"...There may never be another opportunity
For me to hear what you never intended to say."
This is what we must remember.
So this God loved the earth pretty much enough to send hurricane Katrina to invade Louisiana and sent an earthquake to destroy Haiti.What would he do if he had loathed the earth?
You may not know this, especially if this is your first visit to my blog, but I lived through Katrina. I lived in New Orleans. I went to college in New Orleans. I evacuated to a hotel room 100 miles away. I didn't know where the rest of my family was. I saw the destruction of the city I was born in, reared in, learned in, LIVED in.Now God has used nature to bring punishment unto man-kind in the past, but all that comes from the Lord is good. God has brought grace from Haiti. Haiti a country in desperation and poverty since its conception! Haiti, a country literally adjacent to the Dominican Republic--a prosperous land. Haiti, forgotten and neglected, now has a spotlight on its people. The world is funding its revival. The world is determined not to allow it to become what it once was, but to propel it into prosperity and success. The Lord used this tragic natural disaster and created a supernatural healing, a supernatural gathering of the world! Amen!It is true God does not always change your circumstances. He does not always poof your problems away, but my God is a big God--who can move mountains, part seas, count the stars, and He sends that strength to all those to surrender to Him. He strengthens His followers so they may overcome their obstacles and then glorify Him in their victory.For I can do all things in God who strengthens me. If the Lord loathed the Earth, He would destroy the Earth. In fact the anthropomorphism of the Lord, giving him human emotions, will, volition, is a human thing to assign to Him. His love is above reason, and His wrath is above all imagination.
SO he has to kill hundred thousands of people and bring millions of other people sorrow to have Haiti rebuilt? Can't he do so without blood? If these things are punishment why do they usually happen to southern states, Religious states, and not to northern state, less religious states, ?
"If these things are punishment why do they usually happen to southern states, Religious states, and not to northern state, less religious states, ?"What do u mean by "things"? I'll assume you mean natural disasters...Well to clear up the North vs South argument first: The North has been hit with record destructive blizzards this year. There are avalanches in places of large amounts of snow, in the North.Mount St. Helens resides in the pacific northwest.Tell someone whose home has been destroyed by a tornado...thank goodness you weren't in the South! Those religious down there get it so much worse. We have different weather. Those nearer the hotter water receive terrible storms. It is nature. Just like the desert receives no water. When one dies of thirst in the wasteland must we blame God???1st argument second: SO he has to kill hundred thousands of people and bring millions of other people sorrow to have Haiti rebuilt? Can't he do so without blood? The universe is set into motion. It follows rules of mathematics with the occasional anomaly. It is an incredible masterpiece of mathematics and science. Brilliantly created, the world is.Now when a storm is brewing in the ocean and the trajectory of this storm can be accurately predicted through mathematics, this is not something out of the scope of human understanding. If there happens to be a country that is located within that trajectory we can only stand to assume the great probability of its being hit by that storm.The Lord DOES have the power to intervene. He has the power to save, to heal, to rescue, but he can chose NOT to intervene. His intentions are not for me to understand, but what I do know is that only greater good will come out of his actions to step in or stay out. What looks like an unfixable tragedy now is only but a small step in the time of God. He has greater plans for us than we can know or have for ourselves. When tragedies occur it becomes the best opportunity to surrender to the will of God. For only He can know our lives and our potential. And the lives and potential of those thousands of years to come.
I decided not to argue with anyone about God etc. but I did :-( Such Arguments are worthless. However as you said and I guess you believe natural disasters have scientific reasons and not theological proofs and that's how I think it is and my answer to my own "southern states northern states" question was scientific from the beginning.If Biblical system was right I would expect a poor disastrous Europe, a miserable Washington State and a rich happy Alabama, Mississippi. A wealthy Latin America. Oh and by the way let's have a bite of facts: 80% of Haitians are Catholics and 16% Protestant! which means 84% Christian, Amen!
