Why dont i believe in god?

[laughing weasel]

If you do not have the possibility of making the wrong choice then you can never grow and learn to make the right choice. There is a reason that Christians are referred to as gods children. I believe that god would like us to learn to make the right choices. We may fail but god seems to believe that sincere repentance is one of the more important qualifiers (look at all the bad stuff that David did) and god still supported him because he always prayed for forgiveness. This did not prevent him from having to face consequences of his actions. You let your kids learn to ride a bike even if you know that they will get hurt while they are learning to ride. You state that if god allows people to choose to die then he is evil or weak. God has made it easier and harder as he goes along don’t eat the apple, obey the ten commandments, obey the whole mosaic law, and finally just accept Jesus as your savior and try to be like him. He has made a rational universe so that we could believe that he is rational.

 

[TheERK]

If you do not have the possibility of making the wrong choice then you can never grow and learn to make the right choice.

Maybe in this world, but in a world where all choices are good, it doesn't matter if you got there by learning from bad choices or not.

You let your kids learn to ride a bike even if you know that they will get hurt while they are learning to ride.

Any decent parent, when given the choice, would choose a situation where the child could learn without getting hurt.

You state that if god allows people to choose to die then he is evil or weak.

Refresh me; where exactly did I say that, or anything like it? This is off topic, anyway.

God has made it easier and harder as he goes along don’t eat the apple, obey the ten commandments, obey the whole mosaic law, and finally just accept Jesus as your savior and try to be like him. He has made a rational universe so that we could believe that he is rational.

Uh huh. This also really has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[SVRP]

That isn't contradictory at all. You know, every choice in the world isn't a choice of good or evil. Some choices are among several goods--if God made it so we always chose one of these goods, then we'd have both free will and a world without evil choices.

I would like to understand your point, TheERK.
Even if all the choices were considered 'good' they would still fall into categories of "Bad", "Better", & "Best" of the 'good' choices. Without the freedom to choose a 'worst' choice, how would anyone know a choice from under the "Bad" category of 'good' choices is better than the 'worst' choice? How can anyone say we would still have free will if our freedom is limited to only one set of choices? Can we still say we have freedom of choice with such a limitation? Please explain. (Again, just curious.)

 

[mis-t-highs]

nobody chooses the worst, we all believe we are chosing the best.

 

[SVRP]

nobody chooses the worst, we all believe we are chosing the best.

If you believe you are choosing the best, then what are you basing your belief upon that your choice was the 'best'? What determines your choice? And what do you compare it to? Just curious.
(Thank you for your response, mis-t-highs.)

 

[TheERK]

I would like to understand your point, TheERK.
Even if all the choices were considered 'good' they would still fall into categories of "Bad", "Better", & "Best" of the 'good' choices.

Good point, but what I had in mind was more of a lateral movement among the 'good' scale rather than an up an down movement. A lateral choice, for example, would be which present to get for somebody even if they will all make the person equally happy. Even if the happiness-outcome is the same, there is still an element of freedom in choosing--a sort of expression in creativity still exists.

However, this might be unrealistic and indeed limiting. Perhaps we have an up-and-down movement along the scale. But instead of 'good', 'ok', and 'bad', we have 'amazing', 'great', and 'good.' In other words, we still have a gradient of happiness, except every value has been shifted upwards until the point where what was 'bad' now feels just 'slightly good.' And, anticipating a counter-point, I don't think it's sound logic to call this new 'slightly good' exactly what 'bad' used to be--indeed, they would be very different feelings. Feelings and sensations are most likely not relative.

I'm pretty sure that this also answers the remainder of your post, so I won't quote the rest.

 

[mis-t-highs]

SVRP :
you base your belief on what is right,for you and your fellow man.
your only comparison is, what your mind tells you is right, and can cause no harms to no one.

 

[MarcAC]

Once again, you're interpreting 'choice' to be a binary selection between good or evil.

Yes, I would ask what other selections you have but then I saw your post with regards to a 'spectrum' of goods.

You, too, claim that God does make us choose. He makes us choose by giving us free will.

