As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
We seek tangible proofs, of intangible things, in a tangible world, using intangible consciousness, thoughts, mind and reason, called the “Self” or “I Am”, in order to determine if an intangible being could possibly exist. You are your own proof of such things, amongst 8 billion other proofs. We are the intangible being we may or may not believe in. All of us are.
No. I believe in Stephen Fry.
He’s pretty close!
I don’t believe in the Christian god because there are too many contradictions and I don’t think the divine truth is corruptable. Anything so corrupt it doesn’t even agree with itself cannot be divine truth.
contradictions
Like what
If you’re serious, there are so many. Here’s one of the first results I found in a search, but you can find so much writing on it if you want to, which if you actually believe you’re following the “truth” you should look into.
One of the most common fundamental contradiction arguments is the Judeo-Christian god is defined as omniscient and omnipotent, all knowing and all powerful, as well as benevolent. If this is true, why is there evil in the world? He’s omnipotent so must have the power to make a world in which it doesn’t exist, and he must be aware of whatever will happen in the world he creates, since he’s omniscient, and must not want evil to exist since he’s benevolent.
These cannot all be true. If they were then he’d create a world that satisfies his goals that does not have evil, which he must be capable of doing if he’s omnipotent. If evil must exist to accomplish his goals then he isn’t omnipotent. If he can’t detect evil will exist then he isn’t omniscient. If he wants evil to exist then he isn’t benevolent.
I viewed your link and randomly selected 4-5 of the “contradictions” and basic knowledge of the bible and historicity dispelled them. I’m not going to go through all 50. Sorry you get out what you put in lol. But I’ve heard many of them before and highly recommend the “Whole Counsel of God” podcast which walks through scripture verse by verse and addresses the most common Catholic, Protestant and Post-Modern critiques of scriptural “contradictions” which are typically due to bad theology, poor historicity, translation errors, cultural ignorance etc etc It’s also a great way to learn scripture in a deeper way.
If God exist why bad thing happen
This is a meme in Christian apologetic circles because non-Christians always think it’s a big own when it is really just a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what Christianity is actually about – Redemption. The story of how the world enters a fallen state is explained in Genesis. The fact that the world is fallen is critical to Christian theology and the process of sanctification.
God does not play by your rules. The struggles we face on Earth (often of our own creation) are for our salvation. This is what the bible and church tradition teaches.
I have a more expanded response in this thread here for some other points – https://lemmy.ml/post/30390799/18750134
This is a meme in Christian apologetic circles because non-Christians always think it’s a big own when it is really just a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what Christianity is actually about – Redemption.
It being a meme doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for the argument. Redemption from what? Whatever it is, God had control over it happening. Why did it happen? He is trivially capable of creating a universe where there is no need to be redeemed. Why is one where redemption required the one he chose to create? Dismissing something as just being a meme does not actually answer the question.
God does not play by your rules. The struggles we face on Earth (often of our own creation) are for our salvation. This is what the bible and church tradition teaches.
The point is, God knew we would create the struggles. Is he omniscient? He knew it would happen. Is he omnipotent? He could have created a situation where it doesn’t happen. Is he benevolent? He wouldn’t want it to happen.
Yes, this is what the church teaches. I’m well aware. Does it make sense?
It being a meme doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for the argument.
I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.
Redemption from what? Whatever it is, God had control over it happening. Why did it happen? He is trivially capable of creating a universe where there is no need to be redeemed. Why is one where redemption required the one he chose to create? Dismissing something as just being a meme does not actually answer the question.
The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.
The point is, God knew we would create the struggles. Is he omniscient? He knew it would happen. Is he omnipotent? He could have created a situation where it doesn’t happen. Is he benevolent? He wouldn’t want it to happen.
Yes. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good. But benevolence doesn’t mean preventing every possibility of suffering. In the Orthodox view, God’s goodness is shown not in preventing freedom, but in enduring suffering with us, and transforming it into life and healing. God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.
