The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

...

Many believe that man made the idea of God because he needed something he could turn to. Well, I would object to this by saying that if most could have their way, they wouldn't have a god at all, and yet something within us causes the vast majority of people to wonder about God's existence.

Many surveys have turned in results that the vast majority of people do indeed believe in God's existence. These surveys show that only a small percentage of the population is atheistic. There is even a lot of speculation about whether many of these are true atheists.

...

quote>

You are not taking into account that until very recently in many places (and still are in some cases) atheists were persecuted and discriminated against. Of course no-one is going to admit to being an atheist if doing so will cost them their life, their job, their marraige, their children, their freedom or result in them being assaulted etc etc.

As one example this is an excerpt of an article Meg posted in another thread:

Political Christians

...

In a recent Under God blog, "Nikki Haley's confession of faith," On Faith editor David Waters wrote about the evolution of the South Carolina Constitution. The 1778 version stated, "That the Christian religion is the true religion" and "The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State." That was updated in 1868 to its present form, "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being."

   

Of course, this more "tolerant" version is still unconstitutional, since Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office. I challenged the clause in 1990, running for governor as "the candidate without a prayer." I lost the election, but eventually won a unanimous South Carolina Supreme Court decision in 1997. So the offending clause is constitutionally invalid, though politically as relevant today as it was in 1868. The only way to remove this clause from the South Carolina Constitution is through a referendum, which I don't expect to see in my lifetime.

  

I wonder if I would be more successful in South Carolina politics if I were to run as an atheist Christian, or maybe as a Christian atheist? I guess I'll let a Focus Group decide. quote>

[Darth Apple 54]

First, there are many countries where religious freedom exists where this a majority still believe in God.

Second, there are areas where indeed admitting the existence of God would cost you very much. These are the areas where the belief in God shows up to be very low in surveys. Furthermore, people don't always believe only what they want to believe. All around us we see that many believe in what they don't want to believe. We are faced with cruel realities in our world today. We don't want to believe in the realities of world wars, yet we do. We don't want to believe in a world that isn't perfect, and yet we do. Someone who is sick doesn't want to admit that they are ill, yet they do. There are many cases at which people are denying realities as well. This is a possible explanation for different beliefs. We do often believe only what we want to be true, but I would go back to the storm analogy. If a severe storm is headed your way, and you wish to deny it, does that change its effect? If your house is burning to the ground and you deny it because you don't wish to believe it, does this change the fact that your home is burning to the ground?

We can deny reality to a degree, but ultimately, we cannot turn to postmodernism to fill the emptiness, provide inner peace, and remove the guilt. The emptiness, guilt, and lack of peace are very present apart from Christ, almost as if you are feeling dead, but with Christ, I don't know how else to say it -- it just isn't there. It is almost as if you were dead, and now you are alive, and it is the best thing that's ever happened to me! Postmodernism cannot give that kind of a change. I find that not even religion in and of itself can give that change, but only Christ can. You could deny reality, but this basic human need is still present. denial of reality cannot give inner peace and satisfaction.

And you ask about me believing that God hates sin? Well, it is pretty hard to read the Bible and come away thinking that God likes sin. It seems obvious as you read the Bible that God hates sin. If you believe that the Bible is God's word, then is it unreasonable to believe that God hates sin?

[Cobraroll 138]

First, there are many countries where religious freedom exists where this a majority still believe in God. quote>

I think this might be a valid point, but also remember the key factor. The majority believe in A god. Not only the Christian god, nor only the muslim god (well, they're supposedly the same guy anyway, but they have a little different stance on things, so I chose to treat them as two separate deities), nor only the Hindu pantheon, the Norse pantheon, Greek, Egyptic, Roman, etc, etc. There is a VAST amount of Gods out there, tens of thousands in fact, and they all had a few believers at some point. And, here's the key: None of them are any more or less special than the others, other than to their respective believers. May I ask you why you deny the existence and/or supremity of Odin?

