theInquirer

I must agree with you that yes, the attitude with which one approaches a question will, in all likelihood, determine what your answer is. But that's exactly my point: if what we believe is ultimately going to come down to what we want to believe, then how can we at all know that we are right? That's basically why I am so obsessed over trying to find the ultimate truth to almost everything in life. And actually I wasn't so much being bothered by the problem of evil, but it was more a question of how we know that it is a good God Who rules over us and not a bad one. Any information that we receive on the topic will ultimately have to come from whichever God is in charge, which makes that information unreliable because we need an information from an objective source that is separate and unconnected with this God. After considering my question for a while, my response to it was that ultimately, since we cannot choose the option of absurdity on the matter, the best information we have is of how, throughout history, God has always proven true in those statements He made that are verifiable; therefore, why should we not believe those which are not verifiable? He said He would overthrow Babylon, and He did. Therefore, why should we not also believe that He will overthrow sin? As a side note, isn't it impossible to positively prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? The best one could possibly do is to prove that it is not possible to know that He did rise from the dead, not that He actually didn't. Although I suppose that if the former was proved, we would be forced to automatically assume the latter is true (that He actually didn't rise from the dead) because if we are being logically consistent, then to assume that an event of the magnitude of improbability of Jesus rising from the dead (with no evidence of it happening, we would be assuming this arbitrarily) would necessarily imply that we ought also to assume other events up to the probability of this magnitude. That bothers me tbh. . .

I agree with you on that--somewhat. In responding to this, I am going to ask what sin is at all? In I believe third John, it clearly states, ". . . sin is lawlessness." If sin is the opposite of the law, then what is the law? Jesus clearly summed it up when he said "Love the Lord your God," and ". . . love your neighbor as yourself." The common theme here is, of course, love, which is a thing of the heart and mind and not the body. Nothing is sinful except for the opposite of love of the right things, which obviously is hate. I'd also like to point out that in truth, nothing in the world is sinful except for the heart/mind/soul of the individual. Consider a murder: is the bullet that killed the unfortunate fellow evil? No it is not. What about the gun that shot the bullet? Nope. What about the hand that pulled the trigger? Actually, no. What then? Ultimately, it is only the motive of the murderer that was sinful. Thus, we see that we may do anything as long as it is not motivated by sinful desires, i.e. a love of the wrong things or a hate of the right things. Why, then, does Paul talk about some things being permissible for some and not for others? I believe that this is because of the concept of avoiding temptation. The things that may be inherently fine but cause us to sin are certainly things we ought to avoid; but this does not make the things in question sinful. So we see that if certain styles of music cause an individual to have certain immoral thoughts, he ought absolutely to avoid this style of music, whether it's hymns, country, bluegrass, rap, or whatever. You might say that it's become sin to him, or rather that he has become sinful because of it. There is one important point I want to address, though. If the only thing that is ever sinful is out motives, then can't we do anything as long as our motives are clean? Why even did God give us the Ten Commandments if all we have to do is keep a sound mind? My analysis of that is that, first of all, what God does in the Bible is clarify what it means to love God and others, thus clarifying what it means to love God. After all, if you really love God, chances are that you're not going to go and worship a piece of wood, and if you do, chances are that you don't love God. You might say that it's not possible to have good motives about having bad motives. It's impossible to lovingly hate someone, or hatefully love someone.

