quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Come on, you can come up with actual evil acts by God, can't you?

Or can you?

For example, show me where Scripture has God commanding (as you claim) the murder of innocent people.

---

Ex. 11:1-12:36

---

Ah. Plague on the Firstborn. Guilt of the parents, not God's fault.

Apparently you think there should not be consequences.

Odd, real scientists generally understand Causality.

---

What were the parents guilty of besides being, well, Egyptian?

---

Judging by the text, racism and support of slavery.

And I note your weak effort to bring up something I never implied, much less said.

---

People all over Egypt, including people who had probably never seen an Israelite?

Sure, that sounds fair.

---

You don't know even one thing more about ancient Egypt than I do. So forgive me if I am not impressed with your hubris.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TS, what do you think of Jesus? You have made it very clear numerous times what you don't think of Him. What do you think of Him?

---

That's a good question. It's hard to know. I can only speculate. If you want to give some credence to the stories about him from centuries later writings, I think you could speculate that he was influenced by the apocalyptical Jewish sects, and he believed in the then ancient concept of the 'golden rule.' He may have gone so far as to believe he was the 'Messiah.' His teachings, if accurately portrayed, were contrary to that of the Jewish god Yahweh. That is likely what got him crucified. He possibly suffered from some psychological disorders as well.

---

What are you saying is contrary to Yahweh?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TS, what do you think of Jesus? You have made it very clear numerous times what you don't think of Him. What do you think of Him?

---

That's a good question. It's hard to know. I can only speculate. If you want to give some credence to the stories about him from centuries later writings, I think you could speculate that he was influenced by the apocalyptical Jewish sects, and he believed in the then ancient concept of the 'golden rule.' He may have gone so far as to believe he was the 'Messiah.' His teachings, if accurately portrayed, were contrary to that of the Jewish god Yahweh. That is likely what got him crucified. He possibly suffered from some psychological disorders as well.

---

^^^ Friggin priceless, I love this thread

LMAO!!!

TexasScientist said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No Whitehead is not my god.

Process philosophy and theology as formulated by Alfred North Whitehead sees a world without a creator Biblical God.
Whitehead's metaphysics examines the universe of continuous change that is constantly coming into being by and through physics, chemistry and biology. Humankind responds to these phenomenon with decisions and becomes a part of the creative process of this ever changing universe.
May be I explain his concepts better here in these paragraphs.
So what about this Biblical creator God? That God creator God functions as analogy to the God - human relationship. Rightly understood the Biblical God informs us (we?) Christians of our infinite worth in God's eyes and in our our eyes towards all other humans. Later this in the bible this creator God reveals itself in love in Jesus Christ but not a classical theistic understanding. Again God in Jesus Christ is an analogy of infinite love and worth but not the miraculous or mysterious unknowable.

Texas Scientist wins out against classical theism but he desires not to involve himself the analogous process theology God.
He is still of infinite worth and love.

---

Here is your analogy: Sometimes when I flush, it leaves streaks.

---

How does a Christian respond to dialogue? I thank rational, critical thinking is the key.

---

Yes, we were having a discussion before you reintroduced your god Whitehead. I thought flushing was the polite thing to do.

---

A process theology posits a God of love not science.
A classical theology posits a God of both love and an all powerful God who can exercise that power if it wishes too.
The two notions simply cannot go together ask any parent who experiences the death of a child. All theodicy fails.

---

Why does God allowing a child to die necessarily mean that He is not loving?
Please explain.

---

Premise #1 God is all powerful
Premise #2 God is all loving
Premise #3 Evil exists
Conclusion: If a child dies then it is God's fault because God who had the power to stop it but did not.

Premise #2 God is all loving stands in contradiction to a God who is all power.
Love says let an innocent child live.
God did not use God's power to let the innocent child live.

---

So a child can spend eternity with God, starting now or, the child can live 60-90 years in a fallen world and maybe or maybe not choose to follow Christ? Your worldly mind sees the first option as evil.

While the death of a child is never easy for the parents, assuming Christianity is correct, how can it get any better for the child?

---

Little comfort to patents. They will blame God

---

Them blaming God doesn't mean he is not all loving.

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.

God is loving and God's presence is with this family but that love and presence is immaterial considering the premises.
I hope my premises accurately represent your position and if not how are not your theology.

