Is evil just a tool against God’s boredom?

[Greatest I am]

I maintain that if a higher being does exist - which it may or may not - then it's motives and intentions are likely to be far beyond our own perception of good, evil and boredom.

What is your main reason for ---God might exist?
What is your main reason for ---God might not exist?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Intelligent post HK!

I don't see how people who are Atheist or Agnostic can assign motives or desribe the character of a being they don't believe to exist in the first place.

I don't see how believers can assign motive to what is named an un-fathomable God.
That is sillier than what atheists do.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Good point HK but Christians go from what the bible says about God. That is how they claim to know God. If someone has faith I can see how they come to their conclusions. I really don't understand how non-believers can even be concerned with something they claim doesn't exist or are even neutral on the idea.

They are driven by their social conscience.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If no one corrected each other, more would think like you and that would be quite pitiful.

Regards
DL

 

[Panacea]

What is your main reason for ---God might exist?
What is your main reason for ---God might not exist?

Regards
DL

I like this question, and I'd like to answer it as well if I might?

What is your main reason for ---God might exist?
First off, surely I (and life forms) do not (and most likely cannot) know everything there is to know. For that reason, I cannot rule anything out with 100% certainty regarding the existence of some god. Secondly, I think this question depends on the definition of god. What god is proposed to be influences my likelihood of believing it exists. Is god just the pool from which life is dispensed? I am more likely to accept that that god being defined as a human-like character with emotions, because to me it seems unlikely.

What is your main reason for ---God might not exist?
Many of the same conditions apply here. Can life itself know what god is? I am not sure, I am prone to say no, and for that reason I choose Ockham's razor when waging my 'bets' on the origin and meaning of life. I suspect god stories are lies, misunderstandings, and twists of reality (some benevolent of course; a mark of individual perceptions and differences). If a god exists, I feel it likely does not relate to life, in the way Deists believe.

Again, the definition of god is of utmost importance here. I am an atheist of gods as we know them. I've seen this credited to numerous people so I will not give incorrect credit: “We are all atheists to other religions, we [atheists] just take it one step further.” This strikes me. No major/common religion has defined a reasonable nor plausible god, in my opinion. I suspect humanity knows this, and for this reason, recycles gods, renders some null, and carries on. Mind you this process is slow, and humans are prone to not seeing the big picture. 2000 years is forever to us, but it is surely not forever to time.

Evolution is also a main reason I do not find sufficient evidence to support a god as we know or have known it. In my opinion, the process of evolution screams out loudly and clearly that this world was not made just for humans, and it was not made nor designed with an intelligent plan. Evolution seems like a stronger atheist than even I am, because I still make way for the unknown, and our limited capacities.

Thanks for the thought provoking question. This response is just a work in progress, open to changes and edits, knowingly futile but ultimately challenging and, in my opinion, a neat part of life.

 

[Greatest I am]

If you look around it is clear that humans are free willed beings with the ability to make choices. That makes us capable of doing evil intentionally or unintentionally. Christians claim we were created as such so that those who choose to love God do so by their own will. Love given unvoluntarily is not love.

I agree.
Please show us what happened the first time A & E used their free will to do anything other than God's will.
The first time they showed their autonomy.

Humans were created with the nature to choose. The "falling" comes as a result human's own choices. God did not create us as puppets because He wanted creatures who would love Him by choice. Without evil how can humans make a choice?

So if evil is necessary for mankind, why did God throw his sissy fit on A & E the moment they reached for what you say man must have in order to choose. The tree of knowledge.

Dealing with evil is our responsibility and we do so by choosing good.

Or evil.

I don't know about "only" human to human but that is definitely a big part of it. This is why evil isn't really a thing to be created because evil is manifested. But if God eliminated evil in our existence then there would have to be changes made to humans that would turn us into robots. What would be the purpose of that?

Survival. Since God seems to condemn anyone who does not do exactly as told.

You are wrong here. Competition doesn't always create a victim so it isn't really evil.

Do you like to lose? If not, you are a victim.

This is only how you choose to view it. I don't see how cooperation can be seen as always good either. If people cooperate with each other in order to murder others how could that be good?

Hmm. Think Hitler and the allies cooperating to end his life.

