I’m going to try to be nice, difficult though it may be, but you honestly don’t know much about science, so definitions are necessary.”. I also reasonably believe in God’s…. “Okay, first, there are no surviving eyewitness accounts to Jesus life, miracles, death and resurrection.”, “The gospel we have was written well after his death, plenty of time for exaggerations to make their way in.”. Think about what you are going to say. That constantly trips you up. Atheism, not science, is his touchstone. The logic goes like this: human suffering is used to bring glory to God, and God does whatever it takes to bring glory to Himself; therefore, God maximizes human suffering. “But this does not make it a slam dunk. However, having a concept of evil, recognizing evil and living morally are not the same as being able to provide adequate grounds for universal sense of evil / good. Experience and the scientific method have produced exponentially more useful knowledge that explains/predicts the behavior of matter than any other domain of inquiry. So, no, it’s not confined to science. When we get through those we can analyze the premise of the premise that God is all good and all loving and must only act in accordance with those characteristics. If God executes Justice upon someone, does this make him less loving? And I’ve met plenty of Christians who don’t. It’s hard for us on the other side to tell the difference. So he needs to (re)define the scientific method in a way that’s hostile to the admission of supernatural agency in the nature world.”. “Notice the circular or regressive nature of Ryan’s argument. Physics, after all, underlies everything, since everything is composed of matter. I like the way that you have outlined the possibilities here. that is God. Dan, that’s exactly the point. You trivialize science by making methodology the goal of science, rather that putting methodology at the service of a quest for true understanding. It’s logically possible that it’s necessary for some greater good, of course. On the face of it, you’re not holding yourself to your own standards. Even if it were, it would not be correct to use “cannot” rather than “will not” or “does not”. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive. A piece of metal both oscillated and didn’t oscillate at the same time. The kind of suffering that is random and affects the just and unjust alike. I bet your a perfectly nice guy and that I’d like you if I met you. Accurate communication and investigation of the truth require accuracy in terms. Let’s be clear. Does that mean we refuse to classify ball lightning as a scientific phenomenon? God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, or evil action and suffering impossible by allowing free will but not allowing the ability to enact evil or impose suffering. My point as you declared is that “We are finite beings with imperfectly evolved brains who may not be able to access parts of reality that allow us to answer this question.” His inductive reasoning is flawed because it is overcome with observational bias. And that’s been my point all along. How many people witnessed the prayer?”. All of us have first-hand experience with the impersonal forces that sometimes kill, maim or inflict with disease the just and the unjust alike. Belief in biblical Christianity requires going beyond the evidence to a considerable extent. In no way did I state that God has tricked us into thinking that hurricanes are a naturally understood force but in “reality” is just Him blowing really hard. We don’t even have full control over what we believe…psychology/sociology tells us this. But science also involves discovering the world as it comes to us. You’ve made it into a joke in the eyes of many I know.”. How do you know any of this really happened? I don’t need to read philosophers to understand that it is patently ridiculous to assume that what you perceive of an event is all the possibilities that can conclude from the taking place of that event. ”And why would God care if I was sincere in my investigative efforts and came to the conclusion that the evidence simply isn’t there to warrant belief?”. That’s a good question. Our most important systems of knowledge that predict the behavior of matter and improve our lives crucially depend on observation and experimentation. http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/edwards-on-foreknowledge-part-i/ How do you know he’s the God depicted in the Christian bible? “I don’t consult conservative biblical scholars often.”. “…to test them, to replicate them and their findings, and to use that to predict the behavior of matter.”. You need to look up what ‘begging the question’ means. How do you know God exists? But if we think Acts 5:1-11 is an accurate account, isn’t that special pleading? They can’t be repeated, they can’t be tested against experience because we can’t isolate the variable, hold other factors constant and test for the variables effect in the natural world. or if it’s the blog. We call them his “will of decree” and his “will of desire.” Does God want you to suffer? But is it not possible for Jesus to serve as a role model of what the good life consists of without accepting the questionable belief commitment of viewing him as a God, a savior? Each rejection of a premise is given a label, though it is not clear why the labels are either relevant or helpful. So, I then conclude that God probably doesn’t exist, at least not the omnibenevolent Christian God.


Shita Kanji Stroke Order, Lg Tv Won't Turn On Red Light Blinks 2 Times, Elbow Support Brace, Protest In California Tomorrow, Anchor Thread Shop Near Me, Observation And Hypothesis Examples,