Yes, this is what the church teaches. I’m well aware. Does it make sense?
Not in a tidy, rationalistic way—and Orthodoxy is okay with that. There’s a deep apophatic element to the theology: the idea that not everything about God can be explained in human terms. But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love. Evil isn’t ignored—it’s faced head-on, and transformed in Christ.
I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.
I think the questioning of it originally comes from Christians, so obviously that isn’t the case, nor is it what I’m saying.
The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.
The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.
God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.
It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.
But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love.
Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.
The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.
You’re right to point out that God knew what would happen. In Orthodox theology, this is acknowledged—but it’s essential to distinguish foreknowledge from predetermination. God’s knows the outcome of free choices but doesn’t coerce them. His foreknowledge does not violate our freedom.
More importantly, God is not only omnipotent but all-good. And since God is the source of all goodness, the possibility of choosing anything other than God is the possibility of choosing evil—which is, by definition, a lack or distortion of the good. If we are to love God freely, we must be free to reject Him.
Therefore yes, God could have created a world where Adam and Eve never fell—but that would not be a world of genuinely free persons. It would be a world of perfectly programmed beings, and Orthodoxy insists that freedom is essential to personhood. Without it, love isn’t possible.
Also, it’s important to clarify: Orthodoxy does not teach that God “damned” humanity for the Fall. The consequence of sin is death and corruption, not divine vengeance. God’s response was not punishment but a rescue mission—the Incarnation. The “Tree of Life” returns in the Cross.
It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.
From our human perspective, it may seem this way. But God did not create evil or suffering—He permitted it as the cost of freedom, because only through freedom can there be love, growth, and communion. What matters is not just that suffering exists, but how God responds to it.
And His response is not indifference, but sacrificial love. In Christ, God enters our suffering, takes it upon Himself, and opens a path to life. The Cross is not God watching suffering from a distance—it’s God partaking and being the example for all of man for our sake.
Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.
While it may not mean much to you I would be remiss not to defend Orthodoxy here. Faith isn’t blind belief or wishful thinking; it’s trust grounded in revelation, history, and experience. The resurrection of Christ, the lives of the saints, the enduring wisdom of the Church—these are not “proofs” in a modern empirical sense, but they are reasons for belief.
Furthermore I don’t know what your standards for evidence are but I encourage you to look at arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God. It argues that universals like logic, reason, and math are only justified if God exists. (e.g. X (God) is necessary for Y (logic, math etc). Y therefore X.)
If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify. Furthermore without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?
Believing in God is foundation to a worldview that relies on universals the alternative is arbitrarily granting yourself self-evident axioms.
I see a fair amount of Christian-related posts in your post history so I’m gonna go ahead and suggest that this is probably a conversation you don’t want to have. I’m trying not to be an asshole here, but I am very well read on the subject of Christianity, so suffice to say that contradictions exist, they are widely known, and I find Christian apologia on the subject wholly unconvincing.
That said, if I’m really the person you would like to go on this journey of discovery about your religion with then I will take you, but I can’t say that you are very likely to enjoy the results.
I’m an Orthodox Christian our theology (which is that of the first thousand years) is likely different from anything you take issue with from Catholic or Protestant traditions in regard to soteriology, ecclesiology, sanctification etc
It’s great that you have interest in Christianity but Orthodoxy leans on 2000 years of scholarship and tradition. With all due respect you’re not going to ask any new questions or bring up any novel points. I don’t claim to be an expert but have Orthodox resources I can draw from.
Fair point. I am not very familiar with Orthodox Christianity at all, save a little of the very early history. You also sound fairly well-educated on the subject, which makes you twice over not the usual kind of person who responds to my comments about religion.
So, first, let me apologize for making assumptions; the usual kind of person I get is an American evangelical protestant who hasn’t read most of his or her own bible and is of the opinion that anything important for them to know would be whispered on the wind directly into their ear by god himself, so they have a pretty dim view of learning in general, but also of learning about their religion in specific. That’s clearly not you. My bad.
