Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

I keep mulling this issue over, and I keep on coming back to the Augustinian defense...That God allows what happens for the greater (eternal) good. This argument is inherently impossible to debate with because you can't balance an evil that is present, or in the past for that matter, in the world against a probable evil in the future. No matter how bad it is now, one can always argue that it would be worse in the future.This seems like an argument for predestination, but I don't think so. I think God works with probabilities, not an absolute certain future.This way of thinking would also allow for God's intervention in the world. How would we know that God hasn't worked in the past to save us from some horrible miserable end?------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Yes, Paul, very nice speech, but without a shred of evidence!Where in your speech do you present your wonderful proof of these claims, i.e.

quote:

---

The material universes were created by God to be inhabited with intelligent, free moral agents, to whom God could reveal himself, and who would enjoy His infinite blessings and goodness through a personal relationship with Him.

---

Where is your evidence? Do you really expect us to take this seriously? The same applies to the remainder. Try to present something more substantial next time, please!

This is a self contradicting statement. This is exactly my arguement. Well I'm glad I don't hold God as being less than omniscient/omnipotent.On your fallibility, I think MP answered it exactly as I would have. Its my will that his will becomes mine. This is the concept of Holiness. It still is exclusive. I can do whatever I want at any time... Its just that I don't want to. This is kinda hard to talk about with someone with no frame of reference... But the closer you get to God, the more your want your two wills to be one.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This is as equally justified as saying that the universe wasn't created by God.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

Her?

---

Whatever - no particular signifance to the case. If it offends you, let me know. I have never understood the problem, but I'm not out to aggravate you. Personally I prefer to switch the terms about now and then just to remind myself on the one hand, of how imperfect the personal metaphor for God is, and on the other, how far beyond our terms God must be.

quote:

---

The material universes were created by God to be inhabited with intelligent, free moral agents, to whom God could reveal himself, and who would enjoy His infinite blessings and goodness through a personal relationship with Him.

---

The interesting word being could. Much of what we're discussing is not whether God could, but why God does in some circumstances and does not in others. But it rather goes beyond revealing, too. God need not reveal herself at all, yet still intervene to prevent suffering. She chooses not to.

quote:

---

All miracles have the same purpose, that being to manifest the glory of God(Jn.2:11), as to both draw mankind unto himself, as well as develop a deeper belief, respect and commitment to Him.

---

We are not told this is the purpose of all miracles. Even if you're right it suggests that God is extremely discriminating in her interventions and does so on a self-selected basis. Such a line as you take, which I don't think is terribly convincing anyway, still leaves open the question of why all miracles would be directed to this end, why this disallows the relief of suffering for the child victim, and why relief of that suffering does not fall within those acts that "draw mankind" closer to God.

quote:

---

The onus for acts of sin is Not Gods. The question is not whether it's God's responsibility to intervene in matters, but, why is mankind the only species that is so pathetically addicted to making wilful and deliberate sinful choices, such has been described by you ?

---

Neither, the question under discussion is not God's responsibility for the act or the intervention but his choice not to intervene. Your second question is interesting for the origins of sin, but not directly connected with whether God can intervene to prevent suffering.

quote:

---

The answer lies within the individual free will itself. Is it wicked or is it good?

---

Are you sure this is not a false dichotomy? Are there also freely willed acts which are morally neutral, and what distinguishes them? Are there degrees of wickedness or goodness? If there are, is there a point at which an act is neither clearly wicked or good? How would be distinguish such acts?So far all this is so much theology of free will, but has no demonstrated bearing on why God should choose not intervene to save a suffering child, but is quite happy to contribute to the jollies at a wedding.This is the problem, and there are plenty of people on this board who go for the obvious answer - "because there is no God."

quote:

---

When the awesome Orca risks its own life and rushes the beach to capture and kill a seal pup, is that survival or murder?

---

Ask the seal!

quote:

---

The ball is Not in Gods court, it's in ours... Whether we like it or not, all Humans are Spirit beings with a free will.

---

God chooses not to intervene. God made the ball, God made the court, God made the players, God made the game. God can, but chooses by an act of free will, not to intervene in suffering - but does choose to provide a picnic for his followers, wine for a wedding, and withers a fig tree.Oh that's a good one ... did the fig tree have free will, too?

quote:

---

That God allows what happens for the greater (eternal) good. This argument is inherently impossible to debate with because you can't balance an evil that is present, or in the past for that matter, in the world against a probable evil in the future. No matter how bad it is now, one can always argue that it would be worse in the future.

---

Sounds like an argument the September 11th hijackers could have used in its trivial sense - an immediate evil for a greater good. Except of course that man cannot know what the implications of the implications of the implications are ...Man, on this account, does not have a totally free will, but a free will bounded by his knowledge. This makes sense, I'm sure. Man knows only his immediate circumstances and so can only act freely within them. God knows the eternal good and the long-term outcome, and so we can be sure he allows what happens for a greater use. But one of the circumstances man knows is that God allows what happens for the greater good.So back to our child kidnapper. He kidnaps, rapes and murders the child and guess what - God does not intervene to prevent. So he can rest assured that what he did was for the greater good? Even though the kidnapper cannot see what the end result is, he knows it is for the good because God did not intervene?Back to you Flamingo ...[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-02-2003]

quote:

---

Does it happen to say how God created?

