The religious thank God for their hurricane

[Kuroneko]

After all, realistically, if there were a God, what could we be but his experiment? Perhaps his interest lies in our ability to overcome ourselves and our environment, and seeing what ways we do this.

Another possibility, supposing there is an intelligent creator called God to the universe, is that God simply isn't aware of us on that level. After all, the universe is mighty big, and it may be the universe itself that is the experiment.

Of course, to believe this, you would have to believe that this God wasn't all-knowing, ... .

Well, that depends. A chemist is aware, in an experiement, that certain chemical reactions occur, and that certain molecules cease to exist, but I doubt that the chemist feel strongly for their plight. Likewise, God may be aware that there are such structures as 'humans', that they do think (in the sense of responding to their environment in a certain way), that they emote (in the sense that their brains have certain states), but simply not assign this fact any overall significance. In this sense, God may still be omniscient, but neverheless very far from the typical theist's conceptions... except, of course, for the deists.

1 doesn't explain what it is, and 2 isn't violated in any way by protecting us. We could still choose to hate our protector. For instance, if I give a child candy, he doesn't have to love me. If I stop him from drowning, he doesn't even have to know I exist.

It seems I've been beaten to the punch...

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The all-purpose answer to questions like this is the phrase "free will". I don't know how, but that one phrase renders God immune to logical arguments like that one. It's truly amazing, praise God!

I find this argument very dishonest when I get it on other forums by people who defend God when he doesn't protect peole from disasters. Acts of nature are not willed by individuals to occure. They aren't doing anything which brings about their own pain and suffering.

The free will argument works (hypothetically), when you are dealing with actions people do unto themselves, knowing the consequences. No one brought a hurricane upon himself to kill innocent people. The same thing applies to murder. No one wills it that someone would murder him. The murderor is exercizing his free will, but he's violating the will of others through doing so. Why does God allow this?

[wautd]

God tested the faithful but at the same time, punished the heretics

[Invictus ChiKen]

Well I'm a pagan myself (Yes I still owe the board a magic experiment I haven't forgotten folks. Just trying to work up one that'll hold under scrutiny).

My view on this after going over this with Thor. (Be this

A: A talk with an actual God named Thor,

B: My mind going nuts while in a meditative trance state and my imagnation running wild

C: A sign I'm crazy

or

D: Rocks.)

Thor: You build a city BELOW sea level in an area noted for horrible hurricanes and cute funding to it's defenses against said hurricanes.

You then vote all over your nation an idiotic fundamentalist goverment that's best stratgy is ignore it and toss money to projects they love.

Your actually suprised this happened...

[NecronLord]

In that series, the Kiint refused to give technologies to the human civilization because they believed that if they were to give us all that we needed, advance would stagnate, and we would never achieve a potential beyond what they gave us. If I were a God, I may use similar logic towards humanity.

The biblical god hates human progress. He would rather humanity never learnt of good-and-evil damnit.

[Rye]

I am clearly not making myself understood. I am pointing out that the only alternative to a situation where natural disasters take place is a world where everyone is safe from anything apart from death from old age. What makes a hurricane so different from other things that kill people prematurely such as volcanoes or disease? If God stretches out his mighty arm, for wont of a better term, and shields people from a hurricane then the whole concept of free will is gone

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! How on EARTH do you equate not being killed by natural disasters into a lack of free will? Nobody CHOOSES shit in a natural disaster!

Unless you're asserting that natural disasters and being able to die from them is somehow inherent to the process, like God sends them for bad choices, which is compromising free will anyway, since it gives extra confinements on the choices.

- particularly as if he did not save all from such disasters he would be raising one human life above another - something that I do not believe is right.

I agree, but saving people from hurricanes does not violate free will.

[The Guid]

I really can not see why people have such a problem with this. The Earth is made in the way it is. It has hurricanes. To stop these hurricanes would require a miracle. A miracle that would be just that... miraculous. This would show evidence of a divine being - certainly if it continued to happen because as I have pointed out before: There is nothing to make this hurricane special. If you expect miracles to stop things like this happening you will need them for other things too - unless God does not intervene at all (or there is no God).

God tested the faithful but at the same time, punished the heretics

Prove it.

On the topic of further back there are fundamental differences between the relationships described and the one that I believe is the one I have with God. Sure, the baby can still hate you even if you give it candy and you could choose to hate your protector, and yes I do believe that the love that a child gives the parent can be somewhat swayed by the fact the parent gives the child all it needs. There are three points I would like to raise on that though.