Second, it’s my understanding that Orthodoxy (probably not the right word, my bad) uses fundamentally the same scriptures as Catholicism and Protestantism, with some additions to the Old Testament. My issues come from the bible’s descriptions of god, events, and people, so I’m going to assume there’s enough common ground that my these translate to Orthodoxy as well as the others. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I have 3 core issues with Christianity:
- Original sin: imposing the consequences of one person’s actions on others is called collective punishment and it’s a war crime, and needless to say baking a metaphysical war crime into the very heart of a religion - its origin story - is just not ever going to fly with me. It certainly doesn’t help that this is further complicated by #2.
- Omniscience/free will: either god is omniscient (lit: all knowledge, which includes perfect knowledge about the future) and free will is impossible so we can’t choose to love god, or he isn’t omniscient. His claims about moral authority are held together by this linchpin, and honestly either way it falls doesn’t look great. If we can’t choose to love god then punishing us for ‘choosing’ otherwise is effectively god punishing others for his own crimes since he made us unable to choose otherwise, so we’re right back on the war crimes train. If he’s not omniscient then he doesn’t have a plan, can’t judge sin in the hearts of men, etc. Is he even still a god at that point? Also that would make him a liar, which again is not a great foundation upon which to build a claim to moral authority.
- Vengeful/loving god: the Old Testament is full of examples of god as an angry, petty, vengeful tyrant, only for him to change his ways or something in the New Testament and be all about love. There are exceptions in both, obviously, so I’m referring to general trends. I think Jesus had some great ideas (best summed up by Bill & Ted as, ‘Be excellent to each other’), but the rest reads like infantile revenge-porn. And I’m not buying that ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ thing either (that’s probably an evangelical thing), because god sure wasn’t raining fire and brimstone and calling for the wholesale slaughter of the sins, that was inflicted upon the sinners. And their sin mostly seems to boil down to not believing in god.
These, to me, seem like unsolvable, unavoidable paradoxes. I see two paths when faced with them:
- I’m forced to admit that the ‘perfect eternal Divine Truth’ is neither perfect nor eternal (re:god’s nature purportedly changing) and therefore also not true.
- What is being passed off as divine truth was either created or corrupted (which doesn’t necessarily imply malicious intent; simple error will suffice) by flawed humans and thus is also not true.
I don’t begrudge people who believe or find comfort in it, mind you, but it’s not for me. I’m searching for Truth, not a search for ‘it’s probably not true but I guess it’s a nice idea?’
First of all “Orthodoxy” is accepted as a shorthand referent to Orthodox Christianity so no issues there.
Secondly no worries on the assumptions I also anticipate Protestant hand waving when it comes to certain topics such as canonicity.
Now for your core issues…
- Original Sin - This is where Orthodoxy is different from everyone else. The Orthodox perspective is that the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin is theirs alone. The consequence of their sin, death, is inherited however. This factors into the sotieriology (e.g. salvation doctrine) of the Church. The nature of man entered a state of fallenness due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Since God cannot be in the presence of sin Adam and Eve had to be expelled from the garden. This expulsion brought with it struggles such as the pain of childbirth, toil, hunger, sickness etc. This is, however, a mercy because despite entering a fallen state humanity has an opportunity to sanctify itself in this life and rejoin with God in death. This is a unique feature to humanity. Heavenly beings are in a static state. It is why Satan is jealous of humanity because the state of his soul cannot be changed and he will be eternally damned. The human soul can no longer change its spiritual state when this life ends. Human beings for all the struggles they have on earth can persevere in their faith and enter the Kingdom when they repose.
