Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[paultrr]

I get a bit dogmatic at times with Creationists and with the ID crowd simply because a long time ago I was a creationists and rather know a lot of the short comings of that position. Considering we still have little hard science about the first moment of creation any speculation here as long as there is some scientific basis probably is allowable. God only knows that Hawking likes to wax a bit on the God subject himself. Its just me that tends to perfer hard science over belief system in general. All in all this was a good poll.

[TINNY]

I am a Freethinker, and therefore have no BELIEF in anything, only acceptance of things.

what if you have to accept that you have to believe in some things?

[paultrr]

No one has to believe in anything outside of the earth below, the chair you sit in, etc. There is no required belief. Even the above is not really faith or belief. Its more a matter of learned knowledge.

[lindagarrette]

Surely anyone who believes in a "higher power" believes in a personal god. Otherwise what would be the point?

[kaelcarp]

Surely anyone who believes in a "higher power" believes in a personal god. Otherwise what would be the point?

My wife has an odd theistic view. She thinks of nature itself as a "higher power" - not a conscious, personal entity, but a sort of intelligent mass made out of the world, including humanity. She doesn't believe in a personal god, but she does believe in nature and the universe itself as a higher power, and thinks of them as a sort of god, in a way.

 

Personally, I'm a negative atheist. That is, I don't have any beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Lack of data doesn't allow for the determination of it, as far as I can tell. Either attesting to or denying the existence of a deity requires a leap of faith I'm not willing to make. Too much assumption. I'm not an agnostic, in that I do believe it may be possible for humanity to one day determine these things, but I do not think we have reached that point.

 

I can say that I fully disbelieve in the Biblical concept of God. It's not consistent with reality as I have come to know it.

[Meathim]

E. I believe in the God represented in the Bible.

 

I think I have enough proof from ... almost everything. I believe. But that doesn't mean I agree with the major part of christianty. i believe in the Bible, not in what priests say.

[paultrr]

I have someone I know who was Catholic by birth, but rejected his Catholic upbringing. However, when he went through AA one thing they had him do was define for himself his idea of a higher power. His definition was interesting. The higher power for him was Good Orderly Direction. People I know have no real problem with the idea of something impersonal being defined as a higher power. We live on a planet where even the weather can and does effect our lives. By science we know this weather is the result of natural process with no real purpose of mind behind such. Yet, in an instant such weather can distroy life with far more deadly swiftness than any person alive could muster. Personally with such creative and distructive power behind nature I'm glad none of this is the result as the anchients once thought of as the whims of some personality or deity.

 

As to the Biblical idea of God it is interesting to note something not often discussed from Deuteronmy. God created(Fashioned and Formed as the Hebrew points out) Good and evil for his own purposes. A God who can form or create both has to have both natures within. As such this type of God, presented as a personal one could well mold the powers of nature for both effects which is not far off of the anchient idea of God's sitting on some hill and throwing bolts of lightening down onto man.

 

It also would raises the question of who ultimatlely is responcible for what we humans term evil. Is the one who formed such just as responcible considering forming such takes choice just as much as deciding to say commit a crime. In our legal system the one who provides the means for a crime can be judged just as guilty as the one who commits the crime. Supposedly our legal system has its basis in western religious thought and morals. If that type of God exists I might suggest that perhaps he ought to judge himself. No, I find no comfort at all in the common religious ideas of God. Basically, I find most religions have made God in man's image instead of the other way around.

 

The idea that guys wife holds to is sometimes termed modern Neopaganism where the Creator is simply nature itself which is impersonal at its core even though they sometimes in different groups talk of personal deities. I've sometimes joked with others that I am a techno- neopagan of sorts in that I find our nature as our creator without the admixture of personality very much enough. In short, I follow the camp that rejects the personal God of any type. Rather like McCoy(Bones) in a certain Startrek Movie who made the comment that I doub't any God who inflects hurt and pain for his own purposes. Rather liked Kirk's responce in asking God for his ID.