---

As Christians we struggle to understand how God can be all knowing, all powerful, and yet all loving. For me, I know I am wholly incompetent to know the nature of God. I trust in the Loving Compassion of God, as evidenced in Christ. William Sloane Coffin, the longtime pastor of Riverside Church in NY, lost his son Alex, in a car accident at 24. In his sermon the following week, he said:
My own consolation lies in knowing that it was not the will of God that Alex die; that when the waves closed over the sinking car, God's heart was the first of all our hearts to break.

---

This is a mental exercise to rationalize what on its face is patently false - an all loving, all powerful, all knowing god. It's an attempt to hold on to a belief that one has been programed and reinforced to believe in, most likely since childhood.

---

First off, I agree with the observation that the world shows little evidence of a "loving god." Why I still believe in a loving God, you may dismiss as auto-suggestive neurotic compulsion on my part: it is an argument I face internally every day. I will admit the argument has been like a multi-decade chess match, with some wins, some losses, and quite a few draws along the way.

Far too few people, far to few Christians live a life of putting the concerns of those outside of our family/tribe before their own. For me, this calling--to love one another-- is what I believe in, what I cling to in my own, neurotic way.

---

Ok, I can appreciate that. That's why I embrace a humanistic application of the golden rule. Science, the history of religious belief, and logic render religion an archaic and unnecessary and even harmful human endeavor.

---

Judging from Christians here on this board you are right. But Christians who know presence and love God it makes them better persons in word and deed. You fight an archaic god of ob83, Dusty, Lib, etc. However their God is classic theism and a wrong theism. The church's theologians must reframe to a theism reflective of spiritual and process metaphysics.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No Whitehead is not my god.

Process philosophy and theology as formulated by Alfred North Whitehead sees a world without a creator Biblical God.
Whitehead's metaphysics examines the universe of continuous change that is constantly coming into being by and through physics, chemistry and biology. Humankind responds to these phenomenon with decisions and becomes a part of the creative process of this ever changing universe.
May be I explain his concepts better here in these paragraphs.
So what about this Biblical creator God? That God creator God functions as analogy to the God - human relationship. Rightly understood the Biblical God informs us (we?) Christians of our infinite worth in God's eyes and in our our eyes towards all other humans. Later this in the bible this creator God reveals itself in love in Jesus Christ but not a classical theistic understanding. Again God in Jesus Christ is an analogy of infinite love and worth but not the miraculous or mysterious unknowable.

Texas Scientist wins out against classical theism but he desires not to involve himself the analogous process theology God.
He is still of infinite worth and love.

---

Here is your analogy: Sometimes when I flush, it leaves streaks.

---

How does a Christian respond to dialogue? I thank rational, critical thinking is the key.

---

Yes, we were having a discussion before you reintroduced your god Whitehead. I thought flushing was the polite thing to do.

---

A process theology posits a God of love not science.
A classical theology posits a God of both love and an all powerful God who can exercise that power if it wishes too.
The two notions simply cannot go together ask any parent who experiences the death of a child. All theodicy fails.

---

Why does God allowing a child to die necessarily mean that He is not loving?
Please explain.

---

Premise #1 God is all powerful
Premise #2 God is all loving
Premise #3 Evil exists
Conclusion: If a child dies then it is God's fault because God who had the power to stop it but did not.

Premise #2 God is all loving stands in contradiction to a God who is all power.
Love says let an innocent child live.
God did not use God's power to let the innocent child live.

---

So a child can spend eternity with God, starting now or, the child can live 60-90 years in a fallen world and maybe or maybe not choose to follow Christ? Your worldly mind sees the first option as evil.

While the death of a child is never easy for the parents, assuming Christianity is correct, how can it get any better for the child?

---

Little comfort to patents. They will blame God

---

Them blaming God doesn't mean he is not all loving.

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.

God is loving and God's presence is with this family but that love and presence is immaterial considering the premises.
I hope my premises accurately represent your position and if not how are not your theology.

---

You do not speak for all parents. Your presumption is really extraordinary, especially as you keep doubling down.

---

My point is not to think for all parents but I am pointing to reasoning behind some parents. I would be interested in your thought about the premises and conclusions. Are each of them correct according to you.

---

Grief is not unbearable. It may feel that way at times, but faith does help people through it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No Whitehead is not my god.

