₦airaland Forum

Agnostics, like many other people, have indeed said that God has no interest in us, if it exists. This is a secondary claim, and you can only properly deal with it after you have established that there is a knowable God. You can't know that God is interested in you if you don't know what God is.

Do you have an explanation of "uncaused" that makes it possible for man to know what happened outside time?

Yes, the Bible says God exists everywhere, by default. The issue is, when you are faced with an entity claiming to be God, how do you check for or confirm its omnipresence?

I'll just ignore the Bible quotes.

malvisguy212:
I have read many agnostics claimed here on nairaland,many say God,if he exist will not or abandoned his creatures,this is not the only thread I've open concerning agnostics and I made the same comment which no one deny. Infacte in your explanation of "God is uncaused" your explanation indicate that it is impossible for man to know what happened outside time. science cannot make measurements outside this universe.
The op do not say God is a christian God, God create ALL creatures and give them the power of choice and the purpose of God creating human, is for us to love him or reject him, without this choice no one can claimed he love God, hence the freewill and many other religion. most of you explanation of the nature of God is way out of line, you say God is omnipresent in this case human has to be everywhere to make this claimed, is this how the bible defined the omnipresent of God? No, God must exist in more than three dimensions of space and one dimension of time The Bible says the universe cannot contain God indicating He must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined.

malvisguy212:
are you an agnostic? You can show me were I miss the point!

You missed the mark everywhere, tbh. I can only address the first two paragraphs however, which fortunately contain the major errors.

The agnostic claim that God cannot be known borders on the means through which we can obtain knowledge of God. You didn't address that in your OP. You focused instead on asking why God wouldn't want to reveal himself. Skirting past the fact that you left your questions unanswered, I'm happy to point out that the agnostic claim is not affected by any supposed desire by God to reveal himself. Imagine that God is by definition invisible. Would any degree of longing on his part make us able to see him?

There is the over arching agnostic claim that it is impossible to have certainty, given that we can only attempt to confirm one subjective experience by another subjective experience.

There is also the claim that involves that nature of the alleged God. For this, we have to define "God". Being a christian, I guess your definition of "God" is an uncaused, eternal, transcendent, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent entity (among other attributes). To know that such a God exists, you have to know that it has each of those attributes, since you can't claim to know such a God if you're not sure it has all of those attributes. Let's then try to see how we can know if it has some of these attributes.

God is uncaused. In order to know that something has no cause, you have to somehow be able to observe that no events have taken place before the thing or that it could not have been the result of any event before it. It may be a failure of imagination on my part, but I don't see how you can obtain that kind of information.

God is infinite. You cannot know that an actual thing is infinite, since you will forever be on your way to finding out.

God is omnipotent. You might observe a demonstration of super human power, but you could not observe power over everything since you don't even know what constitutes "everything", to begin with.

God is omniscient. Unless you are omniscient yourself, you could not even guess, with any respectable accuracy, where any supposed limit to what God knows would lie.

God is omnipresent. You have to be everywhere and meet God all over the place to make this claim.

God is omnibenevolent. Cue omnipotence paradox.

What it boils down to is that we have limited knowledge and we can't purport to know that a being has attributes of a scope which is beyond the limits of our knowledge. Christians sometimes acknowledge this when they say that it is impossible to know or understand the extent of God, or when they speak of faith.

Given that it is these things which constitute the "extent" of God that also make up his essence (if he had them to a normal extent he wouldn't be God), I think it is not possible to know God if you cannot know or understand his extent.

You have expended so much energy in missing the mark.

I don't need Jesus = DIE. I'm surprised the 4 billion+ non Christians (especially the Jews) on the planet have not been killed by Jesus.

Magician is another way of saying "Pastor".

Orunto:
by your denial, you are mocking THE ONE THAT EXISTS

Lol. As if you don't also exist.

Would you consider it mockery if an ant failed to acknowledge your existence?

How is it mockery to deny that something exists? What would one be mocking?

You'll know what it really means soon enough. Good luck.