 

You might ask if any of us ever question this type of world view? I think in general we are open minded enough to question things. In questioning I know we do not have all the answers for everything, at least not yet. Nor does that eliminate that there is something perhaps in the human equation greater than the sum of our body parts. But I can say this I have seen no evidence demanding that I reject what I do know in favor of say Creationism as commonly taught. Nor do I see any evidence to throw out our science books in favor of the Bible either.

[bumab]

As to the Biblical idea of God it is interesting to note something not often discussed from Deuteronmy. God created(Fashioned and Formed as the Hebrew points out) Good and evil for his own purposes. A God who can form or create both has to have both natures within. As such this type of God, presented as a personal one could well mold the powers of nature for both effects which is not far off of the anchient idea of God's sitting on some hill and throwing bolts of lightening down onto man.

(my bolding)

 

I don't doubt your reading, but do you know where that is found in Dueteronomy?

 

It also would raises the question of who ultimatlely is responcible for what we humans term evil. Is the one who formed such just as responcible considering forming such takes choice just as much as deciding to say commit a crime. In our legal system the one who provides the means for a crime can be judged just as guilty as the one who commits the crime.

 

Obviously a long term debate in any religious setting. I think, however, that our own free will (symbolized by the tree in the garden) is the main cause- we choose to do things contrairy to the best interests of everyone. Thus, the existence of God neccessarily implies the existence of evil, without the good creating evil as such. evil is simply "non-good," which is a common theme in religion- evil is nothing more then a perversion of good. "Everything in moderation" is good, anything in excess is bad. It's not a hard concept, I think most eveyone would agree with that. Am I wrong?

[kaelcarp]

For anyone who has never seen it, here's a nifty little site for testing how logically self-consistent your beliefs (or lack of beliefs) in a deity are.

 

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

 

Lots of interesting games on that site, actually.

[paultrr]

Its actually implied also in the following: Genesis 3:22-And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: The actual verses, though there is one simular is in Isaiah, chapter 45, we read, from verse 5, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me. I girded thee (Cyrus —see verse 1), though thou hast not known Me, that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." Sorry about the wrong book on that. It's been a while to try and quote from memory.

 

One thing of note, whatever the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was according to the Bible that tree was created by God. It rather could have been any tree simply placed there with the prohibition by God on it not to eat it. Yes, the act of eating such by the Bible story was man's. But the creation of all things was God's act. The Hebrew word here translated "evil" is "ra." Dr Schofield, in a note in his reference bible, states that the word is also translated "sorrow," "wretchedness," "adversity," "afflictions," "calamities,". Thus, making God the source of such. Granted one could say that such would not be known if man had not made the choice to eat. But the origin of such is God's doing according to the Bible.

 

Christians would generally argue that it was our free will that brought evil into the world situtaion. God is then in the accounts shown to have given His law, not so much as the way to salvation, but as a guide on how well we simply cannot come to God on our own. Later with the advent of Christ, by faith in him and his sacrifice, the penality for such was removed. The usual argument given is that God, being the creator has the full right to do as he wishes with what he created. Its also somewhat argued(though hard to prove so out of versus that the Fall of Satan took place long before the fall of man and that creation here was to be a settlement of that age old argument. That tends to make us created to prove a point to another creation of God given that one attribute of God is supposed to be all knowledge.

 

What would be the judgement public wise if some guy in a lab created a new Universe with life in it and simply set up the situation so failure was the only option, so to speak, because everything is predetermined? We have problems and arguments over human cloning, which is not real creation of life from nothing, so to speak, simply because of moral issues over the value of human life and life in general. I suspect our scientists in this situation would find himself ready to be hung out if such a situation ever arose. So there is a morality and a responcibility that goes with creating something, especially good and evil.

 

In all, the Bible story does not portray the type of creator I would tend to want to align myself with. It portrays a Creator who makes his creation as an example to another creation, sets that creation in motion knowing full well ahead of times that they will fail on their own, then sends a set of laws(His laws) down to man knowing full well they can not forfill that law, and then turns around, according to the story, and sends His Son down to make a one time sacrifice to settle the whole argument. That to me comes accross as a lab experiment that makes Mary Shelley's tale seem like a Nursery Story. Dr. Frankenstein has nothing over this tale.

