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

quote:

---

It's a hard question to answer I know, especially from the position you place yourself in...

---

Sure - open a new thread. Not sure it is a hard question at all - the Westminster shorter catechism covers it explicitly in Question 8. I had it drummed into me as a kid. For Presbyterian's therefore, the question is pretty easiliy answered. However, start the thread, and let's stuck in.

Can we be 100% sure there isn't a God?Absolutely not.Can we be 100% sure there is a God?Someday, maybe, but even then probably not 100%. How do you define "God"?Moose

sorry its been so long... I'm writing a report on a semester's worth of observations of the the Eastern Phoebe... The fact that his actions might result in a greater good does not justify them. Now if he meant for his actions to be for the greater good that is different. In this case, if he meant for rape to be for the greater good, than I would question his sanity.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

The fact that his actions might result in a greater good does not justify them. Now if he meant for his actions to be for the greater good that is different.

---

I agree totally. The intention to achieve a greater good makes a great difference.So two issues concerning human action arise from this.Firstly, is believing you act for a greater good sufficient for justification - were the September 11th hijackers justified if they truly believed they were acting for a greater good? Were the Hiroshima or Dresden bombers justified? How do we difficult cases?Secondly, is intention to act for the greater good necessary for moral action? Is it possible to act morally, without either knowing or explicitly thinking about the greater good?But for God, if we assume that he always knows what the greater good is and that he is omnipotent and eternal, we are still faced with the problem that he has failed to order things such that evil is required for the greater good. This is particularly true of those evils of which human action is not the proximate cause - accidental injuries, natural disasters etc.Again, the obvious conclusion, which many do reach, is that if God's actions are not open to human moral enquiry, then they are irrelevant to human moral enquiry.For the Christian, who may accept God's relevance through faith, we are stuck with the following problem: how do we distinguish between events or acts which are morally good in themselves and events or acts which are evil, but tolerated by God in the interests of the greater good.

I believe this is one of the cases where I would have to start questioning their sanity. When you act totally against the moral and ethical values your god has set up, how can you expect your actions to be justified? I think problems like this come into play more when there is a missinterpratation of their religion.Now, obviously I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I don't know what exactly the 'right' interpretation of their religion would be, but I do know that must Muslims do not agree to such terrorist acts.I, being a logical rational being (or so I would like to think) know that God would never tell me to act against the moral law that he has established. Therefore, if i get the feeling that God wants me to throw my kill thousands of innocent people, then I would discount that as being God thats doing the telling.I'm still thinking on the second half of your post...------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

When you act totally against the moral and ethical values your god has set up, how can you expect your actions to be justified?

---

But then what are the "moral and ethical values"? To act within the scope of our knowledge? Or are there acts which are intrinsically morally and ethically wrong?But then is God is able to permit some of these acts (child rape?) on the basis of knowledge of a greater good? Maybe it is knowing the greater good rather than believing the greater good? But does that imply that our ethics can only be based on certain knowledge, not on belief or faith?If not, and belief or faith in a greater good is sufficient, then we're back to the beginning, believing that something done for the greater good overrides the moral and ethical value of the act in itself ...

quote:

---

Intervention does not preclude free will. An example from personal experience: I came to college wanting to become a lawyer, untill I felt a strong calling to go into Biology. I'm not sure why, but it was definately there. I don't HAVE to go into Biology, I can be a lawyer if I want. I just trust in the fact that God knows whats best for me and what is closest to his will.

---

So what was so peculiar about this "calling" that you know, beyond any doubt, that it was supernatural?Did you hate studying science before that moment, but then woke up one day thinking it was the most fascinating thing in the world?

quote:

---

Her?

---

Wow, it is so interesting that the sexism in our language is so ingrained that to refer to any unknown entity as a "she" instead of a "he" not only is terribly noticable, but elicits an eyeroll.There is no standard gender-neutral pronoun, so for many years the male pronoun has been used to refer to both genders.Why wouldn't God be female, or at least be comprised of both genders?

quote:

---

Why wouldn't God be female...

---

In the context of the job done (think "Stupid White Men"), might you want to think God was male, for a woman surely would do a better job?Moose

I really don't see God as having a gender. I guess you would have a good argument if you called him asexual. Like you said I refer to God as 'Him' mainly for historical purposes. It seems rather derogatory, at least in my opinion to call God 'it.'If I'm historically called 'Bob,' it will elicit an eye roll if you call me 'Mellisa.' Furthermore, it would elicit an eye roll if you insist on calling me 'Tom.'------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I think that because the concept of the greater good is beyond the scope of our understanding, we have to act within the moral perameters that God has set up for us.Now, you also have to understand that sometimes God can work through moral and natural evils. For example: many times the death of a family member can drive other family members to look for answers. Many times it has been shown that they come to God. If one family memeber is saved, and they are used to save two more people which in turn save two more people...etc. than one event of moral or natural evil can save many. Of course this response is purely hypothetical and not based on a real understanding of what would be for the greatest good.hmmm... I'll see how this will fly. I think I'll need a beer after this is over, oh wait... I'm not old enough to buy beer, that suks.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

I think that because the concept of the greater good is beyond the scope of our understanding, we have to act within the moral perameters that God has set up for us

---

And how do we know what these moral parameters are? Is it enough to believe we are working with God's moral parameters?

quote:

---

Now, you also have to understand that sometimes God can work through moral and natural evils.

---

Not really ... if God works through what we would call an evil, then either she is capable of evil - not wholly good - or it's not really an evil. But then good and evil would be relative to knowledge of a greater good?I don't think it flies. Remember the original point that got us here was how one could believe in a God who could permit evil without intervention - now we seem to be a place where God (who is traditionally wholly good) uses evil in a way that is beyond our comprehension, implying that evil is not really evil, or God is not wholly good. Sounds like an even worse mess!

quote:

---

I don't find the existence of Israel particularly compelling, since it was founded by people with obvious knowledge of biblical prophecy.

---

Yah sure, so Hitler and his Nazis conspired with the Jews to drive them outa Europe to seek out their old homeland of waste to relocate. Then too, the Jewish fundies knew the OT prophecies and went back confidently that under impossible odds and surrounded by hostile nations, they could pull it off, since Jehovah was real and would fulfill his promises.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-04-2003]

Crashfrog:

quote:

---

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.

---

On this board, I always have this problem with, "am I getting off subject," so getting into specific prophecies may necessitate a new thread. Maybe I should initiate a general Biblical prophecies thread. Yah, maybe I'll do that.Buz:
"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."Crashfrog:
"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."Buz:
If I'm sitting with you talking, I can tell and debate in a couple of hours what it would take days to post and respond to here. That's what I mean here.Spring is a very busy time for me with my business and I don't have a lot of time for the computer, but I'll drop in and discuss with you fine folks when I get time. For the most part, people on this board seem to be quite intelligent people and sensible folks to debate and talk with.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-04-2003]

I see Drum's list of prophecies covers quite a lot. I'll check that out. He's listed a number of great ones. Crashfrog, if you can't accept these, I'm not sure you can be helped by my adding more. It's kinda like the Pharasees who saw Lazarus raised from the dead by Jesus. The first thing that came to their mind is how to do away with both the resurrector and the resurrected, as this all messed up their agenda, life style and ideology.