Evil exists for our survival? Nonsense.

What would happen to the fittest in animal groups if you took competition/evil out of their survival habits?
They would go extinct. Right?

So you are saying instead of these people who posts pictures of starving children should not complain but should be thankful these things exist?

No.

I think it is natural for people to find human suffering disturbing.

Not for literalist Christians.
Sodom and Noah's day was just good justice. Not disturbing to insane minds at all.

This moves people toward doing something about it. The biggest problem with things like this is too many people just accept it as reality and do nothing. If people followed to bible, including many Christians, and decided to "Love thy neighbor" there wouldn't be as much evil and suffering in the world as there is today.

True. If Christians walked their talk, it would be a much better world.

So it looks like GIA's solution to evil and suffering is to just accept it and be thankful.

Not quite what I said.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I like this question, and I'd like to answer it as well if I might?

What is your main reason for ---God might exist?
First off, surely I (and life forms) do not (and most likely cannot) know everything there is to know. For that reason, I cannot rule anything out with 100% certainty regarding the existence of some god. Secondly, I think this question depends on the definition of god. What god is proposed to be influences my likelihood of believing it exists. Is god just the pool from which life is dispensed? I am more likely to accept that that god being defined as a human-like character with emotions, because to me it seems unlikely.

What is your main reason for ---God might not exist?
Many of the same conditions apply here. Can life itself know what god is? I am not sure, I am prone to say no, and for that reason I choose Ockham's razor when waging my 'bets' on the origin and meaning of life. I suspect god stories are lies, misunderstandings, and twists of reality (some benevolent of course; a mark of individual perceptions and differences). If a god exists, I feel it likely does not relate to life, in the way Deists believe.

Again, the definition of god is of utmost importance here. I am an atheist of gods as we know them. I've seen this credited to numerous people so I will not give incorrect credit: “We are all atheists to other religions, we [atheists] just take it one step further.” This strikes me. No major/common religion has defined a reasonable nor plausible god, in my opinion. I suspect humanity knows this, and for this reason, recycles gods, renders some null, and carries on. Mind you this process is slow, and humans are prone to not seeing the big picture. 2000 years is forever to us, but it is surely not forever to time.

Evolution is also a main reason I do not find sufficient evidence to support a god as we know or have known it. In my opinion, the process of evolution screams out loudly and clearly that this world was not made just for humans, and it was not made nor designed with an intelligent plan. Evolution seems like a stronger atheist than even I am, because I still make way for the unknown, and our limited capacities.

Thanks for the thought provoking question. This response is just a work in progress, open to changes and edits, knowingly futile but ultimately challenging and, in my opinion, a neat part of life.

Good marks for this. Thanks.

I like atheists who say their probably is no God.
That sounds more intelligent than, there is no God, as that cannot be proven.
Only God's existence can be proven and the world still waits.

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

I like this question, and I'd like to answer it as well if I might?...

Approved!

 

[BornReady]

I've seen this credited to numerous people so I will not give incorrect credit: “We are all atheists to other religions, we [atheists] just take it one step further.” This strikes me.

I like that quote too. I also like a variation of it where an atheist is talking to a believer: "We're not that different. I just believe in one less god than you do."

I like atheists who say their probably is no God.
That sounds more intelligent than, there is no God, as that cannot be proven.

:thumbup It is close minded to say there are no gods. Much better to say I don't believe in any gods.

 

[doombug]

I like this question, and I'd like to answer it as well if I might?

It is a "tad" off topic but if picking what you want to comment on makes you feel comfy then go for it.

What is your main reason for ---God might exist?
First off, surely I (and life forms) do not (and most likely cannot) know everything there is to know. For that reason, I cannot rule anything out with 100% certainty regarding the existence of some god. Secondly, I think this question depends on the definition of god. What god is proposed to be influences my likelihood of believing it exists. Is god just the pool from which life is dispensed? I am more likely to accept that that god being defined as a human-like character with emotions, because to me it seems unlikely.

After reading this paragraph I am reminded of Bill Clinton saying it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Breaking something down this far seems like a tactic to cover something up. Looking at this paragraph only shows you really didn't answer the question "what is your main reason for...God might exist?". Could it be you are only trying to cover yourself because you have no answer? It sure looks like it.