 

The word "ra" is translated "evil" no less than 445 times in the King James Version. Also, see Isaiah for another verse where God is the creator of Evil. "I form the light and create darkness." God did not create light, because light was always in being, since God Himself is light (1 John 1:5). This all taken in context implies that evil and darkness where created to point him out, to show his light, so to speak. Similarly, God says, in another passage, "I make peace and create evil,". He is the origin of both no matter how one wants to try and argue such, at least according to the Bible. Take makes God rather a two sided coin. On one side he has the nature of good and on the other he has the nature of evil all wrapped into one.

[paultrr]

On the issue of free will, Jacob Arminius (c.1559-1609), argued the case for real free will. John Calvin (c. 1509-64) argued that all was predestined, as far as the roots of the modern historical protestant Church goes. Most modern Christian groups outside of certain Methodists and Pentecostal groups tend to side somewhat into the group who follow Calvin in a softer form. But it is a general acceptance that God forknew everything and predetermined everything to one extent or another. That makes our free will in all this rather questionable to begin with. To us it seems like our free choice. But if the Universe is one which was created with a built in history of what was to happen then there actually is no free will. It might be our act of will that brings about the events. But that act of will was predetermined long before we were born under such a case. Brings to mind some often quoted passages from the Bible that general read, "Before you where born I forknew you..."

 

Some people would probably not like to hear this, but if you really look at the present situation going on in the world, we have Christian Fundamentalism, born out of John Calvin's worldview up against Islamic Fundamentalism born out of the original roots of Middle Eastern derivived religious world views. Both have their origins in the same general belief system portrayed in the Bible and the Koran. Both hell bent on distroying themselves all because of the nature and character of the God at its roots both hold in common. Its the same Creator they both hold in common, that Mad Doctor out there in his lab who creates things for his own purposes so he can be proved right in some argument by the story that existed long before any human was ever here.

 

Simply put Fundamentalism in any form is perhaps the worst evil in this world. Its a product of the human mind, not God if he exists, and has been one of the worst tools down through history used to inflect pain, suffering, hate, murder, genocide, etc. I have no problem at all with the religious open minded that seek a common ground for the good of all mankind. I find most of them have little problem with science and simply have questions. Its the dogmatic religious fundamentalism that I tend to detaste the most.

 

I have no problem with the idea there may be some first cause to creation we could term a Creator. I just doub't we'll ever be able to really prove such on a slide rule because such would be outside the creation that science studies directly. It would take faith to believe in such and generally people do seem to be able to make that leap beyond logic. But belief is seperate from science and rather belongs that way. If one believes a certain way then great. Just keep the faith out of the science and everything is fine. That also does not mean that one cannot seek with science to find support of one's belief. It may or may not be there. If and when it is shown to be there by scientific methods then we really would have something to discuss in common. Untill then this type of debate has its place under philosophy and cannot be considered real science to its full extent.

[lindagarrette]

 

 

Obviously a long term debate in any religious setting. I think, however, that our own free will (symbolized by the tree in the garden) is the main cause- we choose to do things contrairy to the best interests of everyone. Thus, the existence of God neccessarily implies the existence of evil, without the good creating evil as such. evil is simply "non-good," which is a common theme in religion- evil is nothing more then a perversion of good. "Everything in moderation" is good, anything in excess is bad. It's not a hard concept, I think most eveyone would agree with that. Am I wrong?

I think most people have their own definitions of moderation and what is good and bad, based on what they have been taught.

[bumab]

One thing of note, whatever the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was according to the Bible that tree was created by God. It rather could have been any tree simply placed there with the prohibition by God on it not to eat it. Yes, the act of eating such by the Bible story was man's. But the creation of all things was God's act. The Hebrew word here translated "evil" is "ra." Dr Schofield, in a note in his reference bible, states that the word is also translated "sorrow," "wretchedness," "adversity," "afflictions," "calamities,". Thus, making God the source of such. Granted one could say that such would not be known if man had not made the choice to eat. But the origin of such is God's doing according to the Bible.

 

Thanks for the location of that quote. I've not looked through the OT in a while.

