So what then did God create the world for?
I've read lots of instances where people have been all to eager to shed blood because it's what God told them to do (at least that's what they have said).
Seems like you are very good at saying "God didn't create the world for this or that," but not very good at saying what he DID create the world for.
So why did God create us in a way that would make it nearly impossible for us to do what he wants for us?
That sounds like a logical fallacy to me. Argument from incredulity.
I think what you see as a puzzle is only the difficulty faced when trying to make to incompatible explanations forthe same evidence without contradicting each other.
I'd say that's a big IF.
You are, of course, entitled to have those beliefs, what you've said has not been anywhere near enough to convince me that your position is correct.
Thanks. No, I didn't even begin to think to convince you. In fact, in cases where people too easily nod their heads, I usually feel like they just wish I'd hurry up and shut up. Others seem genuine in agreeing but in the end it didn't sink in, I think --reminds me of another student when I was in college studying trigonometry, and he just could not get it. But one night he came over all excited and showed me his book and explained how it worked --and he understood. The next day, after he had come down from his high, he failed the exam.
I have often felt like if I was to be criticized for the very thing I accused others of, it would be a just accusation. I am a hypocrite. But I find I cannot deny certain things. Other things I admit I love because they appeal to me, but I can find no reason not to believe them. Other things are a combination, but they fit both reason and scripture. And I have the same problem most people have, they love 'the sound of their own voices (thoughts, etc)
We all like to think we are saying something that aptly describes truth.
By experience, Scripture has shown itself reliable, though, as you have said, there is a lot of fallacy to my reasoning --confirmation bias, argument from excitement (one of my favorites, lol), argument from incredulity and a lot of others. Mere assertion seems to be a bad habit for everyone. Almost every time I read a 'proof' someone has put up, (Christian or otherwise), the presuppositions that start it off seem to me to be mere assertions. Too often, they start off with IF, but by the time they reach the conclusion, somehow the conclusion is no longer dependent on IF, but on SINCE. The conclusion is considered fact, instead of simply a logical conclusion IF the premise is true. I
What was begun as a premise became an assertion. They think that if the logic rings true, the premise must have merit. (That's a bit like saying that Newtonian Physics is correct, and preaching it as the truth, only to find much later that Quantum Mechanics is more apt in describing things, and even fills some of the intellectually uncomfortable quandries in Newtonian physics. I'm pretty sure the time will come when we see neither was quite right, though both are useful.) And to go along with all that is the bad habit of assuming that definition is explanation, and sometimes even proof. Aaargh!
Anyhow, all that to tell you I agree with you about much of my thinking. But to be honest, I think we all are like that more than we realize. Even the famous logicians and philosophers.
To your other questions and comments: Yes, people have been all to eager to shed blood. Apparently, what seems to me designed for sober correction of the public (stoning, public flogging, etc) became old news and people hardened themselves. Not entirely to be unexpected, I guess. My goodness, look nowadays at the horrors that tomorrow are forgotten. Nobody wants to open Congress' closets.
You asked what did God make us (all this?) for. (I'm sorry if I have not explained this. I don't remember well to whUpi om I've said what, and I don't like to say certain important things wrong. I try to lead up to them sometimes and then forget what I was leading up to. (Lol, I find myself thankful that has always been a problem so that I don't have to blame it on age!))
He made humanity specifically (and yes this is from the Bible, but it is not contradicted by reason.). for a particular reason, and in my theology, he made some for one purpose and some for another. The one he made for his particular purpose of showing mercy, though they did not deserve it (Grace) and the rest he made to show his nature (justice, purity, authority, power) --I.e. his Glory. These deservedly go to 'hell' as part of that demonstration. But he is not just showing off. He is making those to whom he is showing mercy, into his particular people, to be with him and enjoy him forever --to see him as he is, in a way that even the angels are unable --the angels were not "made in his image". So it is for his chosen ones, and for his own Glory, that he made all this.
You say, "I think what you see as a puzzle is only the difficulty faced when trying to make to incompatible explanations for the same evidence without contradicting each other" --I agree there are times that is so, but that too is an assertion. Often I have found that two things considered incompatible are not after all. But you know this, I imagine.
You say, "I'd say that's a big IF." Of course it is! Lack of acceptable empirical evidence is no proof of non-existence. But belief in what doesn't pretend to be subject to material principles is not something that empiricism know how to assess. Being convinced of such is not going to happen that way. Nor was it ever meant to be. Just for starters, you might want to consider a phrase: "Omnipotence cannot be limited to form"
Sorry for going on so long. I hope you haven't drifted off, like most seem to do when I talk.