What is your main reason for ---God might not exist?
Many of the same conditions apply here. Can life itself know what god is? I am not sure, I am prone to say no, and for that reason I choose Ockham's razor when waging my 'bets' on the origin and meaning of life. I suspect god stories are lies, misunderstandings, and twists of reality (some benevolent of course; a mark of individual perceptions and differences). If a god exists, I feel it likely does not relate to life, in the way Deists believe.

Consider that many scientists accept the theory that the universe had a beginning. It seems to me applying "Ockham's razor" leans more toward a creator to create the universe than not. Other theories seem to require too many leaps of faith to be true.

Again, the definition of god is of utmost importance here. I am an atheist of gods as we know them. I've seen this credited to numerous people so I will not give incorrect credit: “We are all atheists to other religions, we [atheists] just take it one step further.” This strikes me. No major/common religion has defined a reasonable nor plausible god, in my opinion. I suspect humanity knows this, and for this reason, recycles gods, renders some null, and carries on. Mind you this process is slow, and humans are prone to not seeing the big picture. 2000 years is forever to us, but it is surely not forever to time.

I laughed when I read "we are all atheists...blah, blah, blah" because the definition of the word "atheist" alone proves this statement is false. Consider: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Even when considering Christianity this statement contradicts itself. How can anyone who believes in God be an atheist even to other religions? If anything people who believe in God are rival Theists.

Evolution is also a main reason I do not find sufficient evidence to support a god as we know or have known it. In my opinion, the process of evolution screams out loudly and clearly that this world was not made just for humans, and it was not made nor designed with an intelligent plan. Evolution seems like a stronger atheist than even I am, because I still make way for the unknown, and our limited capacities.

Evolution, really? I would think such a skeptic would have problems with evolution because of the things it doesn't explain. Seems to me it would require a leap of faith to believe in a theory that could be seen as incomplete. As for myself I don't see why evolution has to necessarily contradict creationism because I'm open minded enough to consider such possibilities.

Thanks for the thought provoking question. This response is just a work in progress, open to changes and edits, knowingly futile but ultimately challenging and, in my opinion, a neat part of life.

Some people do have a belief system that is "a la carte". That way they can pick and choose certain things that coincide with what they want even if such things are contradictory. I have to say that when a person believes in God it does take some faith even if the person sees evidence for a creator. But so does believing in a scientific theory like evolution. I don't think it is possible to know everything about everything. A person can and does still benefit from things they know little about though. Using a computer doesn't require being an engineer. People benefit from computers without having to completely understand them and people benefit from spirituality and believing in God. Looking for "proof" of God's existence is interesting to me but those who are demanding proof seem like they are scrambling for excuses not to even look for the truth. If not then why don't they demand absolute proof for other things as well and if they don't get this proof then they don't believe in these things either. This inconsistency leads me to believe they are not really sincere skeptics. Skepticism only serves their purpose when needed.

 

[doombug]

If true. Show an example.

Regards
DL

Example would be just about any recent thread you have started. Pick a thread, any thread....

 

[Minor Axis]

Could it be God is not almighty? Traditionally we have thought of God that way. But, I agree with you, such a being doesn't seem to exist. On the other hand, there are many believers who draw strength and comfort from God or at the very minimum from a belief in him. Is it possible to reconcile these two positions? I think so. Maybe the believers are right, God exists. And maybe the unbelievers are right too, God is not almighty.

Maybe God would end suffering in the world if he could but he can't. Maybe his power is limited to working in the heart of men and women.

If you are speaking of some people, maybe, but as a rule those who believe in God, believe in "all mighty" God and the unbelievers as you call them don't believe that God is not all powerful, they don't believe in God at all. Being in a position of not knowing what to believe, any theory about God is just a theory, except we don't have enough info to even call it a theory.

 

[Panacea]

After reading this paragraph I am reminded of Bill Clinton saying it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Breaking something down this far seems like a tactic to cover something up. Looking at this paragraph only shows you really didn't answer the question "what is your main reason for...God might exist?". Could it be you are only trying to cover yourself because you have no answer? It sure looks like it.

