Why Would God be Asking Questions?

[PsychoticEpisode]

..... it also makes god seem like an emotional thinking god. If he were a logical thinking one, he wouldn't have to restort to rhetorical questions. He would just say something like, 'Adam, Eve, get out from under that bush; yes I know you are under there, we need to talk.'

Makes sense but not good copy. Perhaps the author(s) toyed with that idea but in the end decided that God needed some human emotion. Either that or he didn't think about the consequences of his written words.

An omniscient being should never ask a question. It should be at the bottom of their list of things to do. The fact that such an entity would know how the question would be answered makes it even more illogical.

Cain answered God's query with a question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" This is one of the best lines in the Bible. It kind of catches God off guard although He should have known it was coming. I don't recall God answering it but I stand to be corrected. He's calling God out on His omniscience. Sort of saying, what are you asking me for if you already know where?

Earlier I labelled the scribe(s) as being careless but that one line may speak volumes about the author's intentions. Our scribe has written the first great answer to a dumb question. Dumb as in unnecessary. The contrast between an absolutely ridiculous question and a fascinating legitimate question is compelling.

 

[Jan Ardena]

mikenostic,

When you apply common sense and use reasoning to explain something like this, it is pretty obvious.

Okay.

Asking questions: an all-knowing god does not need to ask questions, as he already knows the answer (obvious when you apply common sense, not so obvious when faith-based emotions cloud your judgment).

Maybe the reason for asking the question have nothing to do with need.
How does this invalidate god's mercifulness?

Toying with men: honestly Jan, does this even need to be explained? That is not a characteristic of a benevolent deity (again, common sense...).

I agree, but nothing suggests an invalidation of mercifulness.
Just try and look at this from the point of view that god is all-knowing, then you'll see where I'm coming from.

Feigning ignorance: That's the same thing as 'bearing false witness'. I don't thin kthat should be explained any further.

Maybe it would have freaked Adam and Eve out had he just appeared in front of them. They had reached to the point where they were truly ashamed of their nakedness, where it didn't matter before. That is some transformation.

According to the bible, what happens to you if you do not get saved/if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your savior?
1. go to heaven
2. go to hell

Are you sure that is according to the bible?

If you don't believe God exists, as you clearly don't, and you believe he is imaginary. Why can't you accept that as a fictional character, he is omniscient?

jan.

 

[Arch_Rival]

I would suggest the answer lies in our own selves, rather than what it means to be God.
Reality or Illusion, it must come down to that, otherwise there is no point or meaning to anything.

jan.

There is a truth out there regardless of what we think. Searching for truth within ourselves will only end up with our own personal truth, which most times is not the truth at all, but rather our own misconceptions that we mistake to be the truth.

 

[Ophiolite]

Searching for truth within ourselves will only end up with our own personal truth, which most times is not the truth at all, but rather our own misconceptions that we mistake to be the truth.

Do you think that's true?

 

[mikenostic]

mikenostic,

Okay.

Maybe the reason for asking the question have nothing to do with need.
How does this invalidate god's mercifulness?

I agree, but nothing suggests an invalidation of mercifulness.
Just try and look at this from the point of view that god is all-knowing, then you'll see where I'm coming from.

Maybe it would have freaked Adam and Eve out had he just appeared in front of them. They had reached to the point where they were truly ashamed of their nakedness, where it didn't matter before. That is some transformation.

Are you sure that is according to the bible?

If you don't believe God exists, as you clearly don't, and you believe he is imaginary. Why can't you accept that as a fictional character, he is omniscient?

jan.

Jan, I've come to the conclusion that you are going to see things the way you do, and I am going to see the things the way I do. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, I've come to the conclusion that you are going to see things the way you do, and I am going to see the things the way I do. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but not seeing things each others way is the norm here. The real fun is trying to prove each other wrong.

jan.

 

[mikenostic]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but not seeing things each others way is the norm here. The real fun is trying to prove each other wrong.

BWAHAHAHA!!! Believers and non-believers have been arguing and trying (sometimes to the point of war) for millenia to prove the other wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

BWAHAHAHA!!! Believers and non-believers have been arguing and trying (sometimes to the point of war) for millenia to prove the other wrong.

Then what is the purpose of your being here in the religious forum?

jan.

 

[mikenostic]

Then what is the purpose of your being here in the religious forum?

jan.

To find out exactly what people believe in, or at least what they SAY they believe in, on an anonymous internet forum.
I try to be tolerant, BUT at the same time, if someone spouts off something that I feel is totally preposterous, I'm gunna speak up, and ask them 'what are they thinking to cause them to come up with that stuff'.
Most of my family are Christians. A couple of them know that I don't believe in god anymore. Even though we are aware of each others' differences and we've discussed why we came to the conclusion we did, it is futile for either party to 'try to prove the other wrong'.

I couldn't care less what theists believe. They have a right to believe what they want; just like I have a right to feel that they are delusional for believing in a deity whose existence can't be proven.

 

[Jan Ardena]

mikenostic,

To find out exactly what people believe in, or at least what they SAY they believe in, on an anonymous internet forum.

Then what?

I couldn't care less what theists believe. They have a right to believe what they want; just like I have a right to feel that they are delusional for believing in a deity whose existence can't be proven.

If you can be certain that God's existence cannot be proven, without actual evidence, then why are you basically intolerant of those who are certain God exists, without evidence?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

mikenostic,

...it is futile for either party to 'try to prove the other wrong'.