Second, there is a distinction between wanting to deny and wanting to believe. You can deny the storm, even though it's glaringly obvious that it is there (the fundamentalists are doing it with evolution already), but it will hit you like a, well, storm, sooner or later. On the other hand, you can't run around telling people there is a storm blowing when there obviously isn't. If we forget meteorology for a second, you could run around telling people a storm is coming, but when you can't present evidence (other than the possibility of storms occuring), they have no reason to believe in you. In short, we have all reason to believe in the observable, but if it can't be observed, nor logically concluded from other observations (and/or contradicts any other documented observations without explaining why), then there is no reason to believe in it.

The emptiness, guilt, and lack of peace are very present apart from Christ,quote>

You could replace Christ with any other deity, people find as much comfort in whoever they believe in. A Hindu would probably tell a depressed atheist that embracing Shiva would make it all a lot better, while a Viking would recommend praying to Freya.

If you believe that the Bible is God's word, then is it unreasonable to believe that God hates sin? quote>

What if you believe there is a god, but the Bible is anything but his word? What you're saying is basically "If you believe Harry Potter to be real, then is it unreasonable to believe that he is a wizard?". It's all circle reasoning...

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

And you ask about me believing that God hates sin? Well, it is pretty hard to read the Bible and come away thinking that God likes sin. It seems obvious as you read the Bible that God hates sin. If you believe that the Bible is God's word, then is it unreasonable to believe that God hates sin?

quote>

You misunderstand.  The way you put it implied that you knew the mind-set of God.  Notwithstanding your book of myths, if you really believe in God, this is blasphemy.

Furthermore, if you believe God made everything, then He made sin.  How can He hate his creation?  It doesn't matter that sin "comes from the devil" because God made the devil.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Darth Apple 54]

And... -- please don't misunderstand me -- if you believe that the Bible is God's word, then, to a degree, you can know about God to the degree that He has made Himself known in His word. We can know what God has revealed to us in the Bible. I believe that scripture makes it clear that God hates sin. I cannot know the mind of God outside of what He has revealed in the Bible, but if the Bible is God's word, then it seems logical that we can know what God has revealed to us in it. This is not blasphemy.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

I have never seen a statement in the Bible that says that God made everything, including sin. quote>

They way I always heard it was that God created all things.

Acts 17:24

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with handsquote>

Revelation 4:11

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. quote>

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.quote>

and so on

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Thanks, Meg.  I have a KJB, but it is a reference volume, and I don't use it often.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Thanks, Meg.  I have a KJB, but it is a reference volume, and I don't use it often.

quote>

You're welcome.

If you want reference volumes:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/

Pick a passage, pick a version.

[Darth Apple 54]

   I apologize for my lack of clarity on what I had stated in my last post and my poor wording there. To clarify, I do not believe that sin is a "thing". The Bible seems pretty clear to me that God created everything. I apologize for my poor and unspecific wording and lack of clarity, and for carelessness in the my (poor) writing my post as I was expressing my beliefs. I was attempting to say that I had not remembered seeing a passage of scripture that was very specific, clear, direct and explisive about God being the author of sin. (Whether one exists or not I do not know. God did harden the hearts of many in history, such as the phaoraoh in the Exodus, apparently to accomplish his plans in history, but we must recognize that good came out of this. It didn't appear to be for evil. I personally believe that Isaiah 45:7 is best understood in the sense of referring to God's sovereignty in this way, but I do not believe that it is saying that God is the author of all evil.  ).  I should not have made a statement on something I was unsure about in the way that I did. I also should not have rushed my writing in the way that I did, making an unclear statement.

If God is good, then why does He allow evil?

Well, I believe that God can use even the evils of Satan to accomplish His purposes. After all, Jesus' death on the cross was what seemed to be a victory for the evil one... at first, but Satan had no idea what God's plan was. Instead, God used Christ's death on the cross to accomplish His redemptive plan. Even though Satan thought He had won, God used it for good and in fact, God was the victor here, not Satan. Clearly, God used this for good.