Well, but my question is more about whether it is ever permissible to force someone to do something. The argument against this would come from Matthew 5: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth,' but I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." If this is referring to always forgiving someone for sinning against you, then of course it would be permissible to force someone else to not sin against a third person. After all, I can forgive Jones for punching me, but I cannot forgive Jones for punching Smith since the offense is not against me. Although come to think of it, I suppose it would be possible to forgive someone for something while still forcing them to stop doing something. I suppose the very concept of using force involves causing another individual to do something against their will and thus be uncomfortable. After all, if they were willing to do that thing which you would be wanting them to do or not do, no force would be necessary. Also note that if we define evil (as opposed to sin) as pain, we must dutifully consider this discomfort (experienced by the individual being forced) to be evil. Thus, the question becomes one of whether or not evil may ever be caused by good, and the case here is rather strong that good can and does cause evil, albeit probably indirectly (I have yet to formulate a proof of this, but I believe it to be true). Every time Jesus told the Pharisees something they didn't want to hear, every time a family was divided because of the Gospel (Jesus: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."), every time an apostle got martyred for his faith, obedience or propagation to/of good was causing evil. (Note, however, that we may also easily prove that this evil was not the good's "fault." We could easily argue that if I have to kill someone because they are doing something wrong, that is the fault of the person doing that sin, not my fault.) Thus, we have narrowed the question once again down to, "Is it ever right for anyone to force anyone else to do or not do something?" The question technically has nothing to do with the outcome of killing or not killing, since it is a very feasible statement to make that instead of the end justifying the means, the means justifies the end. In other words, whether or not the answer to this question is yes or no does not depend in any way upon who would die or suffer or otherwise because of my taking this or that action. That is the epitome of pragmatism and utilitarianism, and is in no right necessarily moral. I wish I could keep writing and come to a final conclusion, but that's honestly the farthest I've gotten in my reasoning. I wish I had an answer beyond this, but I don't; thus my initial question in this topic. And to respond to your question on my views concerning police toughness, I'd have to say that I think we have to consider those problems on a situational basis since of course probably some were times when the police did indeed go too far and some were probably times when they really were acting within their correct boundaries. In general, though, I'd probably lean towards the side of the officers since I see a lot of bloating of the facts in the media, and this bloating generally goes in favor of the victim in accordance with the views of the media, not (necessarily) based on fact.

Hey sorry I didn't respond sooner. But actually, no I have not gone to college; I am still in high school. To be honest, I am just a guy who questions absolutely everything in life, theology, philosophy, and reality. I just have this burning need to have everything I believe proven to me. When I step back and look at the world, I have to ask myself what makes me right and the atheist wrong, and I conclude that it is absolutely nothing except for the logic behind each position. It haunts me to think that two people can look at the same data and yet draw such different conclusions, yet with (at least on the face of it) many arguments and reasons for believing their side. It scares me to think: What if I am wrong? And so I question and test and reassess constantly whether or not my beliefs are correct. I burn and torture the true nature of reality out of the confusing, twisting spiral of existence that we call our universe, and yet I still find myself realizing just how little I know and in how many places my beliefs need to be tested and undergo the rigorous, meticulous examination of logic. Don't get me wrong: I have decided that until I get absolute, positive proof that Christianity is false, I will not stop believing it even if I cannot prove it to be true. But that does not mean that I am not going to continue to reason the everlasting daylights out of everything I see. And actually, everything can be reduced to a formula, i.e. logic, and this is not possible to prove false since the only way to prove something false is to use logic in the first place. I guess what I was asking about was positive proof that my above worries are false. Actually, my tentative conclusion is that to an extent it is impossible to know whether our very existence is or is not some cosmic joke by an evil power, but that we do not assume this position because it reduces everything to absurdity. It's sort of like proving one's own existence: the only way to do so is to start with the assumption of existence, but on the other hand, the only way someone can disprove existence is if they themselves to do not exist, which is impossible. So we cannot know whether we exist or not, but we simply accept it on faith because it is not unreasonable as such, and because, all things being equal, we would rather believe this than the alternative. Analogically, this is the same argument I am using here: essentially, if any religion is true, Christianity is. And that's how I'm getting around my problematic questions; to an extent, we can only realistically question so much, because there comes a point where we really have no way of knowing whether we are right or wrong, and so we must choose the path that does not lead to absurdity. This is the path that (I believe) I have chosen. And please, correct me if I got any of the above points false. :)

Hear hear. . . it's good to have an answer for everything (also, it's sort of satisfying to prove your point to someone) XD }=)

Haha naw I just tend to question everything, it's just my nature . . . XD Honestly tho, that tendency makes me really be able to defend all of my beliefs extremely effectively because whenever someone gives me an objection to my view, I've already asked the question earlier and thus am already way ahead of the opposition, so I know how to respond.

