• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,570

Riet

Tomcat Pilot
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
3,622
Location
Miramar, CA
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
If I was Adam I would have cast a stone at that snake.

Edit: Also it's quite clear that original sin isn't real, and that is infact just society that transfers it from one generation to the next. Children are born without shame, it is only once they start to grow older that they begin to realise that being naked and so forth is wrong. These are purely human concepts and in no way relate to eating an apple.

DINOSAURS?
 
Last edited:

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
After thinking about this question, I think it may be far deeper reaching in its consequences than you may have expected. Not only that, but there is a huge amount of background knowledge in Christian doctrine that goes into addressing such an issue. As well as this, it has been a debated (as if anything hasn't been) issue over the history of the church. I fear that I will raise more questions than I will answer. Nevertheless lets jump in and have a look at some of the issues we are dealing with.

I take it that the reason you have posed such a question (and inform me if I have assumed incorrectly) is essentially because of this problem, namely "how can God hold every person responsible for the original sin adam committed?" I will refer to this problem as [R] from here on to make referencing easier.

I have avoided taking your original question at face value because I don't think you really want to examine how it is possible (physical, spiritually or otherwise) for sin to be passed on. Such discussion would lead right into discussion of salvation and Jesus paying penalty for our sins. An interesting discussion to be sure (and also one I feel quite under qualified in tackling :p) but I don't think this is at the heart of what you are asking.

The Fall

As a Christian, it seems to me that I am tied to the belief in a historical fall. That is to say that Adams original sin was a historic event that occurred in real life at some point in the past. As you know of course, this original sin is what most theologians refer to when they talk of "the fall" - the fall from sinlessness into the sinful. Now at the time of the fall, we note that sinfulness wasn't just a meaningless inconsequential new name for human existence. It represented a real change - most notably death, awareness of objective morality and a pre-disposition toward sinful acts.

Now in addressing [R], we must ask what, if anything, are humans today responsible or affected by in regard to this original sin? Unquestionabley of course, is the fact of death and to a lesser extent, awareness of objective moral values. Certainly this shows that we are still affected by the fall, but does it implicate us in responsibility for it? That is, are we held responsible for the sin adam, a completely different person, committed however long ago? The reasons associated with answering this question will make much headway in answering [R]

Typically, proponents of the affirmative to this question will say that the total depravity of man entails that man is guilty and in need of redemption from birth. The best verse I could find in my light research for you was:

Psalms 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."

However, such an affirmative view and reading of scripture is not universal amongst Christians. Indeed, I find the waters quite murky. I find it quite reasonable to look at Psalm 58:3 as a reading of how we are affected by our pre-disposition toward sin and not as our involvement in sinful acts before birth.

...

So how does this help us with [R], that is:

"how can God hold every person responsible for the original sin adam committed?"

Under this admittedly brief overview of Adams original sin, it remains unclear whether God does hold us responsible for Adams sin at all. Certainly, we don't doubt that this original sin has affected us (death, awareness of moral values and pre-disposition toward sinful acts) but does that imply that we are guilty before any of our own personally sinful acts have taken place? Until I see a robust defense of Adams guilt implicating us in guilt, my instinct answers in the negative. That is, I don't see any good reason for even having to worry about [R]. It is not clear that God does pass on this default guilt state from generation to generation.

More than that, [R] is doubly irrelevant since I have committed sinful acts via my own volition. What good is being concerned about Adams sin, if I know that I have sinned - I am just as fallen as he ever was!
See, I'm not actually debating the Fall. I was making an assumption from the get-go that the Fall is to be acceptedat face-value in it's implications upon humanity. My actual problem is in the transmission of the blame for the Fall. This is not to be confused with the usual moral dilemma posed by atheists along the lines of "how is it moral to blame us for the actions of our ancestors?". I'm ignoring this problem for the meantime.
My dilemma is rather how this blame is literally transferred from parent to child if each soul is a seperate entity to the biological parent. It seems to entail a uinque paradox to me.

In my experience, most Christians I talk to seem to affirm this default state of guilt at birth although I am yet to find someone that would give a robust defense of this view. That's not to say that such a defense doesn't exist, only that I don't know of it. I point this out because most Christians also seem to affirm a view that if an infant is killed, they will go to heaven as they have some sort of innocence in that they are not able to make a free willed decision toward or away from God. Such a view seems contradictory to me. If a child is guilty of sin at birth (passed on from Adam) how can they be innocent in Gods eyes? Augustine seems to agree. Augustine believed that unless infants were baptized, they would be condemned to hell.
Hahaha It's funny how you mentioned Augustine, considering it is from him that I got the original dilemma. According to Russell, the Saint couldn't come up with a proper response to the problem I posed, and it troubled him for the remainder of his life. I was curious whether modern orthodoxy has a solution yet.

