Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why did God allow 50 innocent people to get murdered? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because if god does exist, he is either weak or cruel.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    We're not talking about the different names for God, or people's different perceptions of the same supreme being. I'm referring to any other entity that boasts the traits I mentioned, and then some.
    The entity you mentioned, is, like all versions of it, invented. Unless you can provide empirical evidence of course.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The entity you mentioned, is, like all versions of it, invented.
    So we are in agreement that the many gods are basically different versions of the same entity? Good. At least all this back-n-forth has led to some progress, albeit microscopic.
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Unless you can provide empirical evidence of course.
    Your demand for empirical evidence takes me back to the statement I posted few hours ago to start today's round of exchanges. Remember? The one that you claimed to be not as profound and several times hollow? That one. Paste it here
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    So we are in agreement that the many gods are basically different versions of the same entity? Good. At least all this back-n-forth has led to some progress, albeit microscopic.
    I do not agree. While most of the gods in mythology may share the same basic characteristics, does not mean they are all the same entity, just like all humans sharing the same biological functions does not make them all versions of one human.

    Your demand for empirical evidence takes me back to the statement I posted few hours ago to start today's round of exchanges. Remember? The one that you claimed to be not as profound and several times hollow? That one. Paste it here
    Which was a baseless quote for which you have no evidence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I do not agree. While most of the gods in mythology may share the same basic characteristics, does not mean they are all the same entity,
    True. But the issue was God as a concept of an all-powerful supreme being. Not as a specific entity recognized by just a section of the religious. It was in the idea of a supreme being, which comes down to ONE being for all who believe in it.
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    just like all humans sharing the same biological functions does not make them all versions of one human.
    Hmmm...Now not even you believe that anyone serious with this topic can fall for that simplistic comparison, do you? I respect you much more than that.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Which was a baseless quote for which you have no evidence.
    I honestly believe that you are being genuine in your response. So let me just put it this way: Please address my assertion that visibility is a low threshold for proof of existence of a being that is thought to be all powerful, all knowledgeable, and not bound by time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    I honestly believe that you are being genuine in your response. So let me just put it this way: Please address my assertion that visibility is a low threshold for proof of existence of a being that is thought to be all powerful, all knowledgeable, and not bound by time.
    Not at all. By your own logic, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful he would have no problem in visibly manifesting himself in an incontrovertible manner.

    Moreover, even if visible evidence were, as you imply, weak, this would not make God's existence likely or plausible. Visible proof would also be pointless for a invisible, one-eyed rabbit, doesn't make it reasonable to say it could exist.

    Now, instead of talking about what proof is or isn't viable, present any convincing proof for a deity.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Not at all. By your own logic, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful he would have no problem in visibly manifesting himself in an incontrovertible manner.

    Moreover, even if visible evidence were, as you imply, weak, this would not make God's existence likely or plausible. Visible proof would also be pointless for a invisible, one-eyed rabbit, doesn't make it reasonable to say it could exist.

    Now, instead of talking about what proof is or isn't viable, present any convincing proof for a deity.
    The point of God is not to be proven, it's to be believed mate
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Not at all.
    Really? Isn't visibility the most basic form of evidence? Isn't it the lowest threshold?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    Really? Isn't visibility the most basic form of evidence? Isn't it the lowest threshold?
    Your post seemed to imply that by it being a low threshold, it means that God would be unable to manifest visibly in a convincing way. That's what I was challenging.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    If he exists, why did he allow the American mass shooting to happen?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because he gave humans free will so humans killed 50 people, also i dont understand why this question refers solely to a mass shooting, the night that mass shooting happened 6-7000 children died from hunger. So once weve got that out of the way the question becomes why does he let people die which is quite simply a question of what happens if people dont die, in that case there is a lack of order. Furthermore if people didnt have free will they would complain and you cant have both without the other, so in conclusion, God exists, He loves Humanity, Free will exists, and us humans are responsible for our actions and God will judge us based upon them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think that maybe god is a homophone
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    The point of God is not to be proven, it's to be believed mate
    I have no problem with people saying they believe in God. But if they say there is evidence for it then they are expected to provide it, otherwise you are just agreeing with me that there is no evidence whatsoever.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I have no problem with people saying they believe in God. But if they say there is evidence for it then other are expected to provide it, otherwise you are just agreeing with me that there is no evidence whatsoever.
    Again there doesn't need to be "evidence" so I wish whoever is saying that would shut up honestly. God is spiritual not science. His existence doesn't need to be proven with evidence because it's about the faith that he does. If you must know He exists you're not a true believer smh.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Again there doesn't need to be "evidence" so I wish whoever is saying that would shut up honestly. God is spiritual not science. His existence doesn't need to be proven with evidence because it's about the faith that he does. If you must know He exists you're not a true believer smh.
    There doesn't need to be evidence for the believer, there does for the sceptic. Note that this is the Debate section of the forum where people who make claims are expected to provide evidence, otherwise there is no reason to take them seriously. This isn't a discussion about what does or doesn't constitute a true believer. It is a discussion about evidence for God, as Kendrick Lamar initially made the bold claim that he exists.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    The point of God is not to be proven, it's to be believed mate
    I think there's a lot of truth in that, and I can't say I'd considered it before. Why does everyone always expect God to show himself all the time? If God were to make himself visible to everyone, all the time, where would that leave us? It would render faith redundant, meaning there would be nothing to distinguish those too arrogant to even consider something infinitely greater than humanity and themselves, and those who are willing to show a bit of humility.