I should probably clarify that in my first response when I said God has used nature to bring punishment onto mankind in the past, I just wanted it stated so that it wouldn't come back to me as an oversight. I do not believe that all natural disasters are punishments from the Lord. But if they were it would be to bring about the kingdom, is all. Now, I didn't say God sent Katrina to LA and the earthquake to Haiti.... you did in your original comment. And I responded as such. You reiterated your original argument in your second comment,"SO he has to kill hundred thousands of people and bring millions of other people sorrow to have Haiti rebuilt" I never thought that those disasters came from God--more so than a natural occurrence. In fact, in a previous post I wrote about the presence of God through tragedies. & his ability to take negative and create positive. I think that the secular nature of the North vs the South is a cultural and regional result. And the socio-economical differences between the N and S are historical-- stemming from post-civil war times. The people of God(biblical), were rescued by the Lord so many times in their journey to the promise land. They-more than anyone on Earth- had most cause to believe in the power of God. And because of this responsibility to trust and have faith in a Lord who has already shown himself countless times in large ways, their doubt and distrust in His promise to deliver them was punished greater than any others on Earth. --Whats this have to do with today? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.I don't think this argument was worthless. I actually love debating theology.
"Now God has used nature to bring punishment unto man-kind in the past, but all that comes from the Lord is good.God has brought grace from Haiti. Haiti a country in desperation and poverty since its conception! "Oh well you said this and my response was based on this. I also believe the secular north and religious south have historical and cultural reasons and not metaphysical the same thing true for their economies. But I expect an active God (not a deistic one) to make differences and for instance show people that those religious people in Haiti have better lives than those irreligious ones in Denmark. I'm not demanding it to be so. I'm just saying if God is that much present why can't I see those positive differences that religion is expected to bring to religious societies and secular societies lacking them. (I'm not talking about personal affections of religion.)Philosophically I'm agnostic, Generally Atheist but not really willing to declare it everywhere or shouting it loudly!So why am I saying it here because nobody knows me :P
God doesn't have to stop a hurricane or settle an earthquake to show His faithfulness. Sometimes the earthquakes in our lives show us how vulnerable we are and how much we need supernatural strength to get through them.I married an atheist. He's a God-fearing, Jesus freak now. it only took 4 years and a lot of truth!I never had a problem with faith, but my husband is an awesome person to talk to because he gathered faith from a faithless position. It didn't make sense to him. It seemed farfetched. It seemed cruel. He refused to believe in a God that allowed bad things to happen. He owns every book under the sun about atheism from the likes of Joseph Campbell and others. he's an engineer, and his mind is purely scientific and mathematical. And it wasn't until he found a brilliant, scientific theologian that he was able to concede just a little bit--at first.Here's an article by Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5949 Now I'm not conceding either. Its just that I think we've hit a stand still. from here i'll start repeating myself. I just think that God is not in the business of making everything honkey dorey for everyone. I think he's a God that demands to be feared and respected. And his omniscience is unfathomable. Like I said in my previous response... it is the faithful that harbor the most responsibility.
How did you think atheist are before marrying your husband?
Well I can understand someone believing in a different god. Or not believing in my Judeo-Christian God... then we can debate anthropology, historical evidence.. yadda yadda yadda... But a person who doesn't believe in a creator at all, I found dumbfounding. and I have to admit--frustrating.I think that a creator is the basest of all observations. I mean if you see a painting you know there was once a painter. If you see a sculpture, it must have been sculpted by a sculptor. Bridge=engineer... so on and so forth. But to observe creation itself and not believe in a creator. I didn't know how to reason with someone like that. I'm not a judgmental person really, and I've had times of little faith in my life. I've questioned both my faith and my religion. I studied all kinds of other paradigms... some really sketchy ones in high school. But i made it full circle. I think if you give it enough energy, the Lord will present himself to you. but one thing I have learned is that you find what you're looking for.... If you're searching for God, you WILL find him. But if you're searching for godlessness, you will find that too.
My view of the world is very different from yours and we can't think like each other. It's up to you to call the world "created" and then demand a creator for it. A Human observes a bridge and then concludes there should be a creator aka an engineer who created this bridge. Same thing for a painting and so on. Is that need for creator logically or by custom? The answer is by custom, it's the result of observing many bridges before who had a creator and then concluding that every bridge has a creator. This argument isn't logically sufficient. It's just the power of custom.
That is not custom. That is logic. My argument is based on Physics 101: cause and effect. Give me your evidence toward effects with no causes. ie: paintings with no painters, books without authors, bridges with no builders. And I'll give you evidence toward God being the ultimate cause.
Cause and effect is based on Custom.This is called Hume's skepticism. He says every time when you felt warm you saw a fire near you and then you made a cause & effect relation out of it so that in the future if you feel warm again you conclude there's a fire near you and that's called custom. Plus I can see a tree fallen into a river and say there should be an engineer for this bridge but there actually have been a storm last night and this tree was so weak that the wind brought it down.