Okay, I need advice. . . I was going over a chapter in this book discussing how one ought to examine oneself to make sure one's motives in general are good, and so I did, asking whether I would still obey God if there was no hell from which to be saved, and while I conclude that I would indeed still obey Him, it got me wondering how I could prove that God is, indeed, good. Well of course, I thought to myself, because the Bible says so! But if God is really not good, then how can we trust what is said to us in the Bible? I pointed out to myself that the Bible is certainly historically accurate, and thus we are definitely given an accurate view of how God demonstrates and proves His love to us in answering countless promises He made in the Bible. "The proof is in the pudding," as they say. After all, I thought, if God is really some evil agent trying to lure us into a deadly web of falsehood, then why the hard line about suffering? If someone really wanted to deceive people into buying into a belief system, wouldn't it make sense rather for endless promises of success and comfort to be given? But then I had the nasty thought that, well, if this agent were evil, it would necessarily imply that a good exists, and based off other arguments, this good power would be greater that this hypothetical evil power. Thus, one could construe that somehow this greater good power is restraining the evil power to only be able to do certain evils and/or perhaps to only do evil as long as good is also done, or some such arrangement; essentially, that instead of things working together for good, they'd be working together for bad. What it comes down to is this: what prevents Christianity from being a smoke screen, and another religion being the real thing? So I've been worrying intensely about that for the past while, and tbh idk where to go for answers because no matter what evidence is given in favor of Christianity, it could be brushed off as being merely part of the "illusion" set up by the evil power opposing the true religion. And btw this is not me turning agnostic or anything, I often question things just because that's part of my nature, but I usually get them proven back, and they end up being stronger than ever. . . tbh I've been known to doubt my own existence.

Okay thanks, I will look into that.

So I come from a pacifist Mennonite family, but for the past couple of years I personally have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view. . . any advice?

I know, but I'm saying because of how you said the marriage covenant was sort of a reflection of Jesus and the church, but Jesus hadn't come back then, so how could it be a reflection back then of what did not exist then?

Also marriage was first done in the Old Testament, i.e. before Jesus came, so how do you expand this argument to apply to those times?

No I know what you mean, but I'm talking about things that are completely non-sexual, both in thought and deed, things that inspire no sexual desires or thoughts whatsoever in a person, yet are still a form of intimacy, albeit not sexual.

That makes sense although if any intimacy on any level prior to the covenant is an act of the flesh, then are all forms of communicating love, like acts of service, words of affirmation, giving gifts, hugging, etc., are those also banned?

So I have a sort of abnormal question: is sex supposed to be saved for that one person you will marry or is it to be saved for marriage? While those two might sound like the same thing, I am primarily referring to situations of engagement where one essentially knows who they will marry, but they aren't married yet. Is sex to be saved just for marriage or just for the one person you'll marry? I mean, I suppose one could argue that the whole basis for saving sex for just that one person that you'll marry could only be that it ought to be saved for marriage exclusively in the first place, but I'm not sure that's a valid argument or not, so I need some constructive advice. Also, I guess it's somewhat a given, but I do want to point out that I am NOT trying to find a basis for having sex (I'm not married); rather, I am attempting to better understand the principles behind God's keeping sex for marriage so that I may comprehend further what other standards of behavior would be acceptable in a relationship.

Ohh whoops, sorry I misunderstood you on the definition of evolution the first time, but I gotcha now. So I'm afraid I do not fully understand why a universe that began cannot contain infinite matter; could it not have simply been brought into existence in its infinite state from the very conception? Correct me if I am merely failing to comprehend what you were explaining. Yes that's what I was thinking somewhat, on the probability versus non-probability arguments although I do think that if the universe is finite, the probability arguments do come into really big play as, the more I hear from sources on evolution, the more I am impressed with the sheer and utter improbability of life forming or changing (in the macroevolutionary sense, not the microevolutionary sense), the more I am forced to conclude that random processes could not have brought about our current state of life and existence. Although I suppose you'd point out that according to your view, since God was behind evolution and spontaneous generation, probability has no power. But I guess that's where the other arguments for/against theistic evolution come into play, as you mentioned. Also, I'd just like to say that while I do disagree with you on theistic evolution, I still respect your position and opinion.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense!