    Besides, if atheists want proof, I'd like one of them to give me a successful philosophical argument proving God does not exist. (Hint: there aren't any!)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I think there's a lot of truth in that, and I can't say I'd considered it before. Why does everyone always expect God to show himself all the time? If God were to make himself visible to everyone, all the time, where would that leave us? It would render faith redundant, meaning there would be nothing to distinguish those too arrogant to even consider something infinitely greater than humanity and themselves, and those who are willing to show a bit of humility.

    Besides, if atheists want proof, I'd like one of them to give me a successful philosophical argument proving God does not exist. (Hint: there aren't any!)
    You say this as if blind faith is actually a good thing, something to be admired. It isn't.

    It's not a case of providing arguments he doesn't exist, just like you can't provide an argument that an all-powerful, undetectable pink rabbit doesn't exist. That's why the burden of proof was developed, where the onus is on the individual making the positive claim to provide the necessary evidence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    There doesn't need to be evidence for the believer, there does for the sceptic. Note that this is the Debate section of the forum where people who make claims are expected to provide evidence, otherwise there is no reason to take them seriously. This isn't a discussion about what does or doesn't constitute a true believer. It is a discussion about evidence for God, as Kendrick Lamar initially made the bold claim that he exists.
    I know what section we're in. My concern is why you're patronising that poster to explain something that you know is ridiculous. My post wasn't about being a true believer; it was alluding to whoever is making the claim that God needs to be seen, touched, heard, etc is not a true believer so why bother entertaining them in discussion? As for the sceptic, why would you "need" "evidence?" God's existence is of no concern to you, right? Whether you're a believer or not, the purpose of God is not to be seen like another human being. Whether you like it or not He is above other people. So why you're waiting on seeing him with your eyes is beyond me, and also why you're listening to someone who claims He can/needs to be seen when it explicitly says across religions that God will return but as a man and until then you have to believe in Him. If you don't, then don't expect to "see" him. You're an Atheist, agnostic, whatever, not a moron. You know full well God Himself is not meant to be proven physically.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I think there's a lot of truth in that, and I can't say I'd considered it before. Why does everyone always expect God to show himself all the time? If God were to make himself visible to everyone, all the time, where would that leave us? It would render faith redundant, meaning there would be nothing to distinguish those too arrogant to even consider something infinitely greater than humanity and themselves, and those who are willing to show a bit of humility.

    Besides, if atheists want proof, I'd like one of them to give me a successful philosophical argument proving God does not exist. (Hint: there aren't any!)
    Don't let anyone deter you from believing this, or whatever you believe, no matter how well worded they are on here. So if someone who adamantly questions God quotes you, you stay strong in your beliefs :yes:

    Anyway, yes, it says in the Bible:

    “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Not everything is because of god things just happen and you can't just immediately say it's god.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    I know what section we're in. My concern is why you're patronising that poster to explain something that you know is ridiculous. My post wasn't about being a true believer; it was alluding to whoever is making the claim that God needs to be seen, touched, heard, etc is not a true believer so why bother entertaining them in discussion? As for the sceptic, why would you "need" "evidence?" God's existence is of no concern to you, right? Whether you're a believer or not, the purpose of God is not to be seen like another human being. Whether you like it or not He is above other people. So why you're waiting on seeing him with your eyes is beyond me, and also why you're listening to someone who claims He can/needs to be seen when it explicitly says across religions that God will return but as a man and until then you have to believe in Him. If you don't, then don't expect to "see" him. You're an Atheist, agnostic, whatever, not a moron. You know full well God Himself is not meant to be proven physically.
    How is asking someone to provide evidence for their claims patronising? He made an extraordinary claim in the debate section and thus I have every right to ask him to provide the extraordinary evidence.

    And now you are making baseless claims. So would you mind providing evidence for the comments that he is not meant to be proven physically because he is above other people?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.