Why I do or do not believe in God. A philosophical debate.

[Excubis]

Well I continually see this debate in science and religion but do not prescribe that a belief in or not believing is scientific in any way, it is of a philosophical debate. I am not an anti-theist in any way, my point of debate is to find out why either I or others do not believe or do believe in God. Both do have a logical stand points which members on either side do not want to accept. Either way neither can be proven conclusively this is a personal decision that is subjective.

Now why I do not believe in God:

1. I cannot understand why a supreme being would spread it's existence on a individual basis. Also for a majority religions continually speak about the fallibility of man(humans) so why spread your message in this way when you have the capability to speak to everyone. How can I trust an individual who tells me Gods message yet God also states how wrong and bad the human race is.


2. I cannot ascertain how a Gods message can change as in Old Test. and New Test. How is it a God can learn or decide a different course of action, shouldn't God know how it's creation will react before application it's consequences, isn't God all knowing and is all so how can God "feel bad" afterwards, God should know the outcome.

For those who have faith please give examples of how this is reconciled or if it doesn't not matter I am fine with that as well. Bible quotes are fine but please indicate what version of the bible you are quoting or from which faith or denomination. I would really like to have a civil debate, I am open to reviewing my own beliefs and would like to converse with those believers who are also not afraid to review their own, I personally think it takes enormous "faith" to do this. Why? A person of true faith should not fear questions or review because they do have faith.

If you want to substantiate your view using science this is not the thread for you, atheist and theist alike.

[ttruscott]

...

Yet this is my other issue with God and biblical writings what revelation is revealed to one person is not always the same for the other, although this doesn't always lead to a split in the religion it does at times. So how can we know which is right by way of God?

imCo
The indwelling Holy Spirit teaches us and we learn as we are able... Christ scolded the Pharisees but they would not listen, loving their religion and their place in it more than their GOD of that religion.

Differences don't always matter:
We're bedevilled by Satan and the demons and all we have is our faith...even if my faith is different from my brothers. Thus the vagaries of exact truth are not our problem but GOD's - HE is the one who promised to bring us to the end of our lives sanctified and heaven ready and that is our faith, not in the niceties of exact doctrine... When I come across a conflicting doctrine I am just as happy to say - ok, I wonder how this will work out? and then wait for it since if it matters, I will learn, and only my faith in HIS promise is important.


Peace, Ted

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

I do agree on a whole it is not a philosophy but does contain philosophical ideas. Also yes my OP is incorrect as per definition. Was just hoping for theist to have a Civil debate without aggression. Not saying you specifically. I was trying to engage, if we take hard line against theist and not acquire the base for their belief objectively this leaves little room for a civil co-existence.

I am sorry to see that you let the atheistic rationalists drive you from what they consider to be their holy of holies. Relativity forbid that anyone should invite theistic presuppositionalists to profane the sacred name of philosophy, by thinking that anything they say could even be entertained as wise.

It is a pity that, now that we are in the TD&D thread, the Scriptures are presumed to have authority. This, of course, precludes any discussion in that regard. Though I personally consider the Scriptures to have authority, that is not required to examining them for consistency. In fact, I believe that a proper examination of their consistency would include an examination of the principles presented therein against principles that others might consider true philosophy, but alas it is not to be.

Shall we continue where we left off and proceed, with the added constraints of this thread? If I recall, this is where we left off.

That is not a consideration in the Tanakh. The character of Adonai is unknowable. All references to Adonai must be placed in a human context through anthropomorphisms or analogy. Regarding testing personal revelation, HaTorah states,

(Deut. 13:1-3b) "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass , whereof he spake unto thee, saying , Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known , and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams."

(Deut. 18:18-22) "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass , that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken , but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. "

These are the three tests:

1. The message must be in accordance with Adonai's ways and not related to another deity.
2. The person must be one of Adonai's people.
3. Everything spoken in Adonai's name must come true.

Divine Insight

bluethread wrote:

The character of Adonai is unknowable.

If that's the case, then Adonai cannot be the Biblical God. Because the Bible describes its God as being unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And that is a statement of the character of the Biblical God. The Bible also describes what the character of the Biblical God is at various times throughout the Biblical history.

The Biblical God is also said to be "Trustworthy", "Loving", "Righteous", and even "Merciful".

These are all character traits. They also must all be trustworthy character traits lest the "trustworthy" character trait itself becomes null and void.

So if the character of Adonai is unknowable, then Adonai cannot be the Biblical God.

As you have stated those are traits, often spoken of with regard to a particular context, and not the totality of His character. As Adonai said to Moshe',(Ex. 33:20) "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live". In Mt. 11:27, Yeshua says, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." So, it is only through Yeshua that one can gain true knowledge of Adonai and I submit even that is limited because, as Yochannan tells us, (John 1:18 KJV) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Yeshua Himself also said, (John 5:37 KJV) "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

Quoting passages from a book that has already been thoroughly debunked is totally meaningless.

There is no excuse for this religion. Also, I've already read the book and nothing you have posted from it is news to me. It's full of excuses, but it's also full of absurdities and self-contradictions too. Therefore the excuses are meaningless.

Of course, I see now that this thread had been MOVED from Philosophy over to Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma. So I guess this is no longer the debate it started out to be.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

Quoting passages from a book that has already been thoroughly debunked is totally meaningless.