Process philosophy and theology as formulated by Alfred North Whitehead sees a world without a creator Biblical God.
Whitehead's metaphysics examines the universe of continuous change that is constantly coming into being by and through physics, chemistry and biology. Humankind responds to these phenomenon with decisions and becomes a part of the creative process of this ever changing universe.
May be I explain his concepts better here in these paragraphs.
So what about this Biblical creator God? That God creator God functions as analogy to the God - human relationship. Rightly understood the Biblical God informs us (we?) Christians of our infinite worth in God's eyes and in our our eyes towards all other humans. Later this in the bible this creator God reveals itself in love in Jesus Christ but not a classical theistic understanding. Again God in Jesus Christ is an analogy of infinite love and worth but not the miraculous or mysterious unknowable.

Texas Scientist wins out against classical theism but he desires not to involve himself the analogous process theology God.
He is still of infinite worth and love.

---

Here is your analogy: Sometimes when I flush, it leaves streaks.

---

How does a Christian respond to dialogue? I thank rational, critical thinking is the key.

---

Yes, we were having a discussion before you reintroduced your god Whitehead. I thought flushing was the polite thing to do.

---

A process theology posits a God of love not science.
A classical theology posits a God of both love and an all powerful God who can exercise that power if it wishes too.
The two notions simply cannot go together ask any parent who experiences the death of a child. All theodicy fails.

---

Why does God allowing a child to die necessarily mean that He is not loving?
Please explain.

---

Premise #1 God is all powerful
Premise #2 God is all loving
Premise #3 Evil exists
Conclusion: If a child dies then it is God's fault because God who had the power to stop it but did not.

Premise #2 God is all loving stands in contradiction to a God who is all power.
Love says let an innocent child live.
God did not use God's power to let the innocent child live.

---

So a child can spend eternity with God, starting now or, the child can live 60-90 years in a fallen world and maybe or maybe not choose to follow Christ? Your worldly mind sees the first option as evil.

While the death of a child is never easy for the parents, assuming Christianity is correct, how can it get any better for the child?

---

Little comfort to patents. They will blame God

---

Them blaming God doesn't mean he is not all loving.

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.

God is loving and God's presence is with this family but that love and presence is immaterial considering the premises.
I hope my premises accurately represent your position and if not how are not your theology.

---

You do not speak for all parents. Your presumption is really extraordinary, especially as you keep doubling down.

---

My point is not to think for all parents but I am pointing to reasoning behind some parents. I would be interested in your thought about the premises and conclusions. Are each of them correct according to you.

---

Grief is not unbearable. It may feel that way at times, but faith does help people through it.

---

OK it's not unbearable and faith helps but I was pointing to the underlying reasoning of patents.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No Whitehead is not my god.

Process philosophy and theology as formulated by Alfred North Whitehead sees a world without a creator Biblical God.
Whitehead's metaphysics examines the universe of continuous change that is constantly coming into being by and through physics, chemistry and biology. Humankind responds to these phenomenon with decisions and becomes a part of the creative process of this ever changing universe.
May be I explain his concepts better here in these paragraphs.
So what about this Biblical creator God? That God creator God functions as analogy to the God - human relationship. Rightly understood the Biblical God informs us (we?) Christians of our infinite worth in God's eyes and in our our eyes towards all other humans. Later this in the bible this creator God reveals itself in love in Jesus Christ but not a classical theistic understanding. Again God in Jesus Christ is an analogy of infinite love and worth but not the miraculous or mysterious unknowable.

Texas Scientist wins out against classical theism but he desires not to involve himself the analogous process theology God.
He is still of infinite worth and love.

---

Here is your analogy: Sometimes when I flush, it leaves streaks.

---

How does a Christian respond to dialogue? I thank rational, critical thinking is the key.

---

Yes, we were having a discussion before you reintroduced your god Whitehead. I thought flushing was the polite thing to do.

---

A process theology posits a God of love not science.
A classical theology posits a God of both love and an all powerful God who can exercise that power if it wishes too.
The two notions simply cannot go together ask any parent who experiences the death of a child. All theodicy fails.

---

Why does God allowing a child to die necessarily mean that He is not loving?
Please explain.

---

Premise #1 God is all powerful
Premise #2 God is all loving
Premise #3 Evil exists
Conclusion: If a child dies then it is God's fault because God who had the power to stop it but did not.

Premise #2 God is all loving stands in contradiction to a God who is all power.
Love says let an innocent child live.
God did not use God's power to let the innocent child live.

---

So a child can spend eternity with God, starting now or, the child can live 60-90 years in a fallen world and maybe or maybe not choose to follow Christ? Your worldly mind sees the first option as evil.

While the death of a child is never easy for the parents, assuming Christianity is correct, how can it get any better for the child?

---

Little comfort to patents. They will blame God

---

Them blaming God doesn't mean he is not all loving.