"Plus I can see a tree fallen into a river and say there should be an engineer for this bridge but there actually have been a storm last night and this tree was so weak that the wind brought it down."I asked for evidence of effects without causes, and instead you gave an example of a cause and effect situation.Cause: storm and/or strong wind and/or weak treeEffect: fallen tree.Now you can argue using Hume's skepticism that just because the storm or wind or weakness of tree were associated closely with the fallen tree, it does not prove that any of those variables were the cause of its falling. You would have to prove the probability of its falling at that exact moment without those variables present... using physics and the scientific method. I'm using the scientific method, which in itself cannot be proven by the scientific method... which brings me closer to the assumption that not even science can prove its own existence, which leads me to continue on to think that science itself is a creation--an effect. JMPost Script: I am completely aware of Hume's skepticism, I am also aware of many other philosophers' theories on causality including Kant, who refutes Hume's skepticism. But I've not seen these philosophies since college. I'll keep reviewing my logic, epistemology, and metaphysics notes.
Kant's philosophy doesn't work with a scientific mind and he never refutes Hume's skepticism. It depends on us which system we think is valid. If Kant's system is yours then Hume's skepticism doesn't work for you. I'm not going to give example of a situation that cause and effect doesn't apply. I'm saying cause and effect is custom and there's no logical argument which necessary says something happened in the past will happen exactly the same in the future. And that means if there is such "Cause and Effect" in a situation it doesn't necessarily follow that a "cause and effect" situation will happen in the future.My example of fallen tree was exactly showing Hume's argument. Cause and Effect: Bridge needs an engineer. That tree works as a bridge therefor there should be an engineer but there isn't.I go feed a chicken everyday. Me: Cause Food: Effect.The poor chicken is very smart and finds out about this cause and effect relation and the next time I come (Cause) the chicken thinks I'm going to feed it (Effect) but no I'm going to kill her and eat it this time. (Cause and Effect relation was a custom and failed to give it the correct answer.)I see a world. I look for a cause because I compare it to a building and I start to look for an engineer and I conclude there should be a God aka Intelligent Design while there's no such logical argument that makes such conclusion necessary. Read Russell's History of Philosophy, Book 3, Chapter 17.By the way what did you study in college?
No I'm not for Kant's philosophy. I was just trying to point out that causality is greatly debated and you can't prove Hume to be any more right than Kant except using what William Lane Craig calls the "intuitively obvious." and it happens to be his philosophy that I agree with.Now I've never proposed that one cause will yield the same effect. I've only proposed that that which has been created or yielded had an initial cause.You are arguing against the assumptions on the future by looking at the past. These are questionable causes. I am not arguing that at all. I am saying that the fact that the world exists suggests that it had cause. Lets look at the basics... does it make sense that something came from nothing? How could non-existence yield existence? and again i refer to Craig's "intuitively obvious." And I'm basing this on many mathematical and scientific conclusions which could fill up an entire book (and have filled many books written by much smarter individuals than I) that creation has a cause and this cause came from a personal entity separate from creation itself. Now if you have about 10 mins. Dr. Craig whom I greatly agree with in relation to his philosophy on theology spoke on this topic in his opening statement in a debate with Professor Anthony Flew. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maoGItxwTTAIf you prefer literature, look up William Lane Craig-- "Kalam Cosmological Argument"JMPost Script: I have my BA in English concentrating really on Renaissance literature.
And to me who thinks Kant's philosophy is metaphysical and unreal and incorrect, Hume's Skepticism remains true.Cause and Effect being applied to every situation is a scholastic or Cartesian premise. What I say is that there is no LOGICAL reason to say everything needs a cause. Again I'm not giving examples of situations without causes.I'm saying there's no logical reason to believe everything needs a cause. I wish I could read Wittgenstein's book and answer you with that but I can't because it's a professional philosophical book full of pure logic and mathematics.If you could find the book and read that chapter you sure will face clearer explanations.Craig again starts with a cause and effect relation.He says infinity is unreal while if we believe in a God we should believe in infinity.Christian and Muslim philosophical system are extremely old They find some holes in science and try to put God into those Holes. Copleston argues better than Craig even though this interview was in 1948.