This question ties into the doctrine of creation fairly heavily. Opinions vary, but in my brief studies of the doctrine of creation, the issue of Gods conservation of the world come up fairly regularly. That is to say that God created the world (which includes all of reality) and is responsible for it being sustained moment by moment. Without his will to sustain his creation, it would cease to exist - it relies upon him for existence.
Curiously, I read this and immediately thought of ancient Greek mythology, specifically the stories relating to the Titan, Atlas, and his struggle.

What does this have to do with the issue? Well simply, that it seems that the christian who believes in Gods conservation of the world, is also tied to some sort of view of Gods concurrence with what goes on in the world. That is, how can God sustain the worlds existence without concurring and continuing the existence of certain actions within this world? How can someone commit murder unless God concurs with the physical actions of the blade and the response of the victims body? Is God an accessory to murder if he sustains the world in which murder is taking place? Similarly, your question asks: "For children born out of wedlock, would not God's actions in creating them make Him an accessory to adultery and bastardry?". How can God sustain the existence and growth of a child that was born out of sinful actions? Or even further, how could God sustain the existence of the act of adultery? What the theist wants to say here, is that God concurs with the physical properties of the world, but that does not entail the concurrence of moral values. The concurrence with morals would either defile God from being only good, or else would restrict free will in human persons. In most cases, neither of these is an acceptable outcome. Adding to that, I don't see any reason to think that God's concurrence with physical properties of the world implicates him in concurrence of the moral values of free agents within that world.
What I actually meant was entirely separate to the idea of free will and God's influence. I'm well-aware that orthodox Christian theology holds that God isn't to blame for murder or adultery, but I was also under the impression that the orthodox belief system holds that God is intimately involved in the creation of new human life, specifically with the creation of the soul.
My philosophical dilemma is that if he does in fact help to create the bastard babe within the mother's womb, would not that make him a supporter of bastardy through his direct influence upon the creation. This differs from views on murder or the original adultery (which I should not have mentioned in my original post) because those crimes simply follow the basic rules of physics which He established during Creation, and are not actively influenced by him in their inception. But the bastard is created through his direct hand.
You see my dilemma?

While I appreciate your humble gallantry, it should be made abundantly clear that I too am tainted by my own beliefs in some senses. Logic allows us to rise to common ground, but still, our experiences do impact many subconscious beliefs. Again, I would like to re-affirm my inadequacies in tackling topics such as these properly - I feel as though I should have a doctorate in theology. Nevertheless, it's all part of the learning experience eh? :)
Your inability for perfect objectiveness is precisely why I asked you though. Because I'm limited by my own opinions as to what explanation I can come up with, it's always refreshing to have someone else opinion upon an entirely theoretical subject.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
See, I'm not actually debating the Fall. I was making an assumption from the get-go that the Fall is to be acceptedat face-value in it's implications upon humanity. My actual problem is in the transmission of the blame for the Fall. This is not to be confused with the usual moral dilemma posed by atheists along the lines of "how is it moral to blame us for the actions of our ancestors?". I'm ignoring this problem for the meantime.
My dilemma is rather how this blame is literally transferred from parent to child if each soul is a seperate entity to the biological parent. It seems to entail a uinque paradox to me.
I think I understand your question a little further although if I miss the point, I will need you to clarify further :p

Essentially you are asking "How is the blame for Adams sin literally transferred from parent to child if each soul is a separate entity from that parent from which they came?". I will work from this definition of your question, so please modify your question if I'm off the mark.

In my last post I addressed whether I as a christian must believe that blame is passed from parent to child (and so from Adam's original sin to me). Depending on your definition of what "blame" includes, I can't see how such a view is necessary for the christian. I pointed this out because even at the outset, it renders our question irrelevant. That is, why should we worry about how blame could be transferred if blame isn't transferred at all? Nevertheless there probably is some worth in exploring the issue due to abundance of Christians that adhere to such a doctrine of original sin. Please again, note of my lack of knowledge and study in this area - I apologize in advance for anything incoherent.

As you have mentioned, there are some dilemmas and issues brought about by the Augustine doctrine of original sin. Augustine believed that sin was physically passed on from person to another person through sexual intercourse like a disease - effectively an STD. This sort of thinking is very far removed from current orthodox theology. I don't know of anyone that would assert that sex itself is responsible for the propagation and continuation of sin. Current thinking (as far as I am aware) views our sinful state as a condition of human persons, not as a disease which is transmitted from one being to the other. It is not transferred from one human to the other, it is part of what it now means to be a human person - that we are afflicted by sin from birth.