No, I was honest with my response. What is the reasoning behind your paranoid perceptions of my posting style?

Consider that many scientists accept the theory that the universe had a beginning. It seems to me applying "Ockham's razor" leans more toward a creator to create the universe than not. Other theories seem to require too many leaps of faith to be true.

That's one opinion.

I laughed when I read "we are all atheists...blah, blah, blah" because the definition of the word "atheist" alone proves this statement is false. Consider: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Even when considering Christianity this statement contradicts itself. How can anyone who believes in God be an atheist even to other religions? If anything people who believe in God are rival Theists.

I feel the quote is good for illuminating the poor logic of latching on to one god story as truth without evidence and rejecting other god stories as fiction.

Evolution, really? I would think such a skeptic would have problems with evolution because of the things it doesn't explain. Seems to me it would require a leap of faith to believe in a theory that could be seen as incomplete. As for myself I don't see why evolution has to necessarily contradict creationism because I'm open minded enough to consider such possibilities.

Skeptics do not, by definition, have problems with falsifiable theories like evolution.

I always believed evolution and intelligent design could be reconciled until I started studying evolution in more depth. I understand how and why people reconcile the two, and live their lives under the assumption evolution was a god's plan, but what we know of evolution is nearly proof positive a god as we have commonly defined it throughout history did not create life.

Some people do have a belief system that is "a la carte". That way they can pick and choose certain things that coincide with what they want even if such things are contradictory. I have to say that when a person believes in God it does take some faith even if the person sees evidence for a creator. But so does believing in a scientific theory like evolution. I don't think it is possible to know everything about everything. A person can and does still benefit from things they know little about though. Using a computer doesn't require being an engineer. People benefit from computers without having to completely understand them and people benefit from spirituality and believing in God. Looking for "proof" of God's existence is interesting to me but those who are demanding proof seem like they are scrambling for excuses not to even look for the truth. If not then why don't they demand absolute proof for other things as well and if they don't get this proof then they don't believe in these things either. This inconsistency leads me to believe they are not really sincere skeptics. Skepticism only serves their purpose when needed.

Evolution does not require faith. It is built on a system of physical evidence, and does not make assumptions without the help of physical evidence.

 

[BornReady]

Being in a position of not knowing what to believe, any theory about God is just a theory, except we don't have enough info to even call it a theory.

True. But some concepts of God (e.g. a spiritual god of some sort who is limited to working in the hearts of people) seem more probable to me than other concepts (e.g. an external almighty god). If there is a god then I'm guessing it's more like the first. I don't have any evidence that supports this hunch. It's just earth doesn't seem like the kind of world that is being overseen by an almighty being.

 

[BornReady]

Evolution does not require faith. It is built on a system of physical evidence, and does not make assumptions without the help of physical evidence.

Yeah, scientists don't believe in evolution. 99 plus percent of scientists accept it as the best theory currently available based on the evidence they have studied. Lay people sometimes believe or don't believe in evolution because they don't have the knowledge to determine whether to accept or reject it. For them it is a matter of how much they trust or distrust science.

 

[Panacea]

Yeah, scientists don't believe in evolution. 99 plus percent of scientists accept it as the best theory currently available based on the evidence they have studied. Lay people sometimes believe or don't believe in evolution because they don't have the knowledge to determine whether to accept or reject it. For them it is a matter of how much they trust or distrust science.

Exactly right.

 

[Minor Axis]

True. But some concepts of God (e.g. a spiritual god of some sort who is limited to working in the hearts of people) seem more probable to me than other concepts (e.g. an external almighty god). If there is a god then I'm guessing it's more like the first. I don't have any evidence that supports this hunch. It's just earth doesn't seem like the kind of world that is being overseen by an almighty being.

I don't know if it is strong enough to call it a hunch, but I am very sympathetic to the concept of spirit, group spiritual consciousness, The StarWars concept of the Force as a shared presence, but I base it upon subtle sensations I get which could be me just kidding myself. But I like it none the less.

The problem with the human concept especially the Christian/Muslim concept of God is that it appears too simplified for my tastes especially when you see the time frame from where the basis for Christianity came from, primitive, superstitious people who did not understand something as basic as the weather, feeling that all bad weather events were the results of a pissed off deity punishing someone. This is not a good starting point for spirituality/religion. Yet today there are people who cling to traditional religious concepts as strongly our primitive, superstitious ancestors.