1. The child never has to believe that you, or the parent are there. They can know it by the fact they can see you and touch you. The leap of faith is not required. Faith is an important element to the love given, supposedly, to God. Its a unique thing.

2. Yes, one could hate one's protector. But, in all honesty, would you? Would you dare oppose an all powerful God if he came down from the heavens with his thunderbolt and what have you? If God proves his existence and all mightiness then people will bow and scrape and worship. But are they worshipping God or his power? The fact is that the fact you can give a child candy or look after a child does not make you all powerful. Not so powerful you can look into people's thoughts and inflict an eternity of suffering upon them (if we go by some Christian denomination's beliefs).

3. Yes, some children do not love their parents. The true test of that comes when the child is not given something it wants. Does it have a tantrum, scream, declare hatred and cry? Or does it accept it? And what of when it grows up? Does it abandon its parents and leave them for the high life or make sure that house and home are secure?

A somewhat disjointed post, but I think I answered all I needed to asnwer. Apologies if I missed something. I apologise for the almost VI like repition in first paragraph but people seem to be making points as if they haven't read it.

[wautd]

God tested the faithful but at the same time, punished the heretics

Prove it.

I was being sarcastic. Tought you'd know me by now

[Admiral Valdemar]

He doesn't have to prove anything for an otherwise contradictive entity such as the Christian God which shows no actual activity in this universe anyway.

[Surlethe]

2. Yes, one could hate one's protector. But, in all honesty, would you? Would you dare oppose an all powerful God if he came down from the heavens with his thunderbolt and what have you? If God proves his existence and all mightiness then people will bow and scrape and worship. But are they worshipping God or his power? The fact is that the fact you can give a child candy or look after a child does not make you all powerful. Not so powerful you can look into people's thoughts and inflict an eternity of suffering upon them (if we go by some Christian denomination's beliefs).

If I correctly see what you're trying to say, then you're missing the fact evidence does not compromise free will, as demonstrated time and time again by Creationist ignorance.

[Rye]

I really can not see why people have such a problem with this. The Earth is made in the way it is. It has hurricanes. To stop these hurricanes would require a miracle.

No, it would be something unexplained that would not necessarily imply anything referenced by human religion. If the planet never had hurricanes, or all hurricanes disappeared as soon as they appeared, we would have grown up thinking that was normal behaviour for air on Earth. We'd then try to explain why on other planets, storms seem to keep going, while here they don't. Imagining that at some point an intelligence was implied to be behind preserving human life, that would have lent more to a "Gaia" worldview than an estranged from physicality-god.

In Christian theology it doesn't make much sense either. Look at Satan. How many hurricanes are there in heaven? None, it's supposed to be paradise. And yet he rebelled, was cast down, whatever.

A miracle that would be just that... miraculous. This would show evidence of a divine being - certainly if it continued to happen because as I have pointed out before: There is nothing to make this hurricane special. If you expect miracles to stop things like this happening you will need them for other things too - unless God does not intervene at all (or there is no God).

Yes, an entity that can intervene and prevent evil that doesn't intervene is a douche. Police stopping murderers from killing people does not stop free will.

Prove it.

There is nothing to prove it, gods appear to be imaginary. However, biblically, it's hardly out of line.

1. The child never has to believe that you, or the parent are there. They can know it by the fact they can see you and touch you. The leap of faith is not required. Faith is an important element to the love given, supposedly, to God. Its a unique thing.

I'm sure everyone secretly knows this is because gods are as limited as imaginary friends, all of Jesus' focused godpowers won't move a paperclip 2 inches. At any rate, even if we assume God of the bible and Christian theology is true, Satan proves that you can both know God exists and disobey.

[mr friendly guy]

I really can not see why people have such a problem with this. The Earth is made in the way it is. It has hurricanes. To stop these hurricanes would require a miracle. A miracle that would be just that... miraculous. This would show evidence of a divine being - certainly if it continued to happen because as I have pointed out before: There is nothing to make this hurricane special. If you expect miracles to stop things like this happening you will need them for other things too - unless God does not intervene at all (or there is no God).

Since you yourself have stated you aren't quite making yourself clear, I am going to hazard a guess at what you are trying to say. Are you saying that failure to become independent (because we rely too much on God) stifles free will? Because the only other way I can interpret this is that you are equating not being killed by a hurricane to lack of free will.

