lol

I'm probably going to regret getting into this, but...

The fact is that the existence of God can neither be proved NOR disproved. Both the fundamentalist atheists and the fundamentalist religious are therefore full of shit in their arguments. The fact is that we DO NOT KNOW either way.

And thus everything regarding God is based on Faith, and Faith is belief without proof.

My personal interpretation (and I am as full of shit as any other guy when it comes to this subject) is that having Faith is what is asked of us. Here on this world we chose to believe what we want to believe, to live as we want to live, become what we choose to become. Our freedom on this earth is absolute, only limited by the freedom of others, natural laws and the randomness of the Universe.

Don't you think that an all powerful God could make his existence known, day in and day out, without a shred of a doubt if He wanted to? Of course He could. The fact that He doesn't (other than through some 'nudges' given to us throughout man kind's history, which one may believe in or not) means that He either does not exist OR that the whole idea is for us not to be sure.

By not knowing for sure (or rather, not knowing via first hand experience) then you are truly free to be what you chose to be. By choosing not to believe in God, you can live without the fear of a 'vengeful' God punishing you for your sins. You answer to no one but yourself and your own conscience - you become your own God.

However, once we die, we will all - without exception - know for sure. It can be oblivion, in which case we will simply cease to exist as conscious individuals, or we will wake up to a new reality: a spiritual world, with very, very, different rules and laws.

It is my personal belief, based on nothing but faith, that such a spiritual world does exist (and is, in fact, the only true reality) and that what happens to us in it (or where we go to in it) has everything to do with who we chose to be in this world.

Here our 'free will' reigns supreme, even over the will of God (the definition of sin, is, after all, *anything* that is not aligned with the will of God), and we are allowed to do as we please. There, free will still exists but is subject, first and foremost, to the will of God. Now think a bit about the implications of such a spiritual world, if you want.

gmc2 posts:

 Anti-Christianity warfare continues with misrepresentations, lies and myths.

Religion told us NO SUCH THING.

Actually, religion, that is, the Hebraic Judeo/Christianity told us the truth. Here's how. More than a couple thousand years ago, people knew the earth was a globe  thanks to the writings of Isaias, one of God's prophets.  He lived in the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah in 716-687 BC. Isaias was killed (martyred for the faith) by being sawed in half by his son-in-law, King Manasses. God knew the earth was a globe; after all, He created it that way. God inspired Isaias to write.

The Douay Rheims version of Isaias 40:21-22,  "Do you not know? Hath it not been heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Hath you not understood the foundations of the Earth? It is he that sits upon the globe (circle) of the earth....."

So there you have it...They knew the earth was a sphere sometime between 716 and 687 BC when Isaias penned God's prophecy.

Then there is 1Kings2:8, "....For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them He hath set the world."

And Proverbs 8:26, "He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.

And the knowledge that the earth was a sphere wasn't lost to the subsequent generations. The early and medieval age Christian scholars and scientists, St.Augustine, the Venerable Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon and Dante, as well as Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme, never doubted the earth is a globe or sphere and by the 15th century the fact the earth was a globe was fully grasped. 

Christopher Columbus, a devout Catholic, knew the earth was a globe because he knew the Scriptures.

Here we see that Religion and religious belief constitutes knowledge of science. We see that the Holy Bible states that the earth is a sphere long before we had scientific empirical knowledge of that fact. Here we see empirical science supporting Sacred Scripture as well as the Religion that taught it.

So the "flat earth" myth didn't come from Religion.

So, how/when did the "flat earth" mythical nonsense arise?  In 1828 when Washington Irving wrote a totally fictitious  story about Columbus who supposedly stood before "ignorant" friars claiming the earth was not flat, but round. In 1874, John William Draper, a disaffected Methodist, and secularist Andrew Dickson White pushed the flat earth myth in an attempt to start a war between science and Christianity.

Then the atheists came on board with the views of Charles Darwin and the world got taught the cause of atheistic evolution and the rest, as they say, is history.

The battle between science and religion rages on.

Jeffrey B. Russell concluded, "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century BC onward believed that the earth was flat." But many educated persons from the time of Darwin have wanted to believe otherwise. It is their acceptance and promotion of this myth gave them a weapon of ridicule in the war against religion.

"Inventing the Flat Earth" Jeffrey Burton Russell, 1991.

oh shit lula, you're absolutely correct, I shall repent and pray to your god to smote thee just because.

-----end line-----

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that?  You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.”

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he?  My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good?  Hmm?  Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.  In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella.  Is God good?"

"Err... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience.  "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?”