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.

God is loving and God's presence is with this family but that love and presence is immaterial considering the premises.
I hope my premises accurately represent your position and if not how are not your theology.

---

You do not speak for all parents. Your presumption is really extraordinary, especially as you keep doubling down.

---

My point is not to think for all parents but I am pointing to reasoning behind some parents. I would be interested in your thought about the premises and conclusions. Are each of them correct according to you.

---

Grief is not unbearable. It may feel that way at times, but faith does help people through it.

---

OK it's not unbearable and faith helps but I was pointing to the underlying reasoning of patents.

---

The underlying debate is the same issue of theodicy that's been debated since the beginning of time. We can get into that if you want, but your point seems to be that it's somehow mooted or trumped by the inability of a parent's faith to survive the death of a child. That simply isn't true.

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Come on, you can come up with actual evil acts by God, can't you?

Or can you?

For example, show me where Scripture has God commanding (as you claim) the murder of innocent people.

---

Ex. 11:1-12:36

---

Ah. Plague on the Firstborn. Guilt of the parents, not God's fault.

Apparently you think there should not be consequences.

Odd, real scientists generally understand Causality.

---

What were the parents guilty of besides being, well, Egyptian?

---

Judging by the text, racism and support of slavery.

And I note your weak effort to bring up something I never implied, much less said.

---

People all over Egypt, including people who had probably never seen an Israelite?

Sure, that sounds fair.

---

You don't know even one thing more about ancient Egypt than I do. So forgive me if I am not impressed with your hubris.

---

Well, count me very impressed with your ability to dodge

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Come on, you can come up with actual evil acts by God, can't you?

Or can you?

For example, show me where Scripture has God commanding (as you claim) the murder of innocent people.

---

Ex. 11:1-12:36

---

Ah. Plague on the Firstborn. Guilt of the parents, not God's fault.

Apparently you think there should not be consequences.

Odd, real scientists generally understand Causality.

---

What were the parents guilty of besides being, well, Egyptian?

---

Judging by the text, racism and support of slavery.

And I note your weak effort to bring up something I never implied, much less said.

---

People all over Egypt, including people who had probably never seen an Israelite?

Sure, that sounds fair.

---

You don't know even one thing more about ancient Egypt than I do. So forgive me if I am not impressed with your hubris.

---

Well, count me very impressed with your ability to dodge

---

You are certainly experienced in dodging, quash.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Reading your post is often painful enough. They remind me to be humble, prayerful and empathetic.

PS. You just dodged the point of my post even though it wasn't originally directed at you.

Care to prove OB wrong on the dodge bit by addressing it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TS, what do you think of Jesus? You have made it very clear numerous times what you don't think of Him. What do you think of Him?

---

That's a good question. It's hard to know. I can only speculate. If you want to give some credence to the stories about him from centuries later writings, I think you could speculate that he was influenced by the apocalyptical Jewish sects, and he believed in the then ancient concept of the 'golden rule.' He may have gone so far as to believe he was the 'Messiah.' His teachings, if accurately portrayed, were contrary to that of the Jewish god Yahweh. That is likely what got him crucified. He possibly suffered from some psychological disorders as well.

---

What are you saying is contrary to Yahweh?

---

As advocated in the NT, His purported teachings of essentially the 'golden rule' ran contrary to the Jewish law, and contrary to Yahweh's character as depicted in the OT.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

Your first argument is somewhat circular - suffering has value because it teaches us to cope with suffering.

The second argument nails it - suffering has value because it brings us closer to God.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Reading your post is often painful enough. They remind me to be humble, prayerful and empathetic.

PS. You just dodged the point of my post even though it wasn't originally directed at you.

Care to prove OB wrong on the dodge bit by addressing it?

---

If it wasn't aimed at me then it doesn't need to be dodged.

Instead, I was making a different point but that appears to have overloaded you. Learn your lesson, no worship required.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain and suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

---

Weak effort, quash. Using your own rules, what scientific instrument proves you love your children or your spouse? What machine can tell you who will tell the truth no matter what the cost to them? What tool can you use to identify which infant in a ward will be the most selfless or generous as an adult?

You cannot depend on tech to address human qualities, and it's absurd to try to deny the reality of human qualities simply because you want to ignore them.

My wife had a pain monitor when our daughter was born, but while that monitor can tell how much pain she was in, it could not apply the context of childbirth to that occasion. So someone might falsely equate childbirth to a physical assault because of the comparable pain levels, missing the meaning behind each type of pain.