 

[Panacea]

The problem with the human concept especially the Christian/Muslim concept of God is that it appears too simplified for my tastes especially when you see the time frame from where the basis for Christianity came from, primitive, superstitious people who did not understand something as basic as the weather, feeling that all bad weather events were the results of a pissed off deity punishing someone. This is not a good starting point for spirituality/religion. Yet today there are people who cling to traditional religious concepts as strongly our primitive, superstitious ancestors.

I very much agree with you, though I think Yaweh isn't exactly simple
What a complicated mess humans have made that character in an attempt to cover logistical flaws!

 

[BornReady]

I am very sympathetic to the concept of spirit, group spiritual consciousness, The StarWars concept of the Force as a shared presence, but I base it upon subtle sensations I get which could be me just kidding myself. But I like it none the less.

I think you and George Lucas would get along very well. Here is his comment on the Force:

The Force evolved out of various developments of character and plot. I wanted a concept of religion based on the premise that there is a God and there is good and evil. I began to distill the essence of all religions into what I thought was a basic idea common to all religions and common to primitive thinking. I wanted to develop something that was nondenominational but still had a kind of religious reality.

In my understanding, Lucas was influenced more heavily by Taoism than other religions.

 

[Minor Axis]

This is not a good starting point for spirituality/religion. Yet today there are people who cling to traditional religious concepts as strongly our primitive, superstitious ancestors.

I want to modify this statement. Religion starts when man started thinking about it, so it was a good place to start. But to keep it relevant, man must update his thinking on religion as knowledge is gained. Many theist can't bring themselves to do this.

 

[doombug]

No, I was honest with my response. What is the reasoning behind your paranoid perceptions of my posting style?

I think a more honest response would have been to say you don't know instead you decided to mask this in ambiguity. Paranoid perceptions? Nah, I am being honest with my response.

That's one opinion.

Such a short response. I guess this use of "Ockham's razor" is quite inconvenient for you.

I feel the quote is good for illuminating the poor logic of latching on to one god story as truth without evidence and rejecting other god stories as fiction.

Logic and religion? Funny how you only use these words together when trying to explain some half baked quote. It seems to me this statement is making an argument for atheism from a position which is irrational and contradictory. From a debating standpoint it is being disingenuous and actively making ad hominem jabs at theists.

Skeptics do not, by definition, have problems with falsifiable theories like evolution.

But a true skeptic would have problems with it. I find that many Agnostics and Atheists are only masquerading as skeptics when it is convenient for them to do so.

I always believed evolution and intelligent design could be reconciled until I started studying evolution in more depth. I understand how and why people reconcile the two, and live their lives under the assumption evolution was a god's plan, but what we know of evolution is nearly proof positive a god as we have commonly defined it throughout history did not create life.

Funny how you claim to have studied evolution and make claims saying how evolution proves this or that but you fail to explain yourself or go into detail. For example, there are two major theories of evolution
1) microevolution and 2) macroevolution. Macroevolution has two major models 1) Gradualism
and 2) Punctuated Equilibrium. Which ones do you believe? It seems there is quite a few items on the buffet here to suit just about any purpose.

Evolution does not require faith. It is built on a system of physical evidence, and does not make assumptions without the help of physical evidence.

Since the Theory of Evolution has produced theories and sub-theories I find the physical evidence quite lacking therefore requiring faith to believe in it. It is still interesting to me and the research done can benefit people so I'm not saying the Theory of Evolution is without value.

Yeah, scientists don't believe in evolution. 99 plus percent of scientists accept it as the best theory currently available based on the evidence they have studied. Lay people sometimes believe or don't believe in evolution because they don't have the knowledge to determine whether to accept or reject it. For them it is a matter of how much they trust or distrust science.

That is right BornReady. If you are not a scientist that has studied evolution it is a matter of trust or distrust in science so the lay person has to rely on FAITH. It seems to be human nature to latch onto anything that makes people feel more secure with their worldview. Atheists and Agnostics are no different. They cling to ideas that seem just as absurd as anything any religious person believes.