This is seen in many places throughout history. God has used bad circumstances for good. This does not mean that God is evil. This is not evil at all! It is infact a sovreign God so powerful that He can even  take the enemy's actions and use them for His purposes. This is one powerful God!

Click this to read Romans 8:28

Click this to read 1 Samual 2:2

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Darth Apple 54]

I never said God was evil. I just said that God, through His sovereignty, could use Satan's evil attacks on God and turn them around to do good.

[Meg 368]

To recap:

If God created all things and

If evil exists

Then God created evil.

The question then becomes why.   Since (imho) none of us know the mind of God, we are left with speculation.

Blakesterville, you seem to be saying that God uses evil as a tool to do good.

Barbarossa, you seem to be saying that using evil as a tool to do good is sadistic.

Am I misquoting anyone here?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meg

To recap:

If God created all things and

If evil exists

Then God created evil.

The question then becomes why.   Since (imho) none of us know the mind of God, we are left with speculation.quote>

While that is a nice inductive argument, I'm going to take a poke at it.

What says evil is something that can be created?  What says it isn't a state change?  If it is indeed a state change, it becomes very easy to say that God didn't create evil because it existed before God created anything.  Alternately, it can also easily be argued that evil didn't exist before God created anything, but it wasn't something that God created, without putting all that much pressure on the claim that God created everything.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Meg

To recap:

If God created all things and

If evil exists

Then God created evil.

The question then becomes why.   Since (imho) none of us know the mind of God, we are left with speculation.quote>

While that is a nice inductive argument, I'm going to take a poke at it.

What says evil is something that can be created?  What says it isn't a state change?  If it is indeed a state change, it becomes very easy to say that God didn't create evil because it existed before God created anything.  Alternately, it can also easily be argued that evil didn't exist before God created anything, but it wasn't something that God created, without putting all that much pressure on the claim that God created everything.

quote>

Ah, ah, ah!  Mere sophistry.  You really can't play with:

God created every thing unless you are willing to say that evil is not a thing, which means that it is no thing.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Ah, ah, ah!  Mere sophistry.  You really can't play with:

God created every thing unless you are willing to say that evil is not a thing, which means that it is no thing.quote>

Mere sophistry?  The nature of evil is a legitimate subject for debate, as no one can truly define what it is outside of some fairly limiting dictionary definitions and perceptual vagaries that may or may not be accurate.  You can call it something that can be created, and I can just as easily say it isn't.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

. . . it existed before God created anything. quote>

So someone or something was around before God was?  Tell me more about this.

. . .  evil didn't exist before God created anything, but it wasn't something that God created, without putting all that much pressure on the claim that God created everything.  quote>

So where did evil come from?

[Duke87 1,070]

The statement is that god created everything, not that god created everything that can be created. So even if evil cannot be created, that still means that god didn't create it, which directly violates the original statement.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: hym

. . . it existed before God created anything. quote>

So someone or something was around before God was?  Tell me more about this.quote>

I never said it existed before God did.  (Which if you believe God is eternal means it couldn't have.)

. . .  evil didn't exist before God created anything, but it wasn't something that God created, without putting all that much pressure on the claim that God created everything.  quote>

So where did evil come from?quote>

It didn't come from anywhere; it's a state change.  It's neither created nor destroyed.  It's like night; night is the absence of light.  It's the state of being in the earth's shadow, not something that was created or came from anywhere.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: hym

. . . it existed before God created anything. quote>

So someone or something was around before God was?  Tell me more about this.quote>

I never said it existed before God did. quote>

So it existed after God existed but before God created anything but God didn't create it? 

(Which if you believe God is eternal means it couldn't have.)  quote>

Isn't being eternal one of the prerequisites for being God?

So where did evil come from?quote>

It didn't come from anywhere; it's a state change.  It's neither created nor destroyed.  It's like night; night is the absence of light.  It's the state of being in the earth's shadow, not something that was created or came from anywhere.quote>

A state change.  Like how darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good? 

