"Wouldn't he be changing the 'good' to the better? You can't justify your statement."TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"If God has a reason for allowing pain and suffering, yet he has the power to change that reason in order to eliminate pain and suffering, then that reason is no longer good, is it?"
No, if God changes the good reason in order to eliminate pain and suffering, he would be changing what is already good. Does He need to do that?
-- Wouldn't he be changing the 'good' to the better? You can't justify your statement.
"Then, if pain and suffering is better before going to heaven, why have heaven at all? Just leave it as its is."
Because heaven after pain and suffering is better than no heaven after pain and suffering.
-- That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses.
"Isn't that what Jehovah's Witnesses believe? Temporary harm wouldn't be necessary for an all loving, all powerful, all knowing god. What you describe is a less than all loving, and all powerful god."
Well, then that would mean both you and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't logically correct.
--If you are right, then why does the NT imply god will heal the sick? Why would Jesus heal the infirm, if they are better off to suffer. Why is it better for some to suffer more than other? Why would you seek out medical care, if you are better off to suffer? Why would you try to improve your life at all, if you are better off in the afterlife for having immensely suffered in this life? Where is there any logic in your argument?
"Isn't it arrogant to presume the trials and tribulations of this life are preparing you for something better, especially when there is no objective evidence for making such claim. If there were a god, he/she may not be all loving."
Of course there is objective evidence, including but not limited to the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The objective evidence of the universe, the earth, life on earth, us humans and the unfathomable machinery that is the human body, and DNA the digital code to build it - all points to design and intelligence, a mind. You observe the same objective evidence, but come to a different conclusion (which involves a lot of denial, and a whole lot more faith, ironically).
-- There are no historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There are only stories of stories that were written down in final form centuries later from tales that began with at best third hand written reports. There is no evidence that any of Jesus followers wrote down any chronology or history of Jesus (most probably couldn't read or write). The evidence of reality reveals that the universe, earth, life and DNA etc. are all the products of physical processes that do not require, nor is there evidence of any behind the scenes shenanigans to account for anything. You're denying the evidence of reality to insert a non-evidentiary primitive people's supernatural being where one is not needed to explain anything.
The arrogance in your thinking is that you're putting your perspective on the same level as an all-knowing being, which, even if you don't believe in an all-knowing being, is logically absurd. The religious aren't doing that.
-- Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?
Your reasoning is that if the good reason can be changed to something better, then that original reason was not good; but since the reason IS good, by that reasoning there is no "better" that it can be changed to.
"That's not logical. All powerful god can make heaven better without pain and suffering if he chooses."
Not if having pain and suffering provides the BEST heaven.
"If you are right, then why does the NT imply god will heal the sick? Why would Jesus heal the infirm, if they are better off to suffer. Why is it better for some to suffer more than other? Why would you seek out medical care, if you are better off to suffer? Why would you try to improve your life at all, if you are better off in the afterlife for having immensely suffered in this life? Where is there any logic in your argument?"
The argument isn't that God makes every instance of harm into something good for eternal benefit, so that it's better to just let every instance of pain and suffering continue on, lest you cheat others or yourself out of that benefit. Rather, the argument is that God allowing suffering to exist would not be inconsistent with His love, if having suffering allows for a greater eternal benefit. This does not, however, preclude God from allowing or justifying earthly relief from suffering, or the pursuit thereof, within that framework, especially if it serves His purpose. In fact, that may be part of how the eternal benefit of suffering is ultimately realized in heaven. See John chapter 9 for an example.
"There are no historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There are only stories of stories that were written down in final form centuries later from tales that began with at best third hand written reports. There is no evidence that any of Jesus followers wrote down any chronology or history of Jesus (most probably couldn't read or write).
The gospels were either written by the disciples by which they were named, or by scribes who recorded directly their preachings, like Mark did for Peter. The apostle Paul, who claimed to have direct interaction with the resurrected Jesus, was a contemporary of the disciples and had direct interaction with them, preaching the same gospel they did, and his writings are dated to within twenty or so years from Jesus' death. Paul refers to Luke's gospel in his letters, so that puts the gospel of Luke at around the same time, or even earlier. Luke is considered by scholars to be a first rate historian, and being a contemporary he had access to the first hand witnesses of Jesus as he produced his gospel. In the prologue to his gospel, Luke writes, "Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The science of textual criticism has revealed that the New Testament we have today is near 99.5% textually pure, meaning what we have today is a faithful and accurate reproduction of the original writings.
So, yeah, there is good evidence that the gospels we have today are accurate historical testimonies.
The evidence of reality reveals that the universe, earth, life and DNA etc. are all the products of physical processes that do not require, nor is there evidence of any behind the scenes shenanigans to account for anything. You're denying the evidence of reality to insert a non-evidentiary primitive people's supernatural being where one is not needed to explain anything."
Believing that the universe, earth, us humans and our unfathomably complex body with it's millions, perhaps billions or trillions, of finely tuned processes all working in balance towards a state of homeostasis, and the digital code of DNA that can build it all from a single cell is merely the product of natural, random processes while denying any possibility that it's evidence of intelligent design is demonstrating one-dimensional thinking that higher thinking people have moved away from. It also demonstrates, ironically, a level of faith that might be even greater than that of the religious.
"Are you really telling me that it is not arrogant to believe in a sugar daddy that is ultimately going to take care of you, in order to make our plight in life more palatable, and for some easier to cope? How is it arrogance to observe the evidence of reality, and accept it for what it is?"
What you are describing about believiers is called hope, not arrogance. You observing reality and coming to your conclusions isn't the arrogance I'm referring to, it's your assumption that your understanding is at the level of an all-knowing God.