 

I'm not convinced that the Bible claims God created evil in the same way it claims creation of other things. That tree (literally a tree, or just a symbolic metaphor) was the option to do "evil," like free will. Option to do something does not require the creation of that thing.

 

For example- the big bang. Pre-big bang... was it dark? I would say no, it was neither dark nor light, it just simply wasn't. there was nothing to be "dark." After the BB, light was created (somehow) and thus, dark was "created." Was the big bang a creation of darkness? I don't think so, although I could be wrong.

[bumab]

On the issue of free will, Jacob Arminius (c.1559-1609), argued the case for real free will. John Calvin (c. 1509-64) argued that all was predestined, as far as the roots of the modern historical protestant Church goes. Most modern Christian groups outside of certain Methodists and Pentecostal groups tend to side somewhat into the group who follow Calvin in a softer form. But it is a general acceptance that God forknew everything and predetermined everything to one extent or another. That makes our free will in all this rather questionable to begin with.

 

Predestination does not preclude free will. Calvin's predestination says God knows what you will do, thus we are predestined. That does not imply we don't choose that "destiny." It's much like predicting the future- just because you know what somebody is going to do doesn't mean they aren't free to do otherwise, just that they WONT do otherwise.

 

Free will and predestination can co-exist. I'm not saying I believe in Calvin's view, or don't agree. I'm really not sure. But free will was not excluded from his worldview. As far as I know, free will is not precluded from any Christian (or religious) worldview of any appreciable size.

[paultrr]

I'd relook up Calvin. The position you just mentioned is more that of those who hold to a modified view on this. Calvin himself, while using the terms foreknowledge, clearly in his own words implied that everything is predestined. In fact, he went as far to state that even the damned are predestined to hell as well as the elect to heaven. One thing is few groups actually follow Calvin exactly. Had a professor in college that called all the rest wanabe calvinists or hodgepodge Arminians. In some ways that is true. The normal Baptist stance for instance does tend to be something in between the two views. I also believe that most Presbeterians actually follow a modified calvinistic position. Luther on the otherhand held views more in keeping with the Catholic position on such.

[bumab]

You should take another look at Calvin- tell me if I'm wrong!

 

I thought that for a long time as well (the elect and the damned thing)... I grew up near a large CRC population (Lynden, WA), so I've heard a lot of conservative calvinist points of view. I never really gave him a chance, until I looked into it again.

 

I think a lot depends on how you go into a look at Calvin. Sure, he said there are those predestined to go to heaven and those predestined to go to hell. Does that mean he didn't believe in free will? Just because you are destined to do something, again, doesn't mean you didn't choose to do so. And, if God "offers" heaven only to those predestined to accept it, that still allows for free will.

 

Anyway, look into it. I could be just reading my own opinions into his ideas, although many scholars of calvin hold similar views. That doesn't mean we're right ;) we could be predesined to be wrong, right?

[paultrr]

Thanks for the location of that quote. I've not looked through the OT in a while.

 

I'm not convinced that the Bible claims God created evil in the same way it claims creation of other things. That tree (literally a tree, or just a symbolic metaphor) was the option to do "evil," like free will. Option to do something does not require the creation of that thing.

 

For example- the big bang. Pre-big bang... was it dark? I would say no, it was neither dark nor light, it just simply wasn't. there was nothing to be "dark." After the BB, light was created (somehow) and thus, dark was "created." Was the big bang a creation of darkness? I don't think so, although I could be wrong.

 

If the Bible story as normally literally interpreted by the Fundamentalist is correct then everything was formed and created by God. One thing few people forget is even with Satan, he cannot create something. He can only act by will upon what is already there. By the Bible story he may have been the first to act opposite to God's will. But the ability and the opposite side was already there. The source of that was the one who can create in the first place. "How art thou fallen from heaven,O Lucifer, Son of the Morning Star."(Ezekial) Which goes later on to state that basically he fell because he decided his glory was better than God's. Here one has something as simple as beauty and wisdom becoming the tool of evil. But the source of evil goes way back before this. Either God formed and created everything or he did not. If he did not then simply put he is not the original Creator or the source of all. Evil is far more from a Biblical perspective than just the possibility for such where its will alone that casts the die, so to speak.