- Omniscience/Free Will - This is a false dichotomy and is highly dependent on what you mean by free will. Just because God knows all things doesn’t mean he orchestrates all things (e.g. foreknowledge ≠ predestination). God is incomprehensible and operates outside of time. This is part of what makes God a transcendent all powerful being. Furthermore because the Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin the theological allowance for how man moves and works in the world is different. Man can live in the world and freely choose between Good and Evil. Salvation is achieved through a process of working together with the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life. This process is called Theosis.
Orthodoxy doesn’t conceive of God’s knowledge as something that competes with human will. Because God is not bound by time, His knowledge isn’t predictive—it’s participatory. We remain free precisely because God allows our freedom to unfold within His omniscient love. This is the mystery of synergy with the Holy Spirit.
What we perceive as logical already presupposes the existence of God, because logic itself depends on the existence of objective truth. If God is bound by created laws, He ceases to be God; He is the source of all order, not subject to it.
- Vengeful/loving god - This is primarily a postmodern critique of scripture by people like Richard Dawkins although ancient Marcionites and Gnostics love this critique as well. The Orthodox wholly reject this critique as a shallow reading of scripture that does not take into account the context of passages in and of themselves or scripture in its entirety. While God does render punishment in the Old Testament he is also endlessly loving despite being heartbroken by the wayward sins of his people who repeatedly abandon him for other Gods that can’t save them. There is love and wrath in both the OT and the NT. (e.g. OT - Jonah, God saving Nineveh when they repent; NT - Jesus over-turning tables of Money Changers) This is more of a squishy critique than the other two so I’m not sure what else to add.
Two paths forward…
I’m forced to admit that the ‘perfect eternal Divine Truth’ is neither perfect nor eternal (re:god’s nature purportedly changing) and therefore also not true.
The revelation of God is one that compounds on the past. Creation, Expulsion, Punishment, Enrichment, Liberation, Exile etc until you reach God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ who uses the history of human failures to illustrate the grace of God and the establishment of a new covenant that saves all people. This is a logical progression.
What is being passed off as divine truth was either created or corrupted (which doesn’t necessarily imply malicious intent; simple error will suffice) by flawed humans and thus is also not true.
I haven’t seen a compelling case that divine truth has been fundamentally corrupted. It seems more a result of your sentiment than a critical analysis.
I recognize you may disagree with the points I adequately communicated or have questions about ones I failed to describe well. I am a fallible human after all 😂. You may find that many of the contradictions you’re grappling with don’t exist in Orthodox thought in the same way they might in some Western traditions. I’d encourage looking into Orthodox apologia for a perspective not burdened by the theological inheritances of later Western heresies like penal substitution or strict determinism…
An aside about “war crimes” – I will not expound on this too much because it’s a whole separate topic but be wary of using a modern lens when assessing the ancient. You’re smuggling in a moral framework to critique a metaphysical one. It’s easy to forget that secular ethical ideas such as “war crimes” typically find their origin in Christian morality to begin with (at least in the West). What is the epistemic justification for Good and Bad in a world where everything is relative? Philosophically it is an arbitrary critique without grounding.
Re:Orthodoxy - fair enough.
Original Sin
The Orthodox perspective is that the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin is theirs alone. The consequence of their sin, death, is inherited however.
Ok, that’s an interesting take. If man is not guilty of the sin of Adam then why does he bear the consequences of the act? Why punish someone for something you don’t believe they did?
Since God cannot be in the presence of sin Adam and Eve had to be expelled from the garden.
Yeah but then he followed them around? Adam praises god on the birth of his sons, they give offerings to god and even talk to him, etc. And if Adam’s sin is transmitted to all mankind then Cain and Abel were sinful too, so it kinda seems like god didn’t have a problem being in the presence of sin?
This is, however, a mercy because despite entering a fallen state humanity has an opportunity to sanctify itself in this life
This doesn’t fly with me, because god created Adam and Eve as they were and they (assuming omniscience) couldn’t choose to do otherwise. So not only is god punishing them for a sin of his own making, he’s punishing everyone else despite, in the Orthodox version, them not being guilty of that sin. And then to call pain and suffering a mercy because it gives us the ‘opportunity’ to ‘earn’ back what you took? Nah, I’ll take a hard pass on that one. Sin but not guilt is kind of worse actually. It’s like telling your kid, ‘I know your brother was the one who took the cookie, but I’m going to spank you for it too.’ See also: pettiness and tyranny.
