On whether God should come down and settle it: If the consequences for not believing or not understanding him is eternal Hellfire, then he absolutely should come down and should be expected to do so. Otherwise he's immoral.
Immoral by what standard? There has to be some objective way of measuring if neglecting to come down is objectively and absolutely immoral. Who cares if it’s only relative. It’s immoral in our society, sure, but with subjective morality that may not be the case in other cultures.
@@Migler1Objective morality is only really possible from a religious perspective, so we would have to argue that it would be immoral from the perspective of God if we wanted to say that God not showing himself is objectively immoral. This would mean that we would have to argue that God would condemn his own actions, which he wouldn't, so God not showing himself cannot be objectively immoral because no action God does or does not do can possibly be anything other than perfectly moral, as he is the sole arbiter of morality in the religious worldview.
In the example about the argument in the courtroom: what if the judge asked each to describe the parent and the descriptions do not match? Would they assume the parent exists, or would they consider then that one or both parties’ perception of the parent, or the parent’s very existence, could be inaccurate?
Believing in bad ideas, bad. Believing in Good Ideas, Good. Figuring out the good and bad requires empathy and logic. Reason matters when thinking is in the room.
Even IF there was one religion that got it right, what usually happens? Schisms! All religions divide up and divide up again. Very strange behavior for a true religion to do.
An omniscient, omnipotent being will *always* succeed perfectly at doing anything they wish to do. A reasonable way to resolve the clear religious & theological confusion is that clearly communicating truth about itself wasn't the real goal of God. It must have been secondary to other goal(s) that it be definition must have accomplished by sheer virtue of willing it to be so. I'm just playing God's advocate; I'm agnostic to whether some version of a God exists, & as close to disbelief as I allow myself (for anything) regarding the Biblical God. & apatheistic in attitude. It's just interesting to think about, not something I particularly care about one way or the other, even if true.
The whole analogy about kids and a parent is like many theists arguments. I our experience every child we know of had a parent. God's create predominantly non life so better ask what we would need to prove a mountains parent in court. As far as the Christian argument God sent down a son and the son was killed by one group of humans. Then the son rose and we never killed him again. But he is still gone. Not to mention that God used to, according to the bible, interact with us in concrete ways. No more. Seemingly, possibly coincidentally, no interactions have happened since we have the ability to record and analyze things much better.
Well, since people like to believe they are on the right side of the velvet rope, having scores of denominations lets them hold that belief and still be theists.
Hey Alex, one question. What is your definition of god? According to Oxford Languages, with the first definitions provided: God is defined as “(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority” Creator is defined as “a person or thing that brings something into existence” Universe is defined as “all existing matter and space considered as a whole” Based on the previous information, God has a contradictory definition. That’s because “the creator of the universe” indicates that “of the” is denoting that the universe already was (existed). That conclusion makes this clause true: The universe is before god. If you have an issue, please respond.
@@gabrielmaximianobielkael3115 (Oxford Languages) Of: “expressing the relationship between a part and a whole” The: “denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge” For example, the apple is of the tree. The tree is before the apple. Would you say that the tree is of the apple?The is denoting the previous subject to be after its following subject.
@@camden666 That reply is an argument, which is contradictory to the following statement: To read this comment, there must be definitions for each word written.
@@_Brilliant_ here, this "of" is not expressing a relationship between part and whole, like "an apple is of the tree" but it is expressing a relationship of cause and effect. However, I personally think it still is sort of a contradiction. Because, since God created the universe (all natural world), he is timeless, and he sees the universe as an eternal reality, without time (which in this case, would be something only limited beings like us perceive). But this "eternal universe" would eliminate the very reason for why God is necessary in the first place; if the universe is eternal, it doesn't need a cause
"Why won't the God/parent just provide clarity?" Have you read the Old Testament or had children? The entire history is God giving his chosen people very clear instructions and they repeatedly disobey. It's almost a running joke. Then you have kids and you realize, "oh now I get it."
Ehh no, The bible Jesus didn't come to form a religion. Its you guys who decided to create a religion of Christianity out of him. All your Bible Jesus did was to say "follow me"