There are astronauts who don't believe in God.

Is the bible KJV, NLT, GN, Gideons or RSV? Some models have factory defect and may return false positive, so we have to know which model was used.

Scholar8200:
The website quoted (and others available on the net) can be consulted as regards the highlighted.

I'm consulting you.

I am glad you indicated that it was your perception although the passage made no reference to the sun circuiting the earth.

That it is my perception is superfluous. The issue is whose perception is correct. There isn't any reference to the Milky Way galaxy either, anyway.

David as the Inspired psalmist used that term. The fact that he used the plural-ends and not end- shows the vastness of the place being referred to.(The diameter of the Milky way, around the centre of which the sun moves, is given as 100,000 light years)

You no sabi english sha. Please refer to a dictionary for the meaning of "ends". Confirm that it actually means extremes.

You are using an arbitrary standard to determine that David was inspired and Joshua wasn't. It is strange that a man needs inspiration (from God) to praise God but does not need inspiration to ask that celestial bodies comply with his requests. What you are doing is what is known as cherry picking.

Therefore you have conveniently ignored the concluding part of David's song where he says that nothing is hidden from the heat of the sun. If you hadn't, you'd have to also explain how a man who does not know that there are things that do not feel the heat of the sun is able to know what a galaxy is or that the sun orbits one.

The recent discovery of the sun's movement in the Milky way (confirming the quote in the psalms made some milleniums ago) is credited to the website quoted and a host of others available on the net.

You are yet to explain how you settled on the Milky Way as your "ends of the heavens".

Scholar8200:
Biblical events, among other things, comprise records of historicaal dealings of God with man.

The bible reports Joshua asking the sun to stand still. The bible then reports the sun standing still. It's not just the utterances of Joshua that show a motionless sun.

Perhaps the person reporting the story also didn't have any idea of a solar system. If neither Joshua nor the reporter have any idea of the solar system, we can't impute any knowledge of a solar system to the bible based on that story.

Moving on to the claim in your OP, given that it is also an utterance by David who cannot be expected to have as much as a remotely correct knowledge of astronomy, it is obviously as incorrect as the utterance by Joshua.

To my mind, the reference to a "circuit" is a reference to the Sun circuiting the earth. More importantly, there is no where you can call the "ends of the heavens", if the "heavens" refers to the rest of the universe other than the earth. You probably say otherwise, so I invite you to explain why you've decided that of all places, the Milky Way galaxy - which is roughly in the middle of nowhere - is the "ends of the heavens" that David (not the bible) speaks of.

Scholar8200:
Could you specify the question evaded by my last reply? You alleged that the moon was not mentioned and I quoted the verse in question where it was pointed out that the moon also stood still.

finofaya:
Tell me how a bible that obtains more daylight by stopping the revolution of the sun around the earth could have known that the sun actually revolves around the centre of a galaxy.

There it is.

If the Bible is inspired by God, there can be no excuses for any errors it contains. Stop telling me about the writers of the Bible, unless God is not the writer.

You seem to be giving yourself a lot of leeway with your interpretations of biblical events. Even the mention of the moon in the verse does not justify assuming that every other thing stayed still. You see, the Bible does not know what a solar system is, much less how to make one stand still.

Scholar8200:
. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. .. . in the midst of heaven,." (Joshua 10:13). This verse states that the Sun and moon stood still. If you look at the fact that these are part of a system[comprising interdependent components], then it is only reasonable that the entire system had to halt for the petition to be answered.
It's possible that the person who made the petition did not have perfect knowledge of exactly how it happened being unlearned(we can pardon the primitive idea of the petitioner being a liberated slave involved in about 40years wandering in the wilderness.). Even the author of the Psalm quoted might not have understood what he said under inspiration. Also event happened a number of millenia b4 the AD period. However, the intricacies of how it actually happened is as explained.

You're being evasive, like you don't have the answers and you hope the question will just leave eventually.

Scholar8200:
There is but I wont digress this thread on that.