Heavenly beings are in a static state … the state of [Satan’s] soul cannot be changed
If it was static, how did it change from ‘angelic’ to ‘damned’ or whatever after his act of rebellion? Was it the act itself that somehow changed the unchangeable, or did god decide to rewrite reality just this once? If that’s the case, rewriting someone’s soul just so you can eternally punish them for one mistake is kind of a dick move.
Free Will
This is a false dichotomy and is highly dependent on what you mean by free will.
I don’t think so, though I concede that there might be definitions of free will that render it thus, I’m using the pretty common definition of having the ability to make choices.
Just because God knows all things doesn’t mean he orchestrates all things … foreknowledge ≠ predestination
I whole-heartedly disagree, foreknowledge precisely equals predestination. He doesn’t have to orchestrate things; merely knowing ahead of time that I will turn left instead of right at the next intersection means that it is definitionally impossible for me to turn right. If I was able to turn right anyway that would definitionally preclude foreknowledge: you can’t know that I turned left if I turned right.
God is incomprehensible and operates outside of time.
Even if I grant this for the sake of argument, humans do not operate outside of time so foreknowledge of human futures, again definitionally, must necessarily be knowledge about the future of the time that humans operate in. But even if that wasn’t true, if god exists outside of time then he also definitionally exists outside of causality and cannot influence or be influenced by human choices within time, which precludes foreknowledge of human futures.
Furthermore because the Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin the theological allowance for how man moves and works in the world is different. Man can live in the world and freely choose between Good and Evil. Salvation is achieved through a process of working together with the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life. This process is called Theosis.
Ok, I’ll take your word for it, but according to the most widely-accepted definitions if man is free to choose then god cannot have forenkowledge of those choices.
Because God is not bound by time, His knowledge isn’t predictive—it’s participatory. … We remain free precisely because God allows our freedom to unfold within His omniscient love.
If he’s not outside of causality (as implied by the participatory element here) then he’s not outside of time, because those two things mean effectively the same thing. You say he allows it out of love, I say he allows it out of lack of foreknowledge, because that’s the only thing that is logically consistent.
What we perceive as logical already presupposes the existence of God, because logic itself depends on the existence of objective truth.
Logic doesn’t presuppose god, it merely presupposes consistency. Objective truth can arise from the structure of reality itself without requiring a divine source. We have mountains of evidence that logic is internally self-consistent; that’s not the case for pretty much any holy book I’ve read.
Vengeful/loving God
This is primarily a postmodern critique of scripture by people like Richard Dawkins
That doesn’t render it invalid. Also: primarily, but not uniquely as you point out; I was personally puzzling over this stuff back in the 80s before anyone but the editors of a few science journals had ever heard of Richard Dawkins.
The Orthodox wholly reject this critique as a shallow reading of scripture that does not take into account the context of passages in and of themselves or scripture in its entirety.
I don’t dispute that he is also loving, I dispute that he is exclusively loving as of the New Testament. He just goes on and on about how vengeful and angry he is in the OT, and there’s some of that in the NT too, though I think it’s all said by others since (IIRC, it’s been a while) god doesn’t really have a speaking part in much of the NT. Also I don’t think you get to send your PR team out to call you a ‘loving god’ after slaughtering innocents and children (and advocating the same) over and over again.
NT - Jesus over-turning tables of Money Changers
I wouldn’t count that as wrath, and I also wouldn’t attribute it to god. We know he’s capable of turning those tables over himself if he wanted to, but he didn’t. :P
This is more of a squishy critique than the other two
That’s fair, it’s definitely more of a vibe-check thing, I’m not sure there’s much space to discuss there.