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world?  Immorality?  Hatred?  Ugliness?  All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them?"

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice, "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized.  "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?"  The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world.  "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place?  Huh?"

Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen him?"

"No, sir.  I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?  In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"... yes ..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling.  "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist.  What do you say to that, son?  Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.  The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.  Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence.  A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son.  What is night if it isn't darkness?  What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you... give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.  This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...?  How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought.  It uses electricity and magnetism but has never been seen, much less fully understood. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."  The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality.  Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?"  The Christian pauses.  "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color.  He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.  The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing?  The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles.  "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.  "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor.  Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor.  Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?  Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion.  Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ah, SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena.  Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided.  "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"  The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room.  "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter.  The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits down.

Quaint gag...but flawed logic.

Illustrates a point, Jafo.

Science is in constant flux... what is considered right today might be considered wrong or incomplete tomorrow. It has happened before, it will happen again, and many a scientist has been ridiculed by his peers before for a new theory that eventually turns out to be true. Who knows, maybe one day science itself will prove the existence of God - the circle will be complete then.

And by the way, I would like to congratulate Lulapilgrim for holding out on his own and not resorting to scorn like some others did.

Here's something else to consider.

From Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Catholic theology...

Almighty God did not create Satan or evil.

Besides the visible world, God also created an invisible world, namely, innumerable spirits called angels. They came forth from God good and holy being endowed with excellent gifts that made them superior to all other created things. These gifts are sublime understanding and sanctifying grace, that they might persevere in that state of holiness and obtain everlasting happiness in union with God.

But they didn't all continue in that state for being endowed with free will, a great many of them abused it, lost the grace of God, and became evil through their own fault.

God created a pure angelic spirit, Lucifer,  who out of pure malice and pride wanted to be as God and rebelled against Him. The sides for or against God were taken. There was a great battle in Heaven and Michael and the other angels remained faithful and fought against the rebellious spirits whose leader Lucifer, now called Satan or the devil was condemned to Hell with the other angels he seduced.

If God had been forced to change His divine plan becasue of the cnduct of one of His creatures, (by destroying the devil), He would therefore have submitted to the will of a creature, and His action would have been dependent on the action of a creature. That would imply that God would have no longer been God. 

Evil is not merely the absence of good, but of due good, "the deficiency of some good which ought to be present," St. Thomas Aquinas says Summa Theol. art. 2, ad.1.

So evil is a privation but at the same time something extremely real. Moral evil, or sin, is a human thought, word or action that goes counter to right reason and the law of God, such as murder, adultery or theft.

God therefore cannot be the cause of evil, for evil being something privative, cannot be the term of a positive creative act.

Downey, Divine Providence, 62 explains this well.

"Just as the sun in the heavens gives light, whilst the shadow on the ground, the absence of light, is caused by the intervention of some obstacle, such  as a tree, blocking out the rays of light; so the Infinitely Good God is the cause of nothing but goodness, the absence of goodness whereever it occurs, being caused by the intervention of some creative object, not infrequently by the misuse of free will on the part of man."

I'll wish you all a very Merry Christmas and God's blessings all the New Year through. 

It's interesting that starting threads that are overtly political are frowned upon on these forums, but religion is okay.  I would think religion is even more inflammatory than politics.   But nonetheless, I'm okay with it, and it's their forum anyway.   That said....

I think we're splitting hairs when we talk about God creating evil & Satan.  Lucifer and Satan are the same person.  So yes, I would contend that God did create Satan.  As far as God creating evil, that's a matter of whether creating all the conditions with the propensity to cause something else...do you attribute the something else to the creator of those conditions?   I probably wasn't clear enough there.  Let me explain:  say you create wind, water, clouds, etc....and then walk away.   While you're away, a violent thunderstorm develops.  Do you attribute the violent thunderstorm to the guy who created the wind, water, and clouds?   Certainly without the wind & water, the thunderstorm never would have happened.   And what if you created wind and water, knowing that a violent thunderstorm was going to be an inevitable result?  Wind and water are necessary for to sustain life, but it also produces the thunderstorms.  It's all a matter of the individual's perspective.

In the same way, God created free will, and with it came the propensity for evil.  Lucifer and Jesus both had a free will.  Lucifer used it for evil.  Jesus did not (although one could argue that Jesus was never created).  The angels were created with a free will.  1/3rd of them used it for evil and joined Lucifer.  The others did not.  Did God, in creating free will, therefore create evil?   I would say no, God did not.