Well yes, but if such intelligent life existed elsewhere, it either would be able to have a relationship with God or it would not. If it was capable of such a relationship, the relationship would either be perfect or not perfect. So either this life would be without a soul and means of communicating/relating to/understanding God (such as animals), this life would be sinful like us, or it would essentially be like Adam and Eve before the Fall. I suppose the possibility that you pointed out (the last one) is possible although I personally don't see it as being very likely. The only other alternatives are the ones that have already been pointed out (animal life or sinful intelligence like us). I must say, it is an interesting thing to think about, though. . . it stretches the boundaries of our customary horizons, so to speak.

Oh, I didn't know that. . . everywhere I looked online and elsewhere, the consensus seemed to be the same: we just don't know whether the universe is infinite or not. But now you mentioned that it is held that the universe finite; where could I find this information for myself? I'm rather intrigued to be honest. Yes, I realize that evolution concerns the forming of life by and through random, unguided processes in certain conditions. . . but if the universe is infinite, then there must exist infinite variations of matter and infinite opportune and possible circumstances for evolution to take place, and therefore we couldn't say that evolution is impossible because, say, the probability of a cell forming is one out of 10^14191 or some other such argument. And also, please don't get me wrong here: I don't believe evolution is true or possible. I could think of other arguments against it that do not rely on probability; I'm just interested in bolstering my apologetics.

Tbh I don't remember completely, it's been a couple years since I read it. . . I seem to somewhat vaguely to recall them citing how, as I mentioned, it could appear that Jesus would have to die for all those races for them to be saved, and for various reasons, this was unlikely or false, and we therefore are the only ones. I guess that that doesn't necessarily mean life per se couldn't be out there like, as you observed, animal life, but it does seem quite likely to be indicating that beings such as ourselves, made in God's image, probably do not exist out there.

Certainly I agree that we ought not to get sidetracked, but they are rather interesting just the same, and it is of course always interesting and intriguing to study God's universe the better to appreciate His creativity and awesome power. Yeah I read an interesting chapter in on of the Answers apologetic books where they outlined Biblical reasoning against extraterrestrial life although your opinion on that is rather interesting too. Who knows? Probably we will not until heaven

Yes, that was basically my thinking. I mean from a Biblical perspective, I don't know offhand of any verses that would be contradicted by there being an infinite number of me in the universe (because of there being infinite combinations of matter and therefore the combinations being repeated endlessly, as you pointed out), but it seems unlikely that there is extra-terrestrial life out there, just because of how, if that were the case, I guess Jesus would have had to die many times (for each race of people), but correct me if I'm wrong on that. But yeah, from a scientific point of view, that's kind of where I'm stuck. . . we don't know how large the universe is, and therefore whether or not random processes could create certain structures, even if they're highly improbable. And don't get me wrong here, my faith is founded on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is easily proven historically to be true. The above discussion isn't like making or breaking my faith, for the record, I'm just interested in solidifying my apologetics.

Now it is easily proved that there must exist something which does not derive it's existence from anything else but itself because if everything derived its existence from everything else, then nothing would exist, for existence would be traced back through an unending chain of sources of existence; there must be a beginning. This proof then went on to assert that this something must be God, and while I certainly do want to agree with it, how do I know that the universe couldn't just derive its existence from itself?

Now it is very clear that the evolution of life from non-living particles is incredibly improbable and would take billions upon billions of attempts to accomplish life or even just a simple amino acid. However, if the universe contains infinite matter, then there are infinite opportunities for life to evolve and therefore the low probability comes to be of no consequence. So is there a way to prove that the universe does not contain infinite matter? And if not, is there a way to prove that this presence of infinite matter does not invalidate the arguments against evolution which involve probability?