God's Plan

[andy-hughes]

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?

[Peter Pedant]

// andie hughes, our resident master of theology, invents a stupid straw-man argument(1), a weird interpretation(2) of his view of the teaching of the so called Christ, and challenges us to knock it down.(3)

best answer for the much put upon and patient Khandro

(1) much heard before over the centuries and wd not confuse an eight year old
(2) nothing wrong with that: he cd be gnostic
(3) as tho it wd be a second book of revelation or something

[mibn2cweus]

Theland
0716- MIBs, everybody tries to foresee and prevent tragedies, even if not met with much success.
Nobody sits around coin nothing as far as I know.
If anything, the cup de sac of logic and reason you have driven yourself into, prevents you even beginning to understand the worlds problems or the solutions.

To the atheists whose default is no belief at all in any supreme being, do you not have a natural curiosity to find answers to the big questions that science pursues, but has so far failed to answer?
13:37 Thu 13th May 2021

I prefer acknowledging my ignorance to acquiescing to those who claim a superior path to knowledge than that which has been acquired through the application of logic and reason. Such claims are made by those who lack an essential understanding of both.
Doing nothing is the far better alternative when a lack of understanding only makes matters worse.

[Theland]

MIBs, your admitted lack of knowledge and your blind faith in logic and reason do not prevent you speculating on the answers to the big questions, and supporting one or other hypotheses having thought through the alternatives.
So what precisely are your best answers to the big three questions?
1)The origin of the universe?
2)Life from inert lifeless chemicals?
3)The unscientific theory of evolution?
Your logic and reason should lead you to a Creator, a Life Giver, and a Sustainer Of Life.
I hope you think about a concrete answer, rather than a method of finding an answer.

[mibn2cweus]

I've invested considerable time investigating how what we observe today came to arrive at its current state from the distant past. What I have surmised for myself about that distant past is at best informed speculation. I highly doubt that I am the most knowledgeable and qualified to offer answers to those questions. What I do know is that given my limited knowledge and intellectual resources my time would be more wisely spent on dealing with the complexities of living in the present and preparing for the future. Acquiring knowledge and integrating my mind with the realities we face are challenging and elusive goals, but the pursuit has enriched my life experience in ways I could not have imagined.

To say that reason is a faith demonstrates a failure to understand the meaning of the term and the means and process of reasoning. I've never placed faith in my ability to reason. Reason for me has always been a hope rather than a certainty in my ability to reason. But it has proven time and again to be a hope justified by the outcome of practicing reason and realising where and how I have failed, thereby improving my ability to do so.

Answers, no matter how attractive they may seem, are no better than the accompanying understanding that allows one to grasp their validity or lack thereof. Knowledge is inherently limited by virtue of the means and process of acquiring it. Perhaps the realisation of that fact only contributes to an appreciation for its value.

[Khandro]

So shall we take it as a "don't know" then?

[naomi24]

Theland to Mibs, //Your logic and reason should lead you to a Creator, a Life Giver, and a Sustainer Of Life.//

Why when there’s no evidence whatsoever that such an entity exists? Your logic and reason should lead you to acknowledge that. Just be honest, Theland, and say you don’t know… because you don’t. You too, Khandro.

[pixie374]

Theland //your blind faith in logic and reason //... has to be the best AB quote this year :-)

[Khandro]

naomi//because you don’t. [know] You too, Khandro.//

True, true, I don't know in a manner which would suit a materialist such as yourself, but I can believe in something nevertheless.

St Thomas Aquinas writes:

God is greater than all we can say, greater than all that we can know; and not merely does he transcend our language and our knowledge, but he is beyond the comprehension of every mind whatsoever, even of angelic minds, and beyond the being of every substance. (De Div. Nom. I.3.77;

[naomi24]

Khandro, //I don't know in a manner which would suit a materialist…//

You don’t know at all - and neither did Thomas Aquinas. This same ridiculous claim from Theland about answering ‘the big questions’ has gone on year after year - with you bringing up the rear - but ultimately he doesn’t know, you don’t know, Thomas Aquinas didn’t know and I don’t know. No one knows. For ‘God’s’ sake give it a rest!

[Spungle]

Naomi, you just said you "don't know". Was that a typo, or intentional?

[naomi24]

I meant what I said.

[Theland]

You don't know because you have no inkling of transcendence, but you have to rope in everybody else because you are itching for an argument where you can show off your debating skills.
And no, I am not a liar,and to say I don't know would make me one.

[naomi24]

But you don't know, Theland. What that makes you is debatable.

[Theland]

Naomi, you are not omniscient, in spite of your self image, and you do not know what others experience.

[Khandro]

naomi // Thomas Aquinas didn’t know and I don’t know. No one knows. For ‘God’s’ sake give it a rest!//

What you seem incapable of grasping is that your understanding of "knowing" is quite different from "believing".

Unlike you, St Thomas Aquinas (& dare I say I in the same breath) approach the subject of God a priori

[naomi24]

Theland, two posts to me and both attacking me personally. That’s clearly the best you can do. Fact is you claim to know the answers but you don’t.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I can only suggest you investigate the difference between knowing and believing. You can believe whatever you want to believe but you cannot claim to ‘know’ - because you don’t.

[Atheist]

Khandro. 14:20.
"Unlike you, St Thomas Aquinas (& dare I say I in the same breath) approach the subject of God a priori"
I may be wrong, but I think that what you said means that you approach the subject of God already believing in His existence.
Please correct me in ten minutes when you have had time to google 'a priori'.
BTW, I loved your in-parentheses clause. Reminds me of a parody of a CofE vicar's sermon (probably Alan Bennett) " Now, Jesus said - and I agree with him.....)

[Theland]

17:58 - Utter drivel.

[andy-hughes]

Long experience has taught me that the athletes and the fervents will never convince each other that their respective positions are correct.

But one thing does intrigue me.

The atheists, whether they have read around the 'big questions' in detail, or whether they simply don't care, seem absolutely fine with accepting that they don't know any answers.

The fervents on the other hand react to the idea that they equally don't know like a vampire eating garlic!

They spend endless hours on here quoting and fretting and worrying.

It's as though admitting that they don't know either is like owning up to some unpardonable sin.

They simply can't cope with admitting that they don't know.

Why, I have no idea, and the question is filed away in that massive file in my mind labelled 'Nothing worth worrying about in here'

If any fervents can give a genuine simple reason why they fear admitting an absence of answers so much, feel free, but if not, no problem.

As you'd expect - I don't care either way!