Having a soul becomes evident not just in terms of physical suffering, such as physical pain, hunger, or fatigue, but also in shame, fear, hope, elation and despair, or dozens of genuine emotional events..

Comprehension of the event's context is also critical. Just because I was excited to see Baylor win a national championship in men's basketball, should not confuse people into thinking that event was the same as my wedding day, or my daughter's graduation. Mere scale of excitement does not define depth, after all.

Shall I go on?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.

---

It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.

---

They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

Quote:

---

"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?

"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.

Quote:

---

"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.

---

Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?

Quote:

---

"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.

"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.

---

In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.

---

The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.

If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.

Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.

I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.

---

You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.

Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.

---

Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.

And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.

---

Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.

I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.

If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.

So what's the name of your religion?

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

---

Weak effort, quash. Using your own rules, what scientific instrument proves you love your children or your spouse? What machine can tell you who will tell the truth no matter what the cost to them? What tool can you use to identify which infant in a ward will be the most selfless or generous as an adult?

You cannot depend on tech to address human qualities, and it's absurd to try to deny the reality of human qualities simply because you want to ignore them.

My wife had a pain monitor when our daughter was born, but while that monitor can tell how much pain she was in, it could not apply the context of childbirth to that occasion. So someone might falsely equate childbirth to a physical assault because of the comparable pain levels, missing the meaning behind each type of pain.

Having a soul becomes evident not just in terms of physical suffering, such as physical pain, hunger, or fatigue, but also in shame, fear, hope, elation and despair, or dozens of genuine emotional events..

Comprehension of the event's context is also critical. Just because I was excited to see Baylor win a national championship in men's basketball, should not confuse people into thinking that event was the same as my wedding day, or my daughter's graduation. Mere scale of excitement does not define depth, after all.

Shall I go on?

---

Yes, go on until you provide evidence. So far, not so much.

My body produces feelings of pain and emotions. Those processes are pretty well understood and all have a basis in the material world. Souls are wishful thinking.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

---

Weak effort, quash. Using your own rules, what scientific instrument proves you love your children or your spouse? What machine can tell you who will tell the truth no matter what the cost to them? What tool can you use to identify which infant in a ward will be the most selfless or generous as an adult?

You cannot depend on tech to address human qualities, and it's absurd to try to deny the reality of human qualities simply because you want to ignore them.

My wife had a pain monitor when our daughter was born, but while that monitor can tell how much pain she was in, it could not apply the context of childbirth to that occasion. So someone might falsely equate childbirth to a physical assault because of the comparable pain levels, missing the meaning behind each type of pain.

Having a soul becomes evident not just in terms of physical suffering, such as physical pain, hunger, or fatigue, but also in shame, fear, hope, elation and despair, or dozens of genuine emotional events..

Comprehension of the event's context is also critical. Just because I was excited to see Baylor win a national championship in men's basketball, should not confuse people into thinking that event was the same as my wedding day, or my daughter's graduation. Mere scale of excitement does not define depth, after all.

Shall I go on?

---

Yes, go on until you provide evidence. So far, not so much.

My body produces feelings of pain and emotions. Those processes are pretty well understood and all have a basis in the material world. Souls are wishful thinking.

---

Wow, so you just plan to ignore everything I said.

Even TS will admit that the lab has no value in human conditions.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

---

Weak effort, quash. Using your own rules, what scientific instrument proves you love your children or your spouse? What machine can tell you who will tell the truth no matter what the cost to them? What tool can you use to identify which infant in a ward will be the most selfless or generous as an adult?

You cannot depend on tech to address human qualities, and it's absurd to try to deny the reality of human qualities simply because you want to ignore them.

My wife had a pain monitor when our daughter was born, but while that monitor can tell how much pain she was in, it could not apply the context of childbirth to that occasion. So someone might falsely equate childbirth to a physical assault because of the comparable pain levels, missing the meaning behind each type of pain.

Having a soul becomes evident not just in terms of physical suffering, such as physical pain, hunger, or fatigue, but also in shame, fear, hope, elation and despair, or dozens of genuine emotional events..

Comprehension of the event's context is also critical. Just because I was excited to see Baylor win a national championship in men's basketball, should not confuse people into thinking that event was the same as my wedding day, or my daughter's graduation. Mere scale of excitement does not define depth, after all.

Shall I go on?

---

My body produces feelings of pain and emotions. Those processes are pretty well understood and all have a basis in the material world. Souls are wishful thinking.

