Sport1 min ago
God's Plan
304 Answers
Following on from the horrific news of a little boy killed by lightning -
I am genuinly intrigued to hread how any of our Christian contributors can begin to reconcile this tragedy with the notion that their 'loving' God, who clearly allowed it to happen, could let such a loss be felt by his parents and family.
What part of 'God's Plan' is working here?
I am genuinly intrigued to hread how any of our Christian contributors can begin to reconcile this tragedy with the notion that their 'loving' God, who clearly allowed it to happen, could let such a loss be felt by his parents and family.
What part of 'God's Plan' is working here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland - // Straight answers would be a miracle from some of you atheists.
You believe in nothing and when asked anything, you simply say you don't know.
You'd make lousy witnesses in a court case.
''I claim the fifth! No comment!''
Oh I suppose its cute in some mysterious way! //
But we're not in a court, are we?
In these endless debates, atheists have the simple end of the argument - we don't know, we don't claim to know, we are willing to accept that someone will know one day, but not in our lifetimes.
Fervent Christians on the other hand, claim that they do know - and that places the burden of proof upon them, which they are consistently and frustratingly unable to provide.
As naomi points out, quite reasonably, there is nothing whatsoever wrong in not knowing, and saying you don't know.
Where the issue arises is that fervents claim to know, but offer no proof whatsoever, only suppositions, and quotes from a book, which is not proof that is going to stand up on here.
I have no problem with you not knowing, that simply makes you like me.
I do have a massive problem with you claiming to know, and the fact that I don't know like you is simply because I am too thick to grasp the knowledge that you have, which insults my considerable intelligence.
You believe in nothing and when asked anything, you simply say you don't know.
You'd make lousy witnesses in a court case.
''I claim the fifth! No comment!''
Oh I suppose its cute in some mysterious way! //
But we're not in a court, are we?
In these endless debates, atheists have the simple end of the argument - we don't know, we don't claim to know, we are willing to accept that someone will know one day, but not in our lifetimes.
Fervent Christians on the other hand, claim that they do know - and that places the burden of proof upon them, which they are consistently and frustratingly unable to provide.
As naomi points out, quite reasonably, there is nothing whatsoever wrong in not knowing, and saying you don't know.
Where the issue arises is that fervents claim to know, but offer no proof whatsoever, only suppositions, and quotes from a book, which is not proof that is going to stand up on here.
I have no problem with you not knowing, that simply makes you like me.
I do have a massive problem with you claiming to know, and the fact that I don't know like you is simply because I am too thick to grasp the knowledge that you have, which insults my considerable intelligence.
AH, if he killed because he was a psychopath you must concede that an awful lot of psychopaths adhere to Islam. Furthermore, Islam cannot be compared to any other religion and until apologists acknowledge that, the world is fighting this appalling philosophy with one hand tied behind its back. People like you do no one except Islamic extremists any favours whatsoever - and they are laughing at you.
Theland - // AH - The questions still hang in the air, regardless of your inability to attempt an answer. //
I know you are not so stupid as to simply not understand what I have said, and keep saying, I prefer to think of it as your vested interest in pretending not to understand, but either way, I will be happy to repeat my position once again.
I don't have an 'inability to attempt an answer' as you put it - i don;t have an answer to offer, attempted or otherwise because I don't know.
Once again - I don't know.
Third time for luck - I don't know.
And once more with volume - I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully you have understood that simple position now, if not, then I can't help you any further.
Given that I am delighted to accept that I don't know, which I have been sayng for decades on here, the ball returns to your court.
You claim that you do know, so I am asking for some evidence.
It's really as simple as that.
I know you are not so stupid as to simply not understand what I have said, and keep saying, I prefer to think of it as your vested interest in pretending not to understand, but either way, I will be happy to repeat my position once again.
I don't have an 'inability to attempt an answer' as you put it - i don;t have an answer to offer, attempted or otherwise because I don't know.
Once again - I don't know.
Third time for luck - I don't know.
And once more with volume - I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully you have understood that simple position now, if not, then I can't help you any further.
Given that I am delighted to accept that I don't know, which I have been sayng for decades on here, the ball returns to your court.
You claim that you do know, so I am asking for some evidence.
It's really as simple as that.
Yes I do know that the universe had a cause, a beginning, and that it came from nothing.
No space/time, no matter/energy.
Therefore using logic and reason, the cause must have been immaterial, and outside and beyond space/time.
The cause must have been supremely powerful to create out of nothing, a material universe.
But, the universe crested is endowed with certain fixed values to over thirty finely tuned cosmic constants, the slightest variation of any one of them by a miniscule factor would have resulted in a universe unable to form stars, planets and ultimately life.
These cosmic constants cover cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology.
They contain information, and our only experience of the origins of information is that it is not built up from nothing over time, but originates in a mind.
That's it in a nutshell.
I can reference everything I have written, some references from agnostic and atheist scientists.
No space/time, no matter/energy.
Therefore using logic and reason, the cause must have been immaterial, and outside and beyond space/time.
The cause must have been supremely powerful to create out of nothing, a material universe.
But, the universe crested is endowed with certain fixed values to over thirty finely tuned cosmic constants, the slightest variation of any one of them by a miniscule factor would have resulted in a universe unable to form stars, planets and ultimately life.
These cosmic constants cover cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology.
They contain information, and our only experience of the origins of information is that it is not built up from nothing over time, but originates in a mind.
That's it in a nutshell.
I can reference everything I have written, some references from agnostic and atheist scientists.
Theland - // They contain information, and our only experience of the origins of information is that it is not built up from nothing over time, but originates in a mind. //
There is no proof of that whatsoever, why do you have such a hard time acknowldeging that simple fact?
//I can reference everything I have written, some references from agnostic and atheist scientists. //
That doesn't mean anything because they don't know either!!!!!
There is no proof of that whatsoever, why do you have such a hard time acknowldeging that simple fact?
//I can reference everything I have written, some references from agnostic and atheist scientists. //
That doesn't mean anything because they don't know either!!!!!
There's is only proof in mathematics.
Science operates on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.
So, having discovered empirically that all information comes from a mind, with no exceptions, I can say, beyond reasonable doubt that the information necessary for the universe, for life, originated in a mind.
Why can't you follow this reasoning?
Science operates on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.
So, having discovered empirically that all information comes from a mind, with no exceptions, I can say, beyond reasonable doubt that the information necessary for the universe, for life, originated in a mind.
Why can't you follow this reasoning?