(cont, TIL lemmy doesn’t have that high of a maximum post length.)
As a Christian I would like you to try to rock my world.
You are welcome to read the thread below, I’ve laid out my issues here, but it looks like we might get a proper conversation going if you want to keep reading.
Cos I’ve done drugs, and experienced heightened states of love, being, appreciation for nature and humanity, states that feel magical yet real, even if only temporarily.
The very fact those states of mind are achievable at all gives me a certain emotional grounding and inner certainty that reality has purpose, or at least meaning. As opposed to just being a happy accident of atoms and energy arranging themselves in this miraculous way to create life. That’s just a logical explanation of how, not why.
We’re almost all driven to look for meaning in life. Even if it’s just to “find your own purpose”, that journey presupposes you have one to begin with.
I guess I feel a belief in god without having much idea of what god is, or even what they want. But I don’t believe at all that logic, science, reason etc. are things you have to choose instead of religious belief. They’re things you have as well. You can’t square the two - the Rubik’s cube of logic doesn’t twist that way.
OK, our reality might have a purpose or meaning given by a god - but then what about that god’s purpose/meaning? Was it given by yet another one higher up? You can keep going up layers like this and finding meaning on each one, but eventually there has to be a final one, a reality that was not designed by anyone. But why does it exist?
Some people may say that there’s no proof that we actually exist. And maybe we don’t, but the fact that we can think and experience things means that even if our reality is somehow fake, there has to be one that isn’t. Because if nothing existed, there would be nothing at all. Not a void, just nothing, not even the possibility of existence. So something, at some level, must exist. But why?
“Because God created us” is not good enough for me, because it doesn’t answer anything. If we exist because a god created us, that still means that a god existed before us. Why does this god exists then?
We’ll never find out. Any answer we find will only open things up for new questions. And just like a child that is just starting to experience things, we’ll never run out of questions.
I think it’s the book of Job, God says something like “you could not possibly fathom the purpose or meaning to the world, even if someone tells you”. I think in much the same way a Turing Machine simply cannot process certain tasks or achieve particular ends, our brains are limited to a certain subset of understanding. Still mightily impressive what we can imagine/devise/understand IMO. In Islam, this is more readily accepted dogma: you can’t even imagine or picture God, so even attempting it is doomed to failure (or delusion)
Makes me feel more assured and will reduce my suffering until I die. After my death, regardless of if I am right or wrong, the net positive of having had the soothing idea of a larger meaning can’t and won’t be retroactively undone. So why the hell not?
Because religion can be and has been used to convince people to do terrible things. The fewer false beliefs people hold the fewer things can be used to manipulate them in this way.
water can and has drowned people. i fail to see your point.
Yes, and that’s why we don’t allow people to flood school, hospitals and homes with water. It is controlled and diverted.
we also don’t refuse to allow people to have small amounts of it accessible to them at all times or call it absolutely bad outright just because when used in a malicious way or left to be uncontrollable in particular situations it can be dangerous. shrug.
Why not? Because truth matters. Look at the current united states to see what lies cause.
What is truth and how do you know that?
There’s no way to know the truth on something like this, but you should always seek it. There are ways to know certain things aren’t true though. For example, the Judeo-Christian faith must be wrong, at least to an extent, because it’s self-contradictory. Also, most religions are mutually exclusive, so how do you go about seeking the correct one if striving for truth is valuable?
There is no way to know the truth
Is this true? Because if so it is a contradiction.
There are ways to know certain things aren’t true
This is just another way of making a truth claim even though you can’t know the truth.
…you should always seek it
How do you go about seeking the correct one if striving for truth is valuable?
Who says seeking truth is something we ought to do? Particularly if knowing the truth is an impossibility. These are all assertions as to what we should do without any justification as to why we should do them.
I’m being slightly annoying to shine your own standards on yourself. Not meant to be combative.