On the topic of further back there are fundamental differences between the relationships described and the one that I believe is the one I have with God. Sure, the baby can still hate you even if you give it candy and you could choose to hate your protector, and yes I do believe that the love that a child gives the parent can be somewhat swayed by the fact the parent gives the child all it needs. There are three points I would like to raise on that though.

1. The child never has to believe that you, or the parent are there. They can know it by the fact they can see you and touch you. The leap of faith is not required. Faith is an important element to the love given, supposedly, to God. Its a unique thing.

Since you define "free will" very narrowly as the ability to choose God freely, and to love God freely, you are essentially saying free will requires a leap of faith. So what? Why is it not free will if someone uses reasoning / evidence instead of faith to love something - or as you put it, a child is swayed because his parents give him what he wants. Why should you love something who does jack shit for you?

2. Yes, one could hate one's protector. But, in all honesty, would you?

Whether I do so is irrelevant. The fact that you admit its possible to hate one's protector shows that someone can still choose freely despite knowing that 1) God exists 2) God gives one benefits

Would you dare oppose an all powerful God if he came down from the heavens with his thunderbolt and what have you? If God proves his existence and all mightiness then people will bow and scrape and worship. But are they worshipping God or his power?

1. All right, what you are essentially saying here, is that if God shows his power, => worship will not be sincere, => hence free will is compromised.

First point : free will can still occur because the option to oppose God is still open. It may not necessarily be rational, but then people make irrational decisions all the time. In fact I could likewise argue that if God really wants people to "freely" love him, it would be in his best interest to not force / scare people into worshipping him, hence the decision (for the man who figures this out) to love him is still free.

Second point : since people who worship God do believe he exists with his " thunderbolt and what have you" (even with no evidence), why are you not applying that "are they worshipping God or his power" argument here? By your own logic free will is already compromised.

2) Prove God is all mighty, since he needs to rest and can be stymied by iron chariots.

The fact is that the fact you can give a child candy or look after a child does not make you all powerful. Not so powerful you can look into people's thoughts and inflict an eternity of suffering upon them (if we go by some Christian denomination's beliefs).

I would respond to your post, if only I can understand what the hell you are trying to argue.

[The Guid]

*Climbs up on wall of Rorke's Drift*

I was being sarcastic. Thought you'd know me by now

I guessed that but thought it was a reasonable response anyway.

He doesn't have to prove anything for an otherwise contradictive entity such as the Christian God which shows no actual activity in this universe anyway.

Yes true. I suppose I should have said something like "Why should one believe that?"

If I correctly see what you're trying to say, then you're missing the fact evidence does not compromise free will, as demonstrated time and time again by Creationist ignorance.

I think that is an unfair comparison. Evolution might be obvious to you or I because we have read about it from objective sources. We have never seen it. I can't point to evolution and say: "Oh look, there it is." In this hypothetical scenario that I was setting up (I will address Dye's alternative later on in the post), which is all about how the clear presence of God through miracles threatens the freedom to choose to love God (which I have up until now call free will but wish I had not as it is a slightly wide burst kind of phrase for something as specific as what I was going for), you can see God at work. Scientists can not explain why diseases fail to hurt humans, why all these atoms and molecules that should make hurricanes and torandoes are stopped and why no accidents never seem to occur. I think in such a hypothetical scenario the presence of God would be more obvious to the common man than the presence of evolution - especially to those who can or do not read.

Imagining that at some point an intelligence was implied to be behind preserving human life, that would have lent more to a "Gaia" worldview than an estranged from physicality-god.

So in your scenario the world would exist in such a way as to make it so that scientists wouldn't even notice that such things as hurricanes could exist because in this hypothetical world God has made it so that natural disasters simply to do not occur. Tricky one I have to admit. We therefore have a God that is preserving human life. How far does this go? OK, hurricanes do not exist and nobody is suspicous. I can accept that. But what happens when a tree falls and kills somebody? Or something else falls on them? Would you still say that God could not exist because things like this happen? Must God, to prove his or her existence as a caring deity prevent all from premature death through accidental means? I am unconvinced that this Earth would not become somewhat heaven like and therefore both the ability to turn to God in a truly loving way and indeed the need to do so would be diminished.

Police stopping murderers from killing people does not stop free will.

I know the police exist whether they save my life or not. I can see them, hear them and occasionally smell them.

I'm sure everyone secretly knows this is because gods are as limited as imaginary friends, all of Jesus' focused godpowers won't move a paperclip 2 inches.

