Deity Existence

[Vasu]

I've already told you that you can by all means use the Bible as a moral compass if you really want to. But you don't have to believe in a deity for that.


BUMP/EDIT: My bro told me something interesting about how no true free will exists, because humans and their reactions are just the sum of whatever influences them. Interesting, but I'm not sure how far I agree with it.


BUMP/EDIT 2:

1. Yes, you are correct. I didnt have an answer, and still dont, simply because i dont know how God operates. That's not something any living being can really answer, so it's kinda an unfair question :/

As for malevolence, one could assume that a being at such a higher level as to be able to create all that exists would be interested in things much higher than we, and therefore not have need for greed, hate, etc.

Exactly. So you don't know he wants you to go to Church every Sunday, and wants to bless you. There is no indication that he wants us to do anything, and the Bible is completely baseless for assuming most of the things in there, since humans can't possibly understand what god wants from us

And once again, to the sacrifice of Christ, perhaps there are supernatural rules that God has created for himself to follow. It doesnt limit his omnipotence and omnicience, because it would be more of a choice to limit his powers than anything else.

Yes, so then he has actively chosen the option that will lead to bloodshed. Malevolence?

Also, i think i've come up with something; Perhaps the absolute truth lies partially in different religions. I mean, there ARE similarities between each different religion; i believe a Taoist friend of mine told me that they believe in a god's son being sacrificed; (i dont know the accuracy of this story as i havent researched it very deeply yet); Many Native American tribes believed in a Great Spirit, therefore suggesting monothesim. Perhaps there isnt one specific religion with all the answers, but instead each holds a valuble peice of the puzzle (excluding religions created on greed, and hate, such as the manson family, of course)

Perhaps it doesn't?

2. It got circular because the arguments had no deffinite endpoint and would circle back to repeated topics. Also, you cant simplify both stances since we were debating details in them. it would go like this:

A. I hold Stance 1, 3, and 5
B. I hold stance 2, 4, and 6

A. X and Y disprove stance 2
B. But S and T maneuver around X and Y
A. But C and D Disprove X and Y
B. But stance 4 can reprove stance 2
A. But stance 4 is flawed because of such and such
B. Not if stance two is taken into account.
A. But stance two is flawed because of X and Y.

i couldnt really make a good model for the thread, but you get my basic point...

No, actually I don't. There's a fallacy in the middle of that since stance 2 and stance 4 are interdependent.