It's not futile if both parties come on a discussion forum, to discuss the existence or not, of God. I would say that is the point of such a forum.
Wouldn't you?

jan.

 

[mikenostic]

mikenostic,
Then what?

Then it comes to rehashing more of the same shit that has been spouted back and forth concerning who's right, since before I became a member on here.
We can discuss this ad nauseum, but until we are visited by aliens or something disproving God's existence or Jesus coming down from heaven with trumpets blowing proving God's existence, then we will perpetually continue to argue who is right. When we should just be more tolerant of other's beliefs.

If you can be certain that God's existence cannot be proven, without actual evidence, then why are you basically intolerant of those who are certain God exists, without evidence?

Because for one, I'm not 100% certain that he doesn't exist. Like I've mentioned many times before, I won't rule out the possibility of anything.
The people who are 'certain' God exists w/o any staunch evidence are that... 'certain'. How can you be certain of something if there's no proof?
I'm intolerant of people who refuse to have an open mind.
My aunt Karen is one of those Christians with an open mind. Granted I'm not goign to be changing her mind anytime soon, but on the same token, she understands where I'm coming from and does not try to force her beliefs on me either. Funny thing is, she has been married for 31 years to a man with a very similar mentality towards the whole religious fallacy as I do (a logical, straight forward, common sense one).

 

[wizard]

technically, nothing can be proven. the problem with religion is that it can't be disproven. there is no observation that can be differentiate natural explanations from religious ones, which means there is no observational difference between the two. and by occam's razor, we should pick the one that assumes less, which is the non-religious explanations.

of course, i don't see anything wrong with people just believing in god, until it starts clashing with rights or science.

 

[mikenostic]

technically, nothing can be proven. the problem with religion is that it can't be disproven. there is no observation that can be differentiate natural explanations from religious ones, which means there is no observational difference between the two. and by occam's razor, we should pick the one that assumes less, which is the non-religious explanations.

Exactly right. However too many theists would argue that. Once theists realize that not everyone believes what they believe, and that anything's possible, they might become more tolerant of others.

of course, i don't see anything wrong with people just believing in god, until it starts clashing with rights or science.

I don't see anything wrong either with them either, until those people start forcing their religion/beliefs on other people and belittling/berating/condescending or even harming them if they don't believe exactly what the believers believe.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because for one, I'm not 100% certain that he doesn't exist.

You've stated that God cannot be proven on more than one occasion, and you've stated
that God does not exist.
How is anyone to know that you are not as 100% certain as the theists?
You certainly sound certain, just like the theists.

Like I've mentioned many times before, I won't rule out the possibility of anything.

But you have.
Think about it.

The people who are 'certain' God exists w/o any staunch evidence are that... 'certain'.

And the people who are certain God doesn't exist w/o any staunch evidence are
that... 'certain'.
A pointless statement of fact wouldn't you say.

How can you be certain of something if there's no proof?

I've seen your critera for proof, it is based on your personal understanding of what would constite evidence either way for God's existence.
Anyone can do that.
Either way it all boils down to belief, and faith in belief.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wizard,

technically, nothing can be proven. the problem with religion is that it can't be disproven. there is no observation that can be differentiate natural explanations from religious ones, which means there is no observational difference between the two. and by occam's razor, we should pick the one that assumes less, which is the non-religious explanations.

On the contrary, I think occams razor would favour the religious explanation.

...of course, i don't see anything wrong with people just believing in god, until it starts clashing with rights or science.

You say that as though religion is a recent phenomenon, and human rights and science are separate. Strange.

jan.

 

[wizard]

On the contrary, I think occams razor would favour the religious explanation.

no it wouldn't. there is nothing to suggest the existence of god(s), so assuming one exists goes against occam's razor

You say that as though religion is a recent phenomenon, and human rights and science are separate. Strange.

rights and science are separate. rights are subjective, science is not.

 

[Tnerb]

no it wouldn't. there is nothing to suggest the existence of god(s), so assuming one exists goes against occam's razor


rights and science are separate. rights are subjective, science is not.

I call bullshit when i see it....


BULLSHIT!

Gods existence implies that it stands up to all of the many great ideas and thoughts that all of the people in this thread are standing up for (most of them anyways), and you on the other hand aren't.
(as the lady said... thus bullshit)

Nothing is seperate.
Hello lixluke.

 

[wizard]

Gods existence implies that it stands up to all of the many great ideas and thoughts that all of the people in this thread are standing up for (most of them anyways), and you on the other hand aren't.
(as the lady said... thus bullshit)

i don't know what you're trying to say here. are you implying that god does exist? and what are these many great ideas that i apparently don't stand up for?

Nothing is seperate.

well of course if you want to make meaningless connections like they're both words, then sure. otherwise, i don't see how just saying "science" or "rights" implies both science and rights in the context.

Hello lixluke.

i'm not lixluke

 

[Jan Ardena]

no it wouldn't. there is nothing to suggest the existence of god(s),
so assuming one exists goes against occam's razor

Can you name anything to suggest the non-existence of God?
No evidence? What evidence would you accept for the existence of God?
Can you prove that the concept of God started with mankinds imagination?
All we have are two possible scenarios, God exists or not.
If God does not exist
then how did everything come into being? Do you really think unravelling that is the simplest option? Assuming abiogenesis is correct.
The questions can be treated as rhetorical as it would be understandable if
you could not provide answers.

jan.