Sorry, please don't take this the wrong way, I think it might be wrongly matched to my quote, but I didn't understand where this statement came from and what you want me to answer/argue. Sorry, could you elaborate?

At any rate, even if we assume God of the bible and Christian theology is true, Satan proves that you can both know God exists and disobey.

I'm not neccessarily arguing from a traditional Christian view. I have regularly gone against traditional Christianity in most of its forms. I just wanted to stick up for the whole idea of spiritualism being relevent in these kinds of cases. In any case, Satan wasn't human. But I really don't think an argument about the Old Testament is going to help either of us.

Are you saying that failure to become independent (because we rely too much on God) stifles free will?

Yes, with some frills.

Since you define "free will" very narrowly as the ability to choose God freely, and to love God freely, you are essentially saying free will requires a leap of faith.

Yes I did. I was clumsily using "free will" in this case where perhaps another phrase would have been more useful. Yes, I am saying that free will, in the context of loving God, requires a leap of faith.

So what? Why is it not free will if someone uses reasoning / evidence instead of faith to love something - or as you put it, a child is swayed because his parents give him what he wants.

I am not of the belief that one can reason to a position of "love". I think if we only pay someone lip service because they do things for us then then that quite simply is not love. If I chose to love a God who everyday made sure I wasn't killed by some natural disaster and made sure the crops grew etc. etc. then am I really loving God as another being or am I loving what he is giving me? To draw a comparison, if I may, to relationships in terms of partners. Some will love each other, some may just have a sort of marriage of convinience based on the pleasure they can give each other in terms of material wealth or sex or even just avoiding loneliness. Now it is impossible for any of us to differentiate with certainty but do you agree that there are differences?

Why should you love something who does jack shit for you?

Well I am not sure how to reply to that due to the inaccruacies of the English language. If you meant "you" as in "The Guid" then I would answer that God has done things for me. If you meant "you" as in the "one" sense of the word I would argue that parents love their children when they do nothing for them, children later love their parents who an no longer do anything for them. Friends and family will sometimes support another person when there is nothing to be gained from it. It happens. Its love.

Whether I do so is irrelevant. The fact that you admit its possible to hate one's protector shows that someone can still choose freely despite knowing that 1) God exists 2) God gives one benefits

OK, I admitted that it was impossible but I maintain it highly unlikely and that some people will be swayed to love God because they want to feel safe. Especially if add fear to that equation. Love of God no longer becomes a thing of pure goodness, but a thing of pragmatism. Yes, one can still choose freely but that freedom for wont of a better term is comprimised.

In fact I could likewise argue that if God really wants people to "freely" love him, it would be in his best interest to not force / scare people into worshipping him, hence the decision (for the man who figures this out) to love him is still free.

I would argue that too.

Second point : since people who worship God do believe he exists with his " thunderbolt and what have you" (even with no evidence), why are you not applying that "are they worshipping God or his power" argument here? By your own logic free will is already compromised.

But I don't believe God caused this. God showed no actual sign of his power at any time in my opinion, just that people interpreted it as such. I am a wierd Christian to say the least, and was always viewed with a mixture of pity and suspicion at the Christian forum I went to.

2) Prove God is all mighty, since he needs to rest and can be stymied by iron chariots.

Prove that I am arguing from an Old Testament, fundamentalist, Christian standpoint. . He is in the realm of death and immortal, that's powerful enough for me.

I would respond to your post, if only I can understand what the hell you are trying to argue.

You (or someone else) argued that God showing his power in this world and such like was the equivilant to giving a kid some candy. I agreed that the child could still dislike what it is getting its treats on but is less likely to do so if the one that was giving the candy was actual an all powerful being - a being, that by some Christian denominations (I was referring to this because a lot of the arguments had seem to follow a Fundie line of logic and debunk it) can inflict an eternity of torment upon you.

Right... I need a sit down.

[Drooling Iguana]

I think it would be appropriate to post the story of the Twelve Officers here.

[The Original Nex]

When good things happen it's "God loves all!"

When bad things happen it's either "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is punishing the faithless."

Fundies are painfully predictable.

[Magnetic]

When good things happen it's "God loves all!"

When bad things happen it's either "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is punishing the faithless."

Fundies are painfully predictable.

Even though around 30 churches in my denomination either lost the whole church, or received damage, yet the French Quarter received only minimal damage.

[CaptJodan]

Even though around 30 churches in my denomination either lost the whole church, or received damage, yet the French Quarter received only minimal damage.