What is your definition of "state change"?    I thought a state change was, for instance, H₂O changing from ice to water to steam.   It's still H₂O just in a different form.

So if evil is a state change, what is it a change from?  or a change to?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meg

So it existed after God existed but before God created anything but God didn't create it?  quote>

Or it existed at the same time as God, or it existed after God completed his creation.  Depends on how you want to look at the problem.

Isn't being eternal one of the prerequisites for being God?quote>

Not necessarily.

A state change.  Like how darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good?quote>

You pretty much nailed it.

What is your definition of "state change"? I thought a state change was, for instance, H₂O changing from ice to water to steam.   It's still H₂O just in a different form.quote>

There are more complex definitions of state change than that, but unfortunately, I don't know a good way to explain them.  I happen to be using one of those definitions.

I guess another way to describe it would be "a quality of existence."

So if evil is a state change, what is it a change from?  or a change to?quote>

Look back to your earlier comment.  It's a change from the state of "good."

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Isn't being eternal one of the prerequisites for being God?quote>

Not necessarily. quote>

Which brings up the question of God dying.   That's a whole 'nother topic.

A state change.  Like how darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good?quote>

You pretty much nailed it. quote>

That is implying there is no such thing as a neutral state.   There are many things, and I would say people, who are neither good nor evil.  or, to be more specific, are neither good nor evil most of the time.  and they could switch from one to the other.

There is more to evil than the absence of good.    That's like saying that health is the absence of disease.   You are basically saying that "A" is defined as "not B".    That is not an adequate definition because a lot of things are "not B".

There are more complex definitions of state change than that, but unfortunately, I don't know a good way to explain them.  I happen to be using one of those definitions. quote>

I would like to hear the more complex definitions.  Since you are using one of them, please find a source that elaborates on those definitions.

I guess another way to describe it would be "a quality of existence." quote>

"Coma" is a "quality of existence" and a pretty bad one at that.   but that wasn't what you meant.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meg

Which brings up the question of God dying.   That's a whole 'nother topic.quote>

God doesn't necessarily have to die either.  It depends on how you define "eternal."  But that is for another discussion.

That is implying there is no such thing as a neutral state.   There are many things, and I would say people, who are neither good nor evil.  or, to be more specific, are neither good nor evil most of the time.  and they could switch from one to the other.quote>

Formal logic doesn't permit the use of a third state.  Things either are, or they are not; they are either "A" or they are "not A."  There is no middle ground.  Or, more to the point of the discussion, people either are evil or they are not.

You believe that there are gray areas; that reality isn't merely black and white.  Insofar as we can define it, a "gray area" is a matrix of smaller black and white issues, concepts, beliefs, realities, etc.

There is more to evil than the absence of good.    That's like saying that health is the absence of disease.   You are basically saying that "A" is defined as "not B".    That is not an adequate definition because a lot of things are "not B".quote>

So you want to believe evil is more than just the absence of good.  That's fine.  I don't have to believe that however, and you are no more capable of proving me wrong than I am of proving me right.  It all depends on how you want to define evil.

I would like to hear the more complex definitions.  Since you are using one of them, please find a source that elaborates on those definitions.quote>

If I was capable of citing my university professors, I would.  So, sorry, I can't help you there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

This is interesting from a debaters point of view, but think for a moment.

If the creation, big bang, or whatever you want to call it, also created the space-time continuum as we don't know it, then you can postulate that nothing existed before that, and that time starts there.  Then, if God exists, he exists from that moment of creation and is therefore an artifact of His own creation.  Since God is universally ubiquitous, then he is, from our observations, flying apart with the rest of the universe.  God does not seem to favor any kind of cohesion.  So, maybe this is all a gigantic illusion and everything is a moment of universal flatulence or something equally disgusting.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

That is implying there is no such thing as a neutral state.   There are many things, and I would say people, who are neither good nor evil.  or, to be more specific, are neither good nor evil most of the time.  and they could switch from one to the other.quote>

Formal logic doesn't permit the use of a third state.  Things either are, or they are not; they are either "A" or they are "not A."  There is no middle ground.  Or, more to the point of the discussion, people either are evil or they are not.