Craig was arguing that creation and the natural world is not infinite. Not its creator.Are you trying to say that personal experience, deduction, and induction are illogical? That is all we have as humans. Unless you feel that nothing in this world exists out of your personal perception, you must agree that most, sane humans share the same reality. It is from studying, observing, and physically and spiritually experiencing this reality that we infer the world. That is logic.... How much more logical is it to believe that things exist from nothing and without cause? I mean really think about it. Use your reason. You cannot give examples of effects without causes because you can't find any. Where is that premise observed and then inferred and made logical? In the imaginations of great men?Lets talk the probability and Logic of my argument versus yours. Lets infer the world and see which is more logical. That we observe cause and effect situations and deduce that effects have causes? Or we observe cause and effect-type situations and deduce that effects occur independent of catalysts or causes? Cause and effect is logical if not for my own personal experience with it. When I was a little girl, I jumped on the bed. Every time I went up.... I came back down. You cannot argue the personal experience I... Jillien... have with gravity.
I don't know how to explain it anymore.All you demand is an experience to which cause and effect doesn't apply.I say There is no logical statement which necessitates cause and effect relation in every situation.Again you might not see a Blue Bear but it doesn't mean that there isn't any Blue Bear. This experimental statement doesn't have a necessary conclusion that THERE ARE NO BLUE BEARS.All you have experienced through your life included a causal relation? Okay but it doesn't mean everything needs to have a causal relation.Logic is mathematics and Mathematics is logic it has nothing to do with me and you and God. Like 2+2=4 has nothing to do with anything.Back to Craig, Why did he say the universe can't be infinite? Because infinity is an abstract idea and is not real. Okay let's say it's true hence The Creator can't be infinite either because it makes it unreal.
And By the way as an agnostic/atheist I prefer Copleston's character to Craig's.He trie to humiliate the opponent idea while Copleston didn't. He's such a bad figure beside having old fashioned arguments.
Infinite does not exist in the natural world. Which means the world has a finite past. Therefore the world has a beginning... a starting point. Which means it began. which means it started somehow. What is that somehow? That is God.It really boils down to what feels true. That intuitively-obvious, matter-of-fact, speaks-to-my-soul truth.You feel the world has no cause. That makes sense to you. But I feel that argument holds less logic than mine, which is that no matter what the cause... its cause exists.You are right. There may be a blue bear. And if there were a blue bear, would that bear have been born or evolved? Or are you trying to logically argue that the blue bear could have sprang up from nothingness?? and if you say yes this is logical, then I want to know how.I asked you to examine the probability of your statements. You haven't yet. You argue their possibility. Yes they are all possible. But how probable are they? Does that matter to you? If not then we are truly at a stand still.Logic is inference. Logic is math, philosophy, and science. And all those occur within creation. A creation that exists. And i cannot accept it coming from nothing. Just as you cannot accept its coming from something. I've enjoyed talking to you, but I think we argue using different paradigms. Following different truths. Searching for different answers. We just can't accept each other's thoughts. They ring false within us. But we got off point. I do not believe that God sent natural disasters to destroy LA or Haiti. You do not believe in God. So we agree that those disasters were not God-sent. Amen!JMPost Script: Creation is just one factor of many that point toward an eternal, personal creator, which I will state but not go into.The Moral Code and Natural Law explained incredibly by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.The historical figure of Jesus Christ profoundly argued in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and examined in great detail in Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology by Fr. Roch Kereszty.The works of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as they relate to Jesus and the Church.Finally, the metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas are awesome to look at from a philosophy standpoint. Note to self: I will try to forever be a living example of the love, mercy, and power of the LORD. For my actions speak louder than words. I pray that all those who are near me feel the presence of God and His goodness. I am not perfect, but I strive to draw near He who was perfect and persecuted by sinners. I fall short more than I accomplish this feat, but I implore you dear Lord to forgive my shortcomings and to send me your Holy Spirit to strengthen me not to be perfect but to keep trying. --Yours,Jillien
Well By arguing the blue bear I was trying to say induction aka experience can't give you a necessary result.I didn't say the world SHOULD have no beginning or cause. I said the world either can have or can not have a cause. Therefore the following statement is false: The World should have a begging, as well as this one: The World certainly has no beginning. All I wanted to say is that having a cause isn't a necessary situation.The second point is that logically I can't say which one is more probable since there's no analytic aka logical statement which makes me to believe that everything I have perceived has a cause therefore everything else might also have a cause. If what I just said was true then I could say having a cause is more probable.By the way I know St. Thomas' philosophy maybe not with details but a chapter of "History of Western Philosophy" is about him.And Finally we aren't the only ones who disagree in such arguments if you had time it's good to read this argument between Russell and Copleston because they don't agree in a single thing either.At least we agree that disasters aren't God sent.http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm
I've started reading the manuscript. Thanks so much for sharing it with me :)
I love your comments!