an individual who is a mass murderer who hates what he is doing and desperately yearns to be moral. I think that ultimately in Tom’s justice what matters is what our hearts are truly seeking as distinct from what we actually do.So, if this life is all there is and there is no ultimate purpose then you are right. There is no justice except for whatever penalties and rewards we can impose. If however, Tom as I portray him does exist, then we can look forward to the destination and believe that in the end there will be perfect justice.I did say earlier that Tom doesn’t have to be all powerful but he does have to be powerful enough to be responsible for our existence. I don’t see it as him just doing his best, but I see our situation as a work in progress that ultimately results in a perfectly just world. We are caterpillars not knowing that one day we’ll be butterflies.

Both of us find that stuff abhorrent. Why is that? It isn't affecting us personally it would seem, but for both of us we find ourselves feeling somehow sickened when we read accounts of these atrocities.
I still contend that in the end there will be justice. For an explanation read my reply to Stile.

My biological father died in service in WW II. Was that fair to my mom and myself? Probably not.Just the same I consider myself one of the most fortunate people ever on this planet and I think that by any broad overall standard that is undoubtedly true.You ask where the subtle influence of god was in any of these events. He was in the hearts and minds of those who brought healing and comfort of whatever kind to those who suffer.Tom calls us all to be the servants of all so that those who are able can bring relief to those who are suffer whether it be at the hands of other humans or because of natural disasters.Think how much worse the suffering would be if we lived in a world where there was no understanding it is better to be moral than immoral.

I agree with this.My point is that it's harder for some than for others. And the fact that's harder is sometimes not due to environmental features, but simple DNA features.If Tom is just, why make it harder for some to improve and not others? Just to see?I understand what you're saying that it may be "all relative" and Tom can tell the difference with his all-powerful-ness and when someone who got the short stick in this life (given by Tom) tries real hard... they can still "live happily ever after" later on.The point is even if Tom is doing this and making sure everything is "fair in the end"... why do it in such an unfair route through the system? How is that "just" for the all-powerful Tom?
Why start one kid at the bottom where his brain barely functions, and start another at the top as a genius?
Sure, if the bottom kid tries hard and the top kid tries hard... they both tried (regardless of where they end up in this life) and can be equally congratulated in the next life or whatever.But we still have one bottom kid who had a crappy life and one genius kid who had a wonderful life.So how is that just?
Even if in the end everything works out... who cares? If Tom is "all-powerful" then he can make this life as-fair-as-possible, right?
Which means, if it isn't fair and Tom's in charge.. then this is just some sick game Tom likes to play to watch bottom-kids try through a tough-life while other top-kids try through an easy-life.
An everyone-starts-off-different-but-they-are-monitored-equally-in-the-end life isn't as fair as an everyone-starts-off-equal-and-is-monitored-equally-in-the-end life as the former includes some people "getting the short end" and living "under" others.Just means equal... fair. If something is relative, it's not equal, not fair. And an all-powerful Tom could easily have done it the more-fair way.
How do we get from Tom implementing "a relative system" to Tom being "just"?