You believe that there are gray areas; that reality isn't merely black and white.  Insofar as we can define it, a "gray area" is a matrix of smaller black and white issues, concepts, beliefs, realities, etc. quote>

Of course there are gray areas.  Most things exist along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

Take a simple example:  darkness vs light is not an either/not situation.  There are various degrees of light.  A room that is lit by a single candle is not the equivalent of a room that is lit by floodlights.  If formal logic doesn't recognize this, formal logic has a major problem.  Most four year old children can explain the difference.

So you want to believe evil is more than just the absence of good.  That's fine.  I don't have to believe that however, and you are no more capable of proving me wrong than I am of proving me right.  It all depends on how you want to define evil. quote>

What I want is irrelevant but let's not quibble over that word. and, you're right, it all depends on the definition of evil.

I would like to hear the more complex definitions.  Since you are using one of them, please find a source that elaborates on those definitions.quote>

If I was capable of citing my university professors, I would.  So, sorry, I can't help you there.quote>

Sorry but that doesn't do much for helping me to understand your point of view.

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

So, maybe this is all a gigantic illusion and everything is a moment of universal flatulence or something equally disgusting.

quote>

So basically this planet is like that container of leftovers that got pushed to the back of the fridge and is now rotting and growing mold?

Actually, an argument could be made for that point of view.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Meg

Take a simple example:  darkness vs light is not an either/not situation.quote>

The physics of night vision equipment begs to differ.  There either is light in the environment or there is not.

There are various degrees of light.quote>

True.

A room that is lit by a single candle is not the equivalent of a room that is lit by floodlights.quote>

That may well be, but the room is still lit either way.  If we take a closed room with absolutely no light sources, then the inside of the room is in absolute darkness.  If we place a single candle in the room, then the room is lit.  The room isn't as bright as if flood lights were used, but it is lit nonetheless.  If I were to make a sound (I'm using the logician's definition of the word "sound") deductive argument that the room was lit by the candle, no one could ever logically prove me wrong.

Sorry but that doesn't do much for helping me to understand your point of view.quote>

The overarching point is that the inductive argument posted earlier is fundamentally flawed because it assumes things that aren't necessarily true.

[Darth Apple 54]

I don't see evil as a "thing". I believe that it as an attitude of the heart -- not specifically and literally a thing, so to speak. This is my view.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Meg

Take a simple example:  darkness vs light is not an either/not situation.quote>

The physics of night vision equipment begs to differ.  There either is light in the environment or there is not. quote>

I'm not talking about equipment that didn't exist a few years ago.   I'm talking about human beings.

That may well be, but the room is still lit either way.  If we take a closed room with absolutely no light sources, then the inside of the room is in absolute darkness.  If we place a single candle in the room, then the room is lit.  The room isn't as bright as if flood lights were used, but it is lit nonetheless.quote>

Using that "logic", if I encounter a starving child, I can give him a peanut and claim that he has been fed.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

I don't see evil as a "thing". I believe that it as an attitude of the heart.

quote>

I believe there is, for instance, positive energy and negative energy.   Don't know that I would go as far as to all it "evil"

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: hym

That may well be, but the room is still lit either way.  If we take a closed room with absolutely no light sources, then the inside of the room is in absolute darkness.  If we place a single candle in the room, then the room is lit.  The room isn't as bright as if flood lights were used, but it is lit nonetheless.quote>

Using that "logic", if I encounter a starving child, I can give him a peanut and claim that he has been fed.quote>

Well, yeah, you can. In this case, the kid hasn't been adequately fed, but he has been fed nonetheless.