Now this has quite an impact on our original question. If sin is not transferred from one person to another but is now instead part of the nature of humanity, then the original question seems to lose even more of its relevancy. We no longer have to worry about how sin is transferred (since it isn't), we only have to worry about why we are implicated in this fallen state of humanity because of Adams original sin. I however, fear that I am on shaky ground in asserting such things - I would be appreciative of any comments that would highlight any unforseen consequences of such a view.

I have more in my mind to continue on with in exploration of this topic, but they may become irrelevant given what seems to be an answer to your question above. For brevity's sake I'll leave it there and wait for you to respond. :)


What I actually meant was entirely separate to the idea of free will and God's influence. I'm well-aware that orthodox Christian theology holds that God isn't to blame for murder or adultery, but I was also under the impression that the orthodox belief system holds that God is intimately involved in the creation of new human life, specifically with the creation of the soul.
I understand, but I think you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to address the fact that under the doctrine of creation, Gods concurrence entails that he is intimately involved with all physical aspects of the world just as much as he is with the creation of a soul. Just as God concurs with the creation of a bushfire via an arsonist, so he also concurs with the creation of a soul via adultery. Whilst he may not concur with the moral values behind those decisions, in maintaining freewill and it's implications he concurs with the physical (or immaterial in our case of souls) properties.

My philosophical dilemma is that if he does in fact help to create the bastard babe within the mother's womb, would not that make him a supporter of bastardy through his direct influence upon the creation. This differs from views on murder or the original adultery (which I should not have mentioned in my original post) because those crimes simply follow the basic rules of physics which He established during Creation, and are not actively influenced by him in their inception. But the bastard is created through his direct hand.
You see my dilemma?
Just to be clear, under Gods conservation of the world it becomes hard to remove Gods concurrence with physical properties of that world. Since God is intimately involved with the conservation of the world (since it's continued existence relies upon him), it follows that he is also intimately and actively involved in the concurrence of events within that world. Simply put, the laws of physics don't continue to exist only because of the way God set them up at the inception of the universe, but because God continually concurs with those laws via His conservation of the world.

The upshot of this is that God is just as actively involved in upholding the laws of physics as he is in the creation of a new soul.

Your inability for perfect objectiveness is precisely why I asked you though. Because I'm limited by my own opinions as to what explanation I can come up with, it's always refreshing to have someone else opinion upon an entirely theoretical subject.
I suppose you're right. In that case we are both indebted to each other for our varying world views :)
 

Omium

Knuckles
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
1,738
Location
Physics
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Simply put, the laws of physics don't continue to exist only because of the way God set them up at the inception of the universe, but because God continually concurs with those laws via His conservation of the world.

The upshot of this is that God is just as actively involved in upholding the laws of physics as he is in the creation of a new soul.
Your god is indecisive.

FFS tell him to decide whether light is particle or wave.

Your god also stuffed up Newtonian mechanics.

pfft.
 

Betty93

New Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
13
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
you dont need to prove god exists; its a test of faith, and a choice that is personal. :)
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,910
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
you dont need to prove god exists; its a test of faith,
If it's not a matter of proof, then why believe in Christianity? Why not Hinduism? It would appear that you only believe in Christianity because it's claims are favourable to you (ie. you want it to be true).


and a choice that is personal. :)
Then why the hell do so many Christians feel the need to force their views on everyone else?

I'm not talking about Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door here, I mean the way Christians feel the need to try to ban everything that they don't agree with or find offensive, even when it's something that is none of their business.
 

x.christina

I am actually a cat
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,810
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2016
Jesus this arguement is getting so lengthy I cbf to keep up with it.
 

XPac2

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
224
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
It's simple. If there was a god, there would have been no Victorian Bushfires, no Swine flu epidemic and no cancer.
 

x.christina

I am actually a cat
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,810
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2016
It's simple. If there was a god, there would have been no Victorian Bushfires, no Swine flu epidemic and no cancer.
You're the dumbest person on Earth, you know that?
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,910
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
Perhaps you would like to explain the part that serious illness plays in god's plan? <3
 

Tatecress14

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
57
Location
South of the sun, and south of the moon?
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
How did you arrive at the impression that the reason the bible was written was to be a god? I don't know of anyone that believes the bible itself is God. It is regarded as a description and story of Gods interaction with human kind.

I'm so confused...
Bible is an impression of a god.
I believe that we as humans are our own God.
As we create a natural feeling and belonging for something better and bigger then ourselves. example;
Define heaven? mysterious, wonderful, high above hell?
yes?

Taking a logical response to avail with a typical and extended general knowledge without any motional interactions.