There is no excuse for this religion. Also, I've already read the book and nothing you have posted from it is news to me. It's full of excuses, but it's also full of absurdities and self-contradictions too. Therefore the excuses are meaningless.

Of course, I see now that this thread had been MOVED from Philosophy over to Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma. So I guess this is no longer the debate it started out to be.

Yes, you can thank your buddy for that. That said, this is a post, so your first two paragraphs, which are not appropriate on this thread, could have been removed before you posted it. However, unlike others, I am not going to deny you the right to make an appropriate comment, regardless of your philosophy.

[sf]

1. I cannot understand why a supreme being would spread it's existence on a individual basis. Also for a majority religions continually speak about the fallibility of man(humans) so why spread your message in this way when you have the capability to speak to everyone. How can I trust an individual who tells me Gods message yet God also states how wrong and bad the human race is.

As I asked in another recent today, how could God communicate to everyone individually other than the wonder of the world he created around us and the conscience he gave each of us?

2. I cannot ascertain how a Gods message can change as in Old Test. and New Test.

It doesn't, although it is a common misconception (even by Christians) that God is represented different in the Old Testament versus the New Testament.

How is it a God can learn or decide a different course of action, shouldn't God know how it's creation will react before application it's consequences, isn't God all knowing and is all so how can God "feel bad" afterwards, God should know the outcome.

Can you please provide an example of a scripture showing this? I know what you're getting at, but if we could talk about a specific instance it would be a more productive discussion.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 25 by sfisher]

Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
NIV version

Shouldn't he have known how humans were if being omnipotent and all. It's pretty easy to see god doesn't know anything . More examples

Exodus 32:14
Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

I honestly could post for an hour plus on this specific topic, you will find many Christian sites that say this was an analogy, anthropomorphism, and,god did not change his mind. I cannot reconcile the two being the same if the bible is god's word than it is yet it should not yet does contradict itself. I cannot logically nor spiritually accept this, as I say I am an atheist I do not believe and do not accept the idea of a omnipotent being in any form but do have what can be best termed as a spiritual side. I also cannot reconcile anyone being subjected to another as per women to men, and I am sorry this to it strewn throughout the bible. Yes I will agree it says love, respect ect.. but clearly indicates that women should listen to their man. It always says man this man that, and rarely ever speaks of a women freedom. Now I could do a bible study and show these passages but I know full well they are there, if this is denied well best read your bible because they are there here is one such example:

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

[sf]

Thank you for your reply!

Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
NIV version

Shouldn't he have known how humans were if being omnipotent and all.

Yes, but does it say (or even imply) somewhere God was surprised by or didn't expect our behavior?

Exodus 32:14
Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Verse 10 sounds more like a conditional threat/warning to me (dependent on whether or not Moses would step aside or not):

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (Exodus 32:10-14)

I also cannot reconcile anyone being subjected to another as per women to men, and I am sorry this to it strewn throughout the bible.

Are we not all subject to another? "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:30)

God is not happy when men mistreat their wives: "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth." (Malachi 2:14-15)

Outside of the spiritual realm, I'm subject to my boss, and my boss is subject to his boss. I'm also subject to government authorities including, but not limited to, police officers.

Yes I will agree it says love, respect ect.. but clearly indicates that women should listen to their man.

Women desire to be loved, and men desire respect. This is true even outside of Christianity.

For context, this looks like the scripture you're referring to:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ephesians 5:22-30)

It always says man this man that, and rarely ever speaks of a women freedom.

This isn't a minor statement on the equal importance of men and women (and other groups) in the eyes of God: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Now I could do a bible study and show these passages but I know full well they are there, if this is denied well best read your bible because they are there here is one such example:

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This is because we as humanity have fallen into sin.

[Box Whatbox]

Women desire to be loved, and men desire respect.

Have you met any women who don't desire respect? Or men who don't desire to be loved?

[sf]

Women desire to be loved, and men desire respect.

Have you met any women who don't desire respect? Or men who don't desire to be loved?

No, which is why I didn't say that was men's or women's only desire, I implied that they tended to desire one over the other.

[Mr.Badham]

Thank you for your reply!

Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
NIV version

Shouldn't he have known how humans were if being omnipotent and all.

Yes, but does it say (or even imply) somewhere God was surprised by or didn't expect our behavior?

Exodus 32:14
Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Verse 10 sounds more like a conditional threat/warning to me (dependent on whether or not Moses would step aside or not):

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (Exodus 32:10-14)

I also cannot reconcile anyone being subjected to another as per women to men, and I am sorry this to it strewn throughout the bible.

Are we not all subject to another? "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:30)

God is not happy when men mistreat their wives: "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth." (Malachi 2:14-15)

Outside of the spiritual realm, I'm subject to my boss, and my boss is subject to his boss. I'm also subject to government authorities including, but not limited to, police officers.

Yes I will agree it says love, respect ect.. but clearly indicates that women should listen to their man.

Women desire to be loved, and men desire respect. This is true even outside of Christianity.

For context, this looks like the scripture you're referring to:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ephesians 5:22-30)

It always says man this man that, and rarely ever speaks of a women freedom.

This isn't a minor statement on the equal importance of men and women (and other groups) in the eyes of God: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Now I could do a bible study and show these passages but I know full well they are there, if this is denied well best read your bible because they are there here is one such example:

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This is because we as humanity have fallen into sin.

And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (Exodus 32:10-14)

WTF? Are you kidding me? God repented? God expressed regret? He admitted to evil? There it is. That's all anyone's ever been looking for!!!!