There is no way to know the truth
Is this true? Because if so it is a contradiction.
Knowledge and truth are two different things, although I should have written it better. There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. (Well, there is a way to know theoretically, if a god exists. There isn’t a way to know if one doesn’t exist though. You can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. You can only prove that something exists.)
This is just another way of making a truth claim even though you can’t know the truth.
No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.
Who says seeking truth is something we ought to do? Particularly if knowing the truth is an impossibility. These are all assertions as to what we should do without any justification as to why we should do them.
I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.
Assuming you’re a skeptic…
There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. [i.e. God]
Arguments for God’s existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.
If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.
No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.
Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You’re using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it’s trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.
I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.
Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.
Again. I’m being nit-picky but I feel like this thread is meant to invite some apologetic banter.
If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.
All of those are based on axioms. They’re true if the axioms are true, but not otherwise. They are useful, but not self-evident. The axioms seem to hold though.
Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You’re using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it’s trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.
Why do we need a transcendent source of rationality? We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.
Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.
Do I need to spell out why someone who values truth should seek it? It’s not really an opinion, but a statement. I guess it isn’t a complete statement. I guess a more complete statement would be “someone who values truth, and wants to find what they value, should seek truth.” Is that better? I don’t think that middle portion is required to spell out, but whatever.
From my perspective they are not lies.
In the hope of civil discussion, it is not helpful for you to frame it that way IMO.
Why do you think truth matters so much? Don’t disagree, but why is it humans will forego a more beneficial situation if it’s proven to be “untrue” or “not real” etc?
More beneficial for whom? The truth is that pollution is bad. I can make myself feel better about how much energy I use by assuring myself that I’m chosen by God and deserve to consume resources and pollute. This harms other people though. The truth is non-opinionated, so actually useful. Believing something to make yourself feel better, and ignoring problems, is biased favoring yourself and against others.
Well I’m not that guy but I can speak from myself that every time I have been true to myself and others, I have felt more and more real and tangible myself. And it is a much better feeling than “fooling yourself” with the why not, using rational logic to just make a decision like that. I always say to my kids, nobody can know what happens when we die and if they say they do, they are making it up. But we can talk about some truths still, that are felt, and then communicated to you as just something that is comfirmed by experience, that is, you experienced something nobody else should know and then they did too, with synchronicity and other phenomenon which just makes us assume it’s true. But in the sense of scientific fact it can not be described because words and language kind of is not enough or it doesn’t kind of translate at all.
I think that’s a really healthy conversation to have with your kids, man! I totally agree with your sentiment, and being “authentic” feels right, but it’s odd when you think about it. Where does it come from? Humans self-deceive all the time, right? It’s almost a useful skill in certain situations (e.g. optimism bias), but there’s an overriding feeling that “real” is “better”. It just boggles my mind a bit tbh.
my choosing to engage with something that might not be true isn’t hurting anyone. i’m a solo practitioner of a non christian faith. :p of course the truth matters, but when staring at it makes you actively suicidal and feel like everything lacks meaning, why not make use of the circuitry our brains evolved with, and let a little bit of What If light the path forward?
I think most people think like this at their core regardless of class, status, label.
I don’t but, wow!? Is that your bedsheet?
I dont know. I am conflicted about it. If god exists why would he create all the suffering and pain? If he doesnt, all the world is just a probability game.
In some sort of greater being yes, in any kind of church or following no.
I find I have my own belief in some unknown cosmic entitys, something along the lines of energy is always in a state of flow, life and death, rocks to dust, consciousness to the sprawling reaches of the universe a bit of new age spirituality stuff,
That’s kind of where I am with it. Anything human led is suspect and I think any resemblance to “Jesus church” is long gone. I want to believe but I struggle with God being “just” but also allowing so much injustice.
If I had to put myself somewhere I believe in God but my faith for the rest of it is dwindling.
Upvoting the actual answers here, as some who were not the target audience and haven’t read the question have answered.