No, I claim that God allows us a choice. God allows us free will. To me, saying God makes us choose is comparable to saying God makes us exist, but how can we look at non-existence as a viable scenario to analyse anything from? See below...

We can't *not* make choices, because we have free will. The only difference between my scenario and yours is that yours involves a choice between good and evil, and mine involves choices between various outcomes, all of which happen to be good.

From my statement above, not making choices is somewhat like non-existence: then again you might exist, but exist as a star or a rock - let's say then, an inanimate existence. How can anything be viewed from a point of non-existence or an inanimate existence?

The free will isn't limited; the items we can select by applying that free will is.

How do you see such a scenario with respect to our existence as you see it now? With your scenario of a 'spectrum of goods' there would be no death by another human hand, unless you'll indicate murder or any sort of physical harm is good (like some people who've spent too much time posting on this site). Then there would be no realistic scenario where we can say another human can do another human mortal, or even physical harm. In other words, a human would be effectively immortal. Nothing you could do to another human could kill that person. Take a hammer, bang it on their head, it would just rebound like in cartoons (and even without the stars swirling around the head and teeth hanging out). Those scenarios can't exist within this physical world as it is. The fact is, we are affected by the world around us (integral to it). The physics of such a world would have to be totally different, and at present, I'm sure you can't even begin to comprehand how the physics of such a world would work, even if you were the brightest human phsyicist that ever lived. But then how do you know that the physics of such a world is logically possible? How can we not be affected by a world we are a part of? It would seem you're requesting that God, in His omnipotence, create a square circle.

That is the only way I can understand your statement, otherwise the harmful scenarios would be possible, but we would just be restricted to choose situations where no harm to a human is done. That's not free will. Freedom is freedom up to the point where physical order is maintained - no square circles. I just really can't see how the former (paragraph) would be possible in this or any physical world because we are a part of it and intagral to it. Even God Himself is affected by the things we do and the way the world operates. There are so many things with a dual effect. In other words, they can benefit, and they can do harm (The Sun for example). You would be effectively asking God to create us equal to himself (1=1+1), which is impossible.

Your statement seems to advocate the creation of a totally different physical world (creation of square circles) where humans would have free will and be absolutely immortal in a sense - OR - A world where we simply have no free will - an inanimate existence. Free will is the seat of consciousness. Without free will you aren't conscious.

 

[MarcAC]

Also for the bolded thing... Free will is a function of the choices available. And if you were to state it pseudo-mathematically, assuming existence, free will => choice (or scenario) > 1. In other terms, once existence is elliminated as a choice there has to be more than one scenario (or choice) to choose from for free will to exist. If you recognise the possibility that there may be an 'infinite' (exceedingly large) number of choices, then you have to say that the limited choices (less than infinity - like 2 or 3) limits the nature of the free will 'function'. Once choices are limited free will is limited.

 

[David F.]

Secondly, many of the minor prophets and large sections of Isaiah are among the oldest parts of the Bible, several centuries older than Genesis and the Hexateuch.

For a broad historical basis for the Judaic part of the Bible written with a single voice, I'd recommend reading the Chronicles and then Ezra and Nehemiah, skipping all the genealogies of course. The central event here, the Babylonian Exile, is in fact the central event in Jewish history, and myths like the Exodus were devised to reflect it.

I assume you are referring to the current tripe that so-called bible scholars and archeologists are putting out that the Davidic Dynasty wrote the earlier books and the law to give themselves legitimacy? However, that would not make the minor prophets the oldest part of the bible, it would make Samuel, Kings and Chronicles the oldest. This is just more nonsense put out by non-believers and bible-haters to try to once again discredit. The Bible has stood for 3500 years against such attacks and it will again.