---

It does say in Psalms 104:30,31 that he "sends forth his Spirit, they are created," after a list of things that were made. The Holy Spirit "moved" upon the waters in Genesis one. It is the Holy Spirit, that omnipresent member of the so called trinity that moves about in the universe doing the bidding of the Father, according to the Bible.When he created man, he used the soil/dust of the earth, so he didn't just produce him from nothing. Then the woman was created from part of the man. Then too, we read in I Corinthians 8:6 of the "Father, from whom all things came." So The universe was not created from nothing perse. It all came forth from God. This speaks for the greatness and complexity of God, Jehovah, the supreme being.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-02-2003]

It would take a book to explain it all, but in short, God proves himself to every generation of mankind by ongoing miracle. For example, the Bible begins with the creation of all that's in the world. It goes from there in the early chapters of Genesis to produce a fairly complete history of the world, a substantial amount of the main events and kingdoms fortold before the fact. It ends with the destruction of the world and the creation of a new earth. With Israel back in occupation of Israel and Jerusalem as Christ and the prophets predicted for the "latter days" and sooo much more, I am absolutely positive God has to exist. Can I transfer that assurance to anyone else by persuasion? Maybe; maybe not, but on a one on one basis with lots of time, I think I can produce test tube quality evidence via observable evidence that God exists to any objective seeker of truth.

I don't find the existence of Israel particularly compelling, since it was founded by people with obvious knowledge of biblical prophecy.Do you have more? Cuz Israel doesn't really cut it for me. The problem with prophecy is that it doesn't exist in a vacumn. Often just predicting an event is enough to ensure its fulfillment. If you can only do it one person at a time, how can it be objective evidence? True, "test tube" quality evidence would be accesible to all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flamingo Chavez:
< !--UB

-->

< !--UE-->Where is your evidence? Do you really expect us to take this seriously? The same applies to the remainder. Try to present something more substantial next time, please!< !--UB -->

< !--UE-->

​

This is as equally justified as saying that the universe wasn't created by God.

​

---

Which is exactly why we are not justified in saying either 'the universe WAS created by God', or 'the universe WASN'T created by God'. In fact, what evidence in the natural world causes us even to think about a 'God' concept? That's the basic Agnostic's opinion, namely, we aren't justified in having an opinion so let's just not go there.

You have not answered my question Mister P.Once again....Why is the Human species the "only" one that is pathetically addicted to committing wilful and deliberate acts that go totally against light, law and conscience??And please, since you do not believe in God, any reference to God would be both unnecessary and irrelevant then at this point.Respectfully, Paul.

Ermmm... I doubt that this is factual, though it may depend critically on the definitions you pick for "light, law and conscience." Every act of a blind cave fish might be construed as being "against light....."
But to attempt an answer: humans have quite a bit more cognitive ability than the other species currently on earth. It could be argued that we're the only species with "law" only because we're the only species with a culture convoluted enough to have lawyers. But a pride of lions has "rules" - the dominant female is a boss of sorts, and other females cooperate with her in hunting and defense of cubs. And they defend those cubs vigorously against male lions who appear to be wilfully and deliberately trying to kill the cute furry little buggers that they didn't sire. How does that differ from an abusive stepfather among humans?
Bands of chimpanzees, too, have been seen to kill "strangers" to their group. Sharks go into "feeding frenzies" and kill far in excess of what they eat. How do these behaviors differ from yhe sorry acts that people sometimes engage in?

quote:

---

You have not answered my question Mister P.
Once again....Why is the Human species the "only" one that is pathetically addicted to committing wilful and deliberate acts that go totally against light, law and conscience??

---

Sorry you feel I didn't answer you. If you flick back to your post you'll see that you said ...

quote:

---

The question is not whether it's God's responsibility to intervene in matters, but, why is mankind the only species that is so pathetically addicted to making wilful and deliberate sinful choices, such has been described by you ?

---

My response was: Neither, the question under discussion is not God's responsibility for the act or the intervention but his choice not to intervene. Your second question is interesting for the origins of sin, but not directly connected with whether God can intervene to prevent suffering.As you can see, I addressed both your questions in terms of their relevance to the subject at hand. This seemed the appropriate response, and I still think it is. The first question, about God's responsibility to intervene in suffering, was, I think, a misinterpretation of the topic Flamingo and I were following: however, it did not really require a response, because you yourself sought to move away from that issue.If you were to press me for an answer to the substance of the second question, it would require much more background discussion which would be off topic. For example, I suspect yours is an analytical proposition and we would need to investigate this. If you want to start another topic, we can pursue it there.

quote:

---

And please, since you do not believe in God, any reference to God would be both unnecessary and irrelevant then at this point.

---

Read the topic title again and you'll see that I was right to suspect you of straying off-topic!

It's a hard question to answer I know, especially from the position you place yourself in... Perhaps another time you would like to address it and if you need a new thread to do it, thats fine also.Respectfully, Paul.

The behavioral differences we are refering to between Human and all other species, are blatant and extreme. What you have described does not answer the question at hand.Respectfully, Paul.