You know what that means, of course. You're just following the wrong denomination. Repent, heretic, repent!

[Spyder]

Well I'm a pagan myself (Yes I still owe the board a magic experiment I haven't forgotten folks. Just trying to work up one that'll hold under scrutiny).

ROFLOL! Paganism, these days that's like the teenage rebel religion for goths that are "too cool" for christianity. I place about as much stock in your ability to cast magic missile as I do the existance of body thetans.

[Magnetic]

Even though around 30 churches in my denomination either lost the whole church, or received damage, yet the French Quarter received only minimal damage.

You know what that means, of course. You're just following the wrong denomination. Repent, heretic, repent!

Well, crap.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Well I'm a pagan myself (Yes I still owe the board a magic experiment I haven't forgotten folks. Just trying to work up one that'll hold under scrutiny).

ROFLOL! Paganism, these days that's like the teenage rebel religion for goths that are "too cool" for christianity. I place about as much stock in your ability to cast magic missile as I do the existance of body thetans.

Hey please don't toss me in with Ravenwolf's little guild, your thinking of Wiccans. I run into those girls all the time. Knew one that claimed she could turn into a panther.

Oddly enougth she could never do it while I was around and I had to leave the room while she was in panther form. My lack of faith in Jesu... errrrr... the negative energy my doubts but out prevented her from shape shifting.

She also claimed she was burned at the stake in Salem by myself. That she was a Queen on Atlantis ect. ect. I kept wanting to drag her here and whatch the fun.

[Surlethe]

If I correctly see what you're trying to say, then you're missing the fact evidence does not compromise free will, as demonstrated time and time again by Creationist ignorance.

I think that is an unfair comparison. Evolution might be obvious to you or I because we have read about it from objective sources. We have never seen it. I can't point to evolution and say: "Oh look, there it is." In this hypothetical scenario that I was setting up (I will address Dye's alternative later on in the post), which is all about how the clear presence of God through miracles threatens the freedom to choose to love God (which I have up until now call free will but wish I had not as it is a slightly wide burst kind of phrase for something as specific as what I was going for), you can see God at work. Scientists can not explain why diseases fail to hurt humans, why all these atoms and molecules that should make hurricanes and torandoes are stopped and why no accidents never seem to occur. I think in such a hypothetical scenario the presence of God would be more obvious to the common man than the presence of evolution - especially to those who can or do not read.

That doesn't address the point I made regarding the clear fact evidence does not preclude free will. Furthermore, your expansion of free will into "freedom to love God" still fails to the same problem; evidence of an all-powerful, apparently benevolent being will not force people to believe in that being any more than evidence of evolution forces people to accept it.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Hey please don't toss me in with Ravenwolf's little guild, your thinking of Wiccans. I run into those girls all the time. Knew one that claimed she could turn into a panther.

Oddly enougth she could never do it while I was around and I had to leave the room while she was in panther form. My lack of faith in Jesu... errrrr... the negative energy my doubts but out prevented her from shape shifting.

Haven't you ever played Mage: The Ascension? Your disbelief is actually counter-magic to her magic.

[General Zod]

I think that is an unfair comparison. Evolution might be obvious to you or I because we have read about it from objective sources. We have never seen it. I can't point to evolution and say: "Oh look, there it is." In this hypothetical scenario that I was setting up (I will address Dye's alternative later on in the post), which is all about how the clear presence of God through miracles threatens the freedom to choose to love God (which I have up until now call free will but wish I had not as it is a slightly wide burst kind of phrase for something as specific as what I was going for), you can see God at work.

I just felt a need to address this particular bit of idiocy. Is it your stance that "If we can't directly see something in plain sight, it may as well not exist or be real?"

Scientists can not explain why diseases fail to hurt humans, why all these atoms and molecules that should make hurricanes and torandoes are stopped and why no accidents never seem to occur. I think in such a hypothetical scenario the presence of God would be more obvious to the common man than the presence of evolution - especially to those who can or do not read.

So what? Are you suggesting that because it can't explain why some things occur it's useless?

[Invictus ChiKen]

Haven't you ever played Mage: The Ascension? Your disbelief is actually counter-magic to her magic.

DOH! I forgot about that. See I use the GRUPS system.

Now I know why her numerous death spells never worked! Here I just thought she was a twit...

[DPDarkPrimus]

Now I know why her numerous death spells never worked!

Well, she could have failed her rolls... or maybe they were too vulgar in nature, so paradox smacked her around a bit.