This is a view that allows for an ultimately good and all-powerful God while still having suffering in the world, I grant you that. But I just don't know why I should believe that.
It's a more plausible argument than God is evil because their is suffering in the world.
It's definitely true that we're not fully equipped to understand something like God, just like we're not equipped to really grasp things like quantum physics or multiple dimensions. We may reason our way into discovering them, but we'll never be able to really fathom them.
Our comprehension is limited in both the physical and metaphysical, but it's the foundations upon which we reason where we must begin, and so fundamentally we must understand that all things are built on faith.
But I imagine and omnipotent God wouldn't be in any way limited to having to do things in a certain way for us to understand something. I think it's reasonable to assume that he could've made us smarter instead (or more like himself, if you will).
Funny you should say that because according to scripture, He did make us exactly like Himself in Character. Moreover the creation is still unfolding, meaning He's not done. What we see in the energy of time and space is probably only an instant to God.
Sure, but that's assuming there is such a thing as pure and impure heart. I suppose you mean that in a supernatural sense. In which case I can't really know whether or not it's true.
Oh yeah, there is a such thing. Pure/impure of heart is just a spiritual terminology used to articulate certain personality differences. Fundamentally all things are built upon faith. The pure of heart are therefore trusting and they will project that trust. The impure of heart are not trusting and they will project distrust. This of course is a dichotomy with varying degrees of trust/distrust.
I don't get what you're saying here. If my son has been shoplifting candy, I will WANT to believe him when he says he hasn't. But the chocolate spots around his mouth may still make me conclude that he's not trustworthy.
Let's keep in mind that we're talking about trusting someone who it is claimed died on a cross to save everyone, and whether this person is trustworthy.
The wanting to believe I am talking about would therefore only apply to that which has some level of uncertainty. Your example of wanting to believe in your son is not applicable since you begin by already stating "my son has been shoplifting candy" which is therefore already for certain.
So let's use your example without the foregone conclusion that he is shoplifting, and say he might have shoplifted candy but we don't know. Let's begin by understanding that Faith can only apply to something good, something hoped for, which is why you would want to believe your son is not shoplifting. But if things
were not built on faith, then your son would be presumed guilty and have to prove his innocence. As you probably know the burden is on the accuser to prove a negative, rather than the accused be required to disprove slander. But if people had to disprove slander for others not to believe it, then people who could not prove their innocence would be punished as guilty all for the sake of an unproved accusation. That is unfaith, distrust from an impure heart. That is the power of darkness which leads to insanity, and that is why a sound reasoning is built on faith.
So if you want to believe that he died to save the world, you have a pure heart. But if you would prefer to believe something negative about him, then you are under the power of darkness.
This light you're talking about, is it something supernatural? If so, again I'm just not convinced that there is such a thing. But maybe you're talking about the feeling of hope or sort of warm feeling I can get when I imagine something good, and then the empty feeling when you snap out of it.
No it's not supernatural, and yes I am talking about the feeling of hope.
I don't understand. People can give their life for whatever reason, people can be insane or indoctrinated and think they have to sacrifice themselves to save humanity.
Yes, but this man was foretold of as the sacrificial lamb of God who must be sacrificed by those in charge of the temple in Jerusalem and for the New Testament to come. It's not like I am just accepting a belief uncritically.
He may have believed that with all his heart, and it may be true. But whatever reason he had to believe it, I don't.
As I said, it's about what you want to believe that shows one's faith. Scripture says that only God can bring a person to Christ and I believe that too. He has His reasons for everything. I'm just explaining what and why I believe. Scripture says that someday every knee shall bow and so I am only doing my small part concerning the Gospel.
And still, one can find perfect peace, contentment, love, joy, freedom and hope, even without believing there is a God or that the universe has any inherent purpose. When I was a Christian I assumed that anyone talking like that must be deluded, or not really having experienced the love of God like I had. But from my standpoint now, it just shows that all these things are very much in our heads, and I think that's awesome in every sense of the word.
Hmmm. You should realize by now that I believe that God is Love/empathy. So imagine how it sounds to me when you say you can find perfect peace, contentment, love, joy, freedom, and hope without believing there is a God who created the universe with a purpose. We all live for empathy/God Whom without, there can be no joy, freedom, peace, contentment or hope. Love defines all of the emotions those terms express just as Light disperses into many colors.
And you're right, it's not hard to see the dog eat dog world, all the suffering. I mean, even if you exclude humans, nature is so extremely brutal that I can't imagine why a God would make it so if he was concerned with minimizing suffering. No sentient being escapes suffering, and they suffer seemingly at random. There's no telling why a particular dog should be infested with parasites, or indeed why parasites should exist at all.
The more I look at nature, the less reasonable an omnipotent and caring god seems to me. Natural selection, the randomness of the universe and theory of evolution offers a much more likely explanation. Even things like religiosity appears to be adequately explained by evolution.
What happened to "This is a view that allows for an ultimately good and all-powerful God while still having suffering in the world, I grant you that."...?
There's a big difference between God and religiosity, just as there is a difference between religion and empathy. And actually, the universe is not random. Processes become more predictable.
But you also said you don't see how God could've done it differently than by allowing evil and suffering.
Yes but that is to show the course of unfaith. Truth does not need a lie to exist anymore than faith needs unfaith. The eternal is not dependent upon the temporal but the temporal is dependent upon the eternal.
I'm sorry, I don't see how the fact that truth precedes falsehood means that God must be good. Why couldn't God be evil.
Because God made all things He defines what is truth, and truth is not what is evil. A lie is evil. Truth is a positive and the lie is a negative.