Luke.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
I think Tatecress's avatar is ironic.

Human beings as our own Gods? What are the "implications" of that, if any?
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I think Tatecress's avatar is ironic.

Human beings as our own Gods? What are the "implications" of that, if any?
I think he's basically just reiterating the evolutionary precedent behind the invention of deities, except that he's taken it one step further and now apparently worships himself.
 

Tatecress14

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
57
Location
South of the sun, and south of the moon?
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I think Tatecress's avatar is ironic.

Human beings as our own Gods? What are the "implications" of that, if any?
Human beings as our own Gods?To answer questions.

Provide an answer for how we were created.
Provide an answer for the most common and inevitable fear: Death, even if it is not your own. The majority of people do not want to die.

Therefore if humans created an event, documented 'Bible' it helps to provide a positive outcome of overcoming death, and an imaginary or true hope for the answer.
hope of heaven; Living on after death.
hope of meeting the Almighty; creator of all.

Two implications of this.
Why else are religions made? there just different views on this, to answer questions.

Luke.
 
Last edited:

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
I'm going to assume for a moment that you are not trolling and try to actually delve into your logic a bit.

Bible is an impression of a god.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How is the bible an impression of a god? In what sense do you mean impression? Do mean to say that a god impressed himself upon the writers of the book or do you mean to say that the bible is one way of looking at a god? I'm put off by your phrasing here since you seem to imply that if that if something is an impression of a god, then that god exists in some form - yet you either deny this or propose that we are this God?

If it is the later, I must ask what it means to be a god if every person is one? Is god a synonym for human persons? Were the writers of the bible writing about themselves when they were describing god?

As we create a natural feeling and belonging for something better and bigger then ourselves. example;
Are you able to point out for me how us creating or experiencing feelings/belonging makes us Gods? This seems disconnected to you previous assertion that "we as humans are our own god". I assume that there must be some hidden implications that you have not described for us?


Define heaven? mysterious, wonderful, high above hell?
yes?
Well no, I would disagree with you. These are descriptions about heaven, they are not definitions. A definition will define what a words meaning is. Whilst all of these things you have listed could definitely be descriptions of heaven under various views, they do not define it. This could be a cause for your confusion. Heaven being "mysterious, wonderful, high above hell" does not mean that if something is "mysterious, wonderful, high above hell", it is heaven (apart from colloquial use of course).

Aside from this whole issue, your logic doesn't follow to your conclusion. What you are arguing is essentially this:

1. The bible is an impression of God
2. We create a natural feeling and belonging for something better and bigger then ourselves (eg. the creation of the idea of heaven)
3. Therefore we as humans are our own God

This logic doesn't follow though. There is nothing that connects your premises to your conclusion. If you're interested enough, I would recommend picking up a book on logic that will take you through some basic rules of logic and how to apply them to your own arguments. I did some googling but came up with nothing that would hit the mark. Any ideas Kfunk or anyone else?

As some help I've linked three of the most commonly used rules of deductive logic :)

modus ponens, modus tollens and hypothetical syllogism

Taking a logical response to avail with a typical and extended general knowledge without any motional interactions.
I don't know what you mean - I can't make coherent sense of this sentence. Could you rephrase or expand upon what you mean?
 
Last edited:

Tatecress14

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
57
Location
South of the sun, and south of the moon?
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
First of all, I’ll start simple. (All of this is in my point of view).
I'm not saying Jesus wasn't alive or isn’t the one true god,
I'm saying Jesus is merely a prophet like so many others back then. Single person’s belief that is shared by thousands, inspired to create a book of the beliefs and adventures of this particular prophet. Over the years the book has been past down, spread around and added to. Naming the book a bible is emphasizing that it is important. You could have just named it Jesus adventures?.

Since it has inspired us to create the bible, we took down the beliefs as important ones.
‘We could have just thrown it out’.
Enforcing and applying the bibles rules and guidelines, thus we have created ourselves a higher control; higher being. This can be changed in minor detail and adjusted to the common ethical beliefs of the age, as the bible has been changed over 9,000 times.
For we took down the beliefs we created a god,
We control the rules and guidelines therefore we are god.

The bible today follows around ethical beliefs.
People make their own decisions and outcomes.
The higher law and guidelines are controlled by governments.

“These are descriptions about heaven, they are not definitions.”

No.
Mysterious, wonderful, high above hell is also definitions of heaven, because no one alive has been there to make a definition.
So our descriptions become our definitions.

“I don't know what you mean - I can't make coherent sense of this sentence. Could you rephrase or expand upon what you mean?”

Well I’m not a priest or study religion as a major so I have a general knowledge over growing up in catholic schools and church.

Luke.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 7)

Top