Well, the thread has called into question the extent of the bible's knowledge of the universe. I don't think it'll be a digression to state where the bible mentioned things we can't see in the sky with an unaided eye.

First, neither the passage nor the website links the movement of the sun to day and night.

I don't understand you. There is a claim that the sun stood still and the result was more hours of daylight, which can only mean that the movement of the sun is responsible for day and night. What else would you have us believe it means?

Secondly, I believe the implication of the passage you quoted implies that there was a halt in the entire solar system (if we would be logical): since both the sun and moon stood still. Hence I am sure the earth too was involved since it's part of the solar system.

Dude, you're clutching at straws here. The report is simply that the sun stood still. No mention of the moon, or the earth or the solar system. The movement of the moon doesn't even have any effect on sunlight, so its not logical that the moon also stood still in order to guarantee uninterrupted sunlight. Similarly, unless the sun revolves around the earth, it is not logical for the sun to stand still in order to guarantee uninterrupted sunlight.

Try again. Tell me how a bible that obtains more daylight by stopping the revolution of the sun around the earth could have known that the sun actually revolves around the centre of a galaxy.

There is no mention in the bible of any celestial object that is not visible with the naked eye from earth. The Bible appears to be quite oblivious to the existence of everything in the universe that does not fall into that category. Accordingly, there is a story in it where the Sun is alleged to have ceased all motion and thus provided up to 24 continuous hours of sunlight at a single location, the sun being assumed to revolve around the earth.

Reconcile the above with your OP.

BraveGuy:
I don't think I share any common belief with the Roman Catholics, even though they claim to believe in Jesus. But then, the Bible says, even devils believe in God and tremble.

So, I just saw that and decided to correct the misconception.

Peace.

Lol. Peace.

You need to take that up with Catholics. My hand no dey inside again.

Tailors should take note and start putting large zippers on female skirts and trousers. Maybe using y-fronts or boxers will make it even more handy.

Well, the husband was willing to give his life for his wife's so I guess she wanted to give him what he asked for. He can't give his life for hers if she refuses to kill him and she winds up dead as a result.

91%. Despite my many hours in catechism I'm only just finding out that the bread and wine weren't symbols of flesh and blood. They are supposed to be actual flesh and blood! I got that Jewish Sabbath question wrong too, and the one about Jonathan Edwards. Christians should be the highest scorers on the quiz, given the high number of Christianity based questions in it.

ihedinobi2:
My friend, justice is about giving to everyone what they deserve, their exact due, nothing more and nothing less. It is neither a rehabilitation system nor a punitive measure. Under justice, if you take a life you must give back a life. If you steal two naira you must give back two naira. The time that you are punished is when you cannot give back what you took. At that time, you must suffer the loss or inconvenience that you caused. Let us not confuse matters here, please.

We can hardly settle that question unless we agree on what justice and mercy both are.

You need to read up on the topic of justice.

We don't have to be in exact agreement about what justice is. Like I said earlier, different people, like the both of us, have different ideas about it. What we need is a working definition, or to simply state how justice should be achieved for each scenario we consider.

I already explained. I said that a world where humans have and exercise free will and where there is also no pain and suffering is one where humans have learned to use their free will toward good and not evil. Therefore, a world such as the one we live in would necessarily precede it.

No. You see, you haven't stated the necessity of this knowledge of how not to use free will. Why is it so necessary that even God cannot dispense with it? You didn't really explain how almighty God could not simply cause his underlings to know either, without having them experience the fiasco first. You also haven't taken into account the existence of gratuitious evil.

Affect? I said that logic is what we use to establish the consistency of ideas with reality. And reality can be normally good or normally evil. When you examine ideas logically in a good world, you would be attempting to establish that they agree with all that is good. The converse is also true assuming that evil even permits argument and examination.

Good and evil are value judgments. Logic precedes value judgments. Good world or evil world, logic will always precede a value judgment. In the interest of clarity, could you use an example, perhaps the law of non contradiction, to demonstrate the "agreement with all that is good"?