To further complicate things, there is a large camp within Christianity who do not believe in free will.  We are all predestined to evil or good.  That is, it was pre-wired within us at creation time our destiny for Heaven or Hell.   I do not espouse this--I believe in free will.  However, were predestination held to be true, I think you would have to say that yes, God did create evil.  And no, that doesn't make any sense to me, either.   But there are lots of things in this world that do not make any sense to me--let alone the things beyond this world which I know very little about.

From the religious perspective, God is perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful and infallible … right??? OK …

God created everything we can see and everything we cannot see, humm … why can’t we see the big picture? Then this infallible God created “innumerable spirits called angels” (from what?) that are superior to man … who doesn’t exist yet. So God needs a staff huh? Somehow this God flawed and ‘many’ of those angels thought God was FUBAR and warred against Him … and God the infallible was (almost) dumbfounded.  Frigging free will … let’s just give it to everyone and watch them squirm forever hahaha. Anyway, “God created a pure angelic spirit, Lucifer, who out of pure malice and pride wanted to be as God” (from the Devil's autobiography [see Lula]). Maybe it would help if you could expand a bit on “how angels fight” … swopping insults (not allowed) and throwing make believe (mystical) bricks (not possible) at each other, hahaha. I am having difficulty imagining this??? And all of this is ok … because God will not (be forced to?) change his original plans. 

Can anyone (besides Lula) capable of understanding this nonsense, please let me know? “If God had been forced to change His divine plan because of the conduct of one of His creatures, (by destroying the devil), He would therefore have submitted to the will of a creature, and His action would have been dependent on the action of a creature. That would imply that God would have no longer been God.” OMG … instant God … instant no-God … is there no end to this comedy?

… oh what’s the use… the rest of your post Lula is just more theological drivel.

And a very happy holiday Merry Christmas to you too Lula.

I'm not so sure whether the title of this post is correct or not "Science and God (One and the same?)".

One thing for sure though is that for the folks that seek to control others all is needed is to start a discussion on one or the other and do a little 'thumping' and the 'followers' come out in droves.

Of course this is just my own opinion and is not meant to influence anyone.  Lets face it, we can't be controlled unless we freely allow ourselves to be herded into little corrals and labelled.

Since I am not Lula, I can make a go of it.   Have you never submitted yourself to the will of someone else, even though they were your "inferior", so to speak?   Say, I am manager of a team at work.  One of my subordinates says, "let's do this".  So I say, "okay, whatever you think is best."   Or my child says, "I want to go to the park."   So we go to the park.  Or, my dog--an inferior creature--drops a tennis ball at my feet.  It's clear my dog wants me to throw it.  So I throw it.  I have just submitted to the will of an inferior creature.   Does that make me no longer in charge?   No, of course not.  Does that make me no longer manager, no longer a father...no longer human??   No, of course not.   I submitted to another's will, not because I had to, but of my own free will.   I went to the park at my kid's request because I LOVE my child.  I LOVE my dog.  And my subordinate, well it's not so much that I "love" him, but I respect his judgment. 

You believe Lot should have followed a Christian principle written 2000 years after his death?

Who wonders that? I find it quite obvious why you have come to believe that.

You ignore both time and the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Lot was neither a Jew nor a Christian but you believe he ought to have acted according to the principles of one of those religions, because if he doesn't, G-d is schizophrenic.

You are totally ignoring context. Lot was not a Christian. He wasn't even a Jew. He was a Semite who like other Semites believes in several gods and acted according to his own religion and culture. The invention of the "infidel" came 2000 years later when the first universal religion was invented. Early Judaism knew nothing of the idea of one true religion and in times before Judaism (like the time Lot lived in) the concept of an infidel was meaningless. Every city had its own god. Some villages didn't. Who would be an infidel? What would you have to do to become an infidel in such a world?

G-d behaves differently towards His own people, towards the enemies of His own people and towards the rest of humanity (Christians, in this sense).

We didn't force the world to worship our god. So please don't insult our religion because of the problems you think you perceive because of the fact that so many people have decided to worship our god in so many different ways.

tetleytea, good analogy ... but we were talking about the one God here. How could His changing anything (for whatever reason floats His boat), be considered by any of the faithful as anything besides the will of God. Anyone or anything that cannot sit back and re-evaluate their own blunders is not an admirable manager, father, human ... or God. The miscreants that compiled the bible from fiction may not appreciate God changing things … but the rest of humanity sure would!!!

Lula, didn’t your God murder everyone not on the ark … and didn’t He supposedly do this because of the actions of His creations, just wondering is all? Does this mean that your one God is Not?