The major argument is that there is no Semetic influence in Egyptian archeology and therefore Exodus must be a myth. However, this is not true since major Semetic settlements have been found - just where the bible says, in the land of Goshen - but it isn't in what the archeologists view as the right time - the time of Rameses II (the settlements date to about three centuries before Rameses II). How do archeologists know that the semetic influence of the Exodus should be tied to Rameses II? Well, because the French Archeologist Champoleon (he of Rossetta fame) said so. How did he know? Well, the bible talks about a great pharoah (unnamed) who had major building projects for his Hebrew (Habiru) slaves and Rameses II had lots of building projects therefore it must be him - never mind that lots of pharoahs had major building projects. Do you see the circular logic - Egyptian dates are based on the bible but there is no evidence of the bible stories in those strata of Egyptian archeology - therefore the bible must be wrong - Huh??? Come Again??? Maybe, Champoleon just picked the WRONG PHAROAH!!!

The current bogus dates for OT books follow the same path. There is no evidence of Hebrews under Rameses II therefore the books of the bible must be fiction???

The other fallacy is the idea of four authors for Genesis. (they identify them by letters but I won't). The idea is that four different authors each wrote different parts of Genesis (the fourth is actually called the "redactor" since he put the other three together - I am not opposed to the idea that Moses had source material as is suggested by Josephus, but that makes Moses the redactor). The split is on the name of God. One author calls God "Elohim" while the next calls him "Yehovah" and the third calls him "Yahovah Elohim". But, let's think about this argument. The word "Elohim" is a title which means GOD. The word "Yehovah" is the name of God. What if I were to look at a book about President Bush? The word "President" is a title and the word "Bush" is a name. If I find in the book that sometimes the author refers to the subject as "the President" and sometimes the author refers to the subject as "Bush" and in yet other places the author refers to the subject as "President Bush", can I then argue that there is not one but four authors - three who use different names and one "redactor" to put all the parts together? This is absurd. I refer to the President by all these names every day! The whole idea is absurd if anyone bothers to understand the argument.

The crux of all this is that there is NO EVIDENCE that the bible was written in any order other than beginning with the books of Moses - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Jews to have a different order for the remainder of the books - Chronicles is last - but then no one claims the remainder are in historical order.

 

[SVRP]

Good point, but what I had in mind was more of a lateral movement among the 'good' scale rather than an up an down movement. A lateral choice, for example, would be which present to get for somebody even if they will all make the person equally happy. Even if the happiness-outcome is the same, there is still an element of freedom in choosing--a sort of expression in creativity still exists.

However, this might be unrealistic and indeed limiting. Perhaps we have an up-and-down movement along the scale. But instead of 'good', 'ok', and 'bad', we have 'amazing', 'great', and 'good.' In other words, we still have a gradient of happiness, except every value has been shifted upwards until the point where what was 'bad' now feels just 'slightly good.' And, anticipating a counter-point, I don't think it's sound logic to call this new 'slightly good' exactly what 'bad' used to be--indeed, they would be very different feelings. Feelings and sensations are most likely not relative.

I think what you are suggesting, TheERK, is people should choose from only good choices therefore eliminating evil (correct me if I am wrong).
My point is if you remove any choices (whether the removal came from God, man, or government) you cannot call it “freedom of choice”.
For example: The animals in a zoo are cared for and are maintained in a ‘good’ environment. They are free to wander from one end of their boundary to the other. Can they roam wherever they want to? Only within the limited area. Are they truly free to roam? No, they are caged and are not truly free.
It is the same when you limit someone’s freedom of choice. It would be limiting his will to choose what he wants. One cannot call it “freedom” or “free will” as soon as limits are placed.
Without the knowledge or experience of ‘bad’ choices how can man compare and want the ‘good’ choices? Isn’t the desire to be good something we should all want and look for while still having the freedom to choose? Isn’t that what God looks for in our hearts?

I am not disagreeing with you that we should choose from good choices, if that is your point. My argument is you cannot say we would still have “free will” if you remove or limit our choices.

 

[SVRP]

SVRP :
you base your belief on what is right,for you and your fellow man.
your only comparison is, what your mind tells you is right, and can cause no harms to no one.

Interesting response, mis-t-highs, and thank you, again.
But what may be right for me and my fellow man from what my mind tells me may not be right for my fellow man from what his mind tells him. So what standard of measure of what would be the right thing to do from both minds? If I depend what my mind tells me what is right, would my mind make the decision based on facts, faith, or feelings? Just curious.