Sunnystooth:
And that includes christians that make
derogatory remarks on the Muslim God, right?
And the Gods of other religions of the world,
huh? Or it's only yours that is the right one? I see.

You must've misunderstood me. I certainly don't understand you.

ihedinobi2:
Explain then to me how it is just to rehabilitate a criminal. Say, someone raped and murdered someone else's daughter, how is justice served by rehabilitating him?

The idea behind rehabilitation is the same as that behind punishment, which the the prevention of misconduct. It is just to prevent misconduct. In a case where a life has been taken, and the possibility of restitution is doubtful, as a result of which it is decided not to take another life in return, the owner of the life which has been spared has to undergo rehabilitation of some sort. In such a case, rehabilitation is a veritable means of achieving justice.

We seem to have gone off at a tangent here, as we are supposed to be considering whether mercy and justice are possible at the same time and in the same case.

Omnipotence has nothing to do with wanting such a world. God would want that world if it suits his nature to want it. Omnipotence has nothing to do with it.

True. Omnipotence alone says nothing about the goodness or otherwise of the created world. I had taken it for granted that we were discussing an omnibenevolent deity. Please just assume that it is the case that the deity is also omnibenevolent.

What makes you think he didn't or isn't creating it? My argument has been that God IS creating such a world.

Okay. I guess you explain how when you tell me about logic and good and evil.

You want me to reply a statement I don't understand?

You don't understand it? Really? We'll get to it soon anyway.

Logic is the tool with which we establish consistency between ideas and actual reality. Good and evil are issues of the nature of reality.

I'm still at a loss here. Could you give an example of how good or evil affect logic?

If you ever made a derogatory remark about the Gods of other religions, you should start putting your affairs in order.

malvisguy212:
agnostics? The opposite of Good is evil, and this thing cannot exist on his own, the points I am making is,"it's lead to a supernatural being" thank you.

Agnostic, yes. I hope that's okay.

I understand you, and I'm saying that all of that is based on the assumption that there is a good, powerful, prescient God. For example, I could argue that:

God cannot exist alongside good.

Good exists.

Therefore, God does not exist.

You can see that the existence of evil doesn't have to point to God. It all depends on what assumptions we make beforehand.

malvisguy212

The objection raised by problem of evil is not aimed at the existence of God generally, but at the existence of an all powerful, all good, all knowing God. You can't use the existence of evil to attack atheism, which is the denial of the existence of more than just the all everything God. As a proof, you've done a sub par job. Back to the drawing board!

ihedinobi2:
I get the "No". I don't get the "Yes".

Yes, to everything. I believe that justice encompasses all the above, that no one is to the exclusion of the other.

The answer is that he can.

Would you say that omnipotent God wants such a world? If yes, what stopped it from creating one or is stopping it from creating one right now?

I confess to being a little lost. My undeveloped answer to what? I don't see a question here. Unless you mean the answer that I gave above. In which case, I would ask you to go on and develop your argument.

I said free will must be misused for as long as hell exists. You said I should go and develop what I have said. I was asking if you could just go ahead and give a reply, instead of waiting for development. At least, I imagine, what I said is complete enough to be replied.

Ok. Logic itself is merely about consistency of ideas with reality, I think. And God decides what reality is. So if God had been a cold, wicked reality, all he would produce (although the idea that he would produce or create anything is a very unlikelihood) would strain toward coldness, cruelty, wickedness. Laws would approximate toward wickedness. Sentiments would lean toward wickedness as well. Evil would be right and good would be the aberration. Logic here would prefer evil. If we argued (another real absurdity) in such a world, what would be logical would be whatever is consistent with evil.

If God, on the other hand, is good, he would create a good world. And all reality and logic would approximate to goodness as well.

Do you agree so far?

I don't quite understand. What do good and evil have to do with logic?

ihedinobi2:
Are you disagreeing with the definition you presented for "justice"? Does justice mean to right wrongs or does it mean to rehabilitate wrongdoers, deter wrongdoing or encourage right-doing?

No. Yes.

Please repeat that question again.