Agree.
OP wants to hear opinions from people agreeing with statement X, not those who disagree.
I disagree with the notion of the universe being a probability game, but that’s not asked.
Thumbs up from me too. I’m always eager to hear/read from people who aren’t shy but rather open and reasonable about their beliefs, whatever those may be.
Alright, now that you mention it, the universe is ‘a big ball of yarn’. You can’t see the fabric, because we use the fabric to see. Planets and stars shrink and/or grow, all of them have solid surfaces, thunder isn’t always a local planetary phenomena, but often an exchange between two large bodies, usually between the host star and planet. ‘Neutron stars’ and ‘black holes’ are regular stars completely misinterpreted and dark matter and dark emergy are stop gaps in broken theories.
I believe in a god but it is strange lol. I will truly never understand the concept of being all knowing and powerful so my idea is he’s either so bored with his existence he created us for entertainment or simply boredom. I imagine him similar to a comic book writer or tv show creator
It’s not about belief. I don’t believe in Jah the same way I don’t believe in gravity. Gravity just is, and so is Jah. Look around. Breathe. Existence itself is the evidence. I’m not here to convince anyone or convert anybody. Jah doesn’t need followers, He just is. Whatever you call it, it’s all the same current. I walk with Jah because I recognize Him in everything.
If you look at it very very loosely, many major religions are reaching toward the same general concepts and have enough similarities to suggest a consensus that there’s a “something” up there.
We probably all have an imperfect idea of what that “something” is, but there are enough similarities (or echos of the same ideas) across many religions to suggest they’re looking at the same indivisible thing and interpreting it differently.
That something you’re referring to is just fear. Fear of nothingness fear of death fear of the unknown etc… Fear of this being it. Fear of the end. That’s all it boils down to. Thus they have to create something to answer that fear. But it’s not like there’s a universal truth they’re all circling around. They’re all just creating something to address that fear.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10
Okay cool.
OP asked for reasons, and I gave one of mine. I didn’t intend or expect it to be convincing to anyone. If I wanted to give a formal argument for the existence of a higher power I would, but that’s not the point of this thread.
This was a thread for believers. Let them have this one.
And if they had expressed a personal belief I probably wouldn’t have even responded. However they talked about a general phenomenon.
This is my very loose, shower thought level description of my personal belief.
Truth is proof - I can neither prove the number of gods is >0, not prove it is =0.
Thus cautious agnosticism (since the evidence suggests, if there is at least one god, then they really hate us).
They may not hate us. They could be totally agnostic too. Like a rain drop that dropped in our pond, they may be passing by having no idea the ripple it left behind. That’s the wildness of all the options for GODS capacity. But hate requires human input from stimulus.
For me “God” isn’t some person with wits and thoughts.
It is just the circumstances in where we live. The time the physics the vibration and energy filling the matter and thoughts.
There is no need in praying to it (except for you self). We’re in a happy stream full of energy filled with feeling “souls” going into the same direction in time and filling this strange place where we feel energy as matter, waves and colors.
By using our logic and from the experience of things around us we can say that it’s impossible for something to come from nothingness. There is a consensus that the universe has a beginning which scientists call the Big Bang. But that cannot come out of itself, logic dictates that there is something which brought it about (energy/matter does not just compress itself into a singularity). Whatever that thing is or things if there is a chain of initiators/causes, must end with an initiator which is self-sufficient and which has not been caused by something else. Otherwise we go in an infinite regression of asking what caused that cause, and an infinite chain going backwards would mean the present never gets to happen, but we exist, and that is proof that the chain ends somewhere.
That’s what is called the necessary being or the uncaused cause.
Now, by observing the universe we can surmise some characteristics that that cause must possess to bring it about, since it must possess them in at least an equal ammount. The enormous ammount of energy held in the universe shows that the initiator has immense power. The laws of the universe and its intricacies suggest that it must possess knowledge and wisdom etc.