---

I'm not so sure about that. We understand processes that are associated with cognition, but we don't really know what consciousness is or why we perceive ourselves as having free will.

---

I'm surprised solipsism has not been raised yet ...

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Reading your post is often painful enough. They remind me to be humble, prayerful and empathetic.

PS. You just dodged the point of my post even though it wasn't originally directed at you.

Care to prove OB wrong on the dodge bit by addressing it?

---

If it wasn't aimed at me then it doesn't need to be dodged.

Instead, I was making a different point but that appears to have overloaded you. Learn your lesson, no worship required.

---

So your point was that you can be snide. We already knew that.

In other news, it's still September.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Excellent demonstration of how to be an ass in print, quash.

You are in rare form today!

---

Did I offend your soul? Because you don't have one.

---

Lying does not improve your quality of argument, quash.

---

Your lack of evidence is showing again.

We experience the world through our sense organs. Which organ tells you that you have a soul? Where is it located? Is it solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter? Where did it come from where did it go?

---

Weak effort, quash. Using your own rules, what scientific instrument proves you love your children or your spouse? What machine can tell you who will tell the truth no matter what the cost to them? What tool can you use to identify which infant in a ward will be the most selfless or generous as an adult?

You cannot depend on tech to address human qualities, and it's absurd to try to deny the reality of human qualities simply because you want to ignore them.

My wife had a pain monitor when our daughter was born, but while that monitor can tell how much pain she was in, it could not apply the context of childbirth to that occasion. So someone might falsely equate childbirth to a physical assault because of the comparable pain levels, missing the meaning behind each type of pain.

Having a soul becomes evident not just in terms of physical suffering, such as physical pain, hunger, or fatigue, but also in shame, fear, hope, elation and despair, or dozens of genuine emotional events..

Comprehension of the event's context is also critical. Just because I was excited to see Baylor win a national championship in men's basketball, should not confuse people into thinking that event was the same as my wedding day, or my daughter's graduation. Mere scale of excitement does not define depth, after all.

Shall I go on?

---

Yes, go on until you provide evidence. So far, not so much.

My body produces feelings of pain and emotions. Those processes are pretty well understood and all have a basis in the material world. Souls are wishful thinking.

---

Wow, so you just plan to ignore everything I said.

Even TS will admit that the lab has no value in human conditions.

---

I addressed your point by noting the physical basis for what you claim as proof of a soul. That is not ignoring everything you said.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premises #1 In your theology God is all knowing.
Premise #2 You also believe God's creates us and in this case this child who.
Premise #3 God had the power to change around molecules and save the child
Premise #4 God knew when God created the child that he was going die and bring suffering not only to the child but unbearable grief to the parents.
Parental Conclusion .; God is cruel.
Are my premises correct for your God Dusty, Lib, etc

---

Pastor Greg Laurie lost a son unexpectedly. As a result, he has been able better understand the pain that other grieving parents are going through. He has been able to do this while still having a good grasp of the gospel, of pain and suffering, and of how God sometimes works in our lives.

Do you believe Christ was wrong for not healing Lazarus but allowing him to die? Think of the suffering of his sisters. Also, think of those who came to know Jesus as the Messiah as a result of this event.

Tell me again how nothing good comes from suffering.

---

What type of suffering based lesson do you need to learn? I'll come afflict you with the appropriate pain and won't even demand that you worship me or else go to hell.

---

Reading your post is often painful enough. They remind me to be humble, prayerful and empathetic.

PS. You just dodged the point of my post even though it wasn't originally directed at you.

Care to prove OB wrong on the dodge bit by addressing it?

---

If it wasn't aimed at me then it doesn't need to be dodged.

Instead, I was making a different point but that appears to have overloaded you. Learn your lesson, no worship required.

---

So your point was that you can be snide. We already knew that.

In other news, it's still September.

---

I'm not being snide, my point is that enduring suffering on behalf of a deity to learn a lesson doesn't require worship. Or a deity.

Try addressing what I say without getting defensive.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tex said:

---

You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?

---

If you believe that all there is in reality is the physical universe, then the movement of all atoms and molecules, which determines all physiology including that in the brain (thus determining all psychology) are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing more. Do you not believe this? Do you believe there is something external to the physical universe that can influence it?

---

When atoms come together and form life that living being can exert an influence on the matter around him. When it is done consciously it happens as choice. There is a continuum of mental ability with a rising degree of free will.

---

Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?

---

Using your brain.