The question is whether an omnipotent God cannot create a world without pain and suffering.

I'm not sure if you are still looking for a meaningful conversation. I am answering your assertion about the continued misuse of free will. I told you at the beginning that in World A where humans have both free will and a world free of pain and suffering, they must know what the misuse of free will results in. Now you say that I'm making assumptions in answer to why humans still misuse their free will. I offered an argument. It is up to you to counter it successfully.

At some point you should develop that interesting argument you just made about hell. But I suggest we come to some clear understanding about your "paradox" of God's omnipotence and the existence of pain and suffering.

The assumptions in your position are that knowledge of the consequences of the misuse of free will is indispensable, that testimony will not suffice as "knowledge", and that experience will suffice instead but only after a period of time. There are others relating to the Christian tradition but since we're already assuming that God exists I won't dwell much on them.

Allowing all the assumptions, I said hell damages your case. Gimme your undeveloped answer anyhow, before we get to the point where I develop my interesting argument.

It's a fair question.

Lol. You know it's fairness is not the issue.

ihedinobi2:
In other words, justice is about giving to each their due, right? It is not a system of rehabilitation or a measure primarily for deterrence. Now, what is the due of a thief?

Under our Nigerian criminal code, justice in cases of theft is achieved by imprisonment ranging from life to 2 years with option of fine, depending on the severity. The court might order restitution, or you might have to go to a civil court for that. The judge can't go above or below this range, however much he might want to, because we can't apply our varying individual ideas of what amounts to justice in each case. There has to be some sort of standard, which is what I thought you were setting in your example.

Considering what the discussion is in the first place and my stated position, you could not have seriously asked me for an example of a situation I consider impossible. The way I saw it, YOU proposed an example of God creating something outside of his power. And I countered with an attempt to explain the "something outside of his power".

You've gotten part of the question. So far you've left out whether things could not have been/can not be done differently. I find the current state of affairs sub optimal for a certain type of God. Of course you don't think it is.

As for people currently misusing free will, I say again, God is guiding humanity toward the world and existence where we don't misuse our power of choice.

That is explained by the concept of eternity. If life does not end here, then "here" is a journey to "somewhere". In Christian tradition, we are looking forward to a world where humans do not misuse their free will. And that world will come through the lessons we are learning today about the terrible results of misusing it.

That's all fine and good. All of this is based on assumptions which we haven't discussed yet. Even at that, if you believe that hell as a place of eternal suffering exists, then you can't have a world where humans or agents don't misuse their free will.

Are you tired of thinking?

Save time. Make your point. Unless you have to wait for my answers in order to construct your point.

ihedinobi2:
No I am not.

I think we can settle that very easily. What does justice as a concept in itself mean? If we agree on that then we can agree on when it has been achieved in any particular scenario.

From Merriam-Webster: justice is "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

And I answered essentially that you were wrong. And proceeded to offer you a way to see how God's omnipotence and the existence of pain and suffering can be concurrent. You have not done a good job of critiquing that perspective yet.

You have missed the point again. My question is whether there is an example in practice of an omnipotent God creating something outside his power. Remember, the thread is about God creating a task he can't perform. I wanted to know whether God cannot now create a world without the pain and suffering.

Your answer that God created this world as it is in order to show humans what the misuse of free will causes and thereby prevent their misuse of it is obviously wrong, given that people are currently misusing free will.

Of course, humans could learn in more ways than one, is what you essentially said. And I told you that experience is how we learn. That was my assertion which you disputed. That is why I said 'you disagreed'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'neither can attain the goal of preventing the misuse of free will'. Did you miss where I showed you how learning experimentally eliminates the misuse of free will?

I must have missed it. Haven't you noticed how the misuse of free will has not been eliminated?

Indeed. God decides what reality and what is logically consistent is. He could have built any kind of world. But would that not depend on what kind of person he is, to put it simply? God's nature decides what his creation will be like, does it not?

This is your only real attempt so far to answer my question. Go ahead and make your point, don't delay by asking me questions.