Not necessarily.
And having more questions is not always a bad thing.
And wouldn't the fact that truth seems so difficult to reach prove that the world wasn't meant for humans and that our ability to systematically try to understand our surroundings is just a coincidence.

In a way, you're right. The world is God's posession, but He gave it to us humans to treat it well.


I don't see the logic in that...

I didn't remember I put my words in such a clumsy way.
What I am trying to say is that if God would have created the world for us humans it wouldn't propably be like this. There are too many things in the world that don't fit the description of a world created for humans.

And then why would we need many of the abilities we have. Why did God want to create humans? If he wanted drama then that explains many of our feelings but not our behaviour. Yet describing humanity is quite difficult. We share so many genes with many monkey species and yet we as humans have huge differences. If God created man then how does that theory fit in with mutations for example. The world and species especially bateria are changing. We can see this by looking at antibiotics. Why would the bacteria develop immunity against antibiotics if the world indeed is controlled by some God that guides the evolution (takes part in physical reactions then)

Then back on topic. I will say this one more time in more form. It would be quite unbeliveable if our minds could outlive are brains as up to now all processes of the mind can be traced to brain functions. Whatever you do with your mind people can see you do it with different scanners like PET (the most recent) and by using magnetic or electric fields you temporarily disable some parts of the brains stopping them from performing some tasks. Without even mentioning personality changing brain injury and so on. I don't want to break anyones dreams but I think it is simply sad how some people mix the truth and what they would like to think of as the truth.

Your post does not contradict the existance of God. The things you mention are quite wonderful, just that science has given an answer on lots of questions doesn't mean that something is "normal". It just shows more of the greatness of God's creation.

The question is more about illogicalities with Christian God and the world we live in. They are not compatible. Evolution is neutral but this creator God is supposed to be not neutral but sided with some of his creations. Why do wolverines eat reindeers and reindeers run from them? Which side is God on? IF wants them both to do well then why not make them both vegetarians.

If things would be as in bible it would be quite crazy. One of the gospels lists ~20 generations between josef and david and another lists ~40. Which one is right? If God knws the future and knows his creations will fail in the future then why not change it if he loves us so. He loves us but doesn't want to change us the way he wouldn't need to get tortured in hell. An almighty being that could change things by snapping his fingers decides to sacrifice his own son (can an omnipotent being have a son?) to change things instead of doing it himself.

Then if you think God explains everything I can always ask something about God we can't explain. God is the easy answer to our difficult questions of humans but serves more difficult questions about himself than solves.

Why not? Are you sure you understand the Christian God? I've said it earlier, but I'll say it again: you can read about it in the Heidelberg Catechism (I think it's spelled like that).


Also answered by the Catechism. To go short: it's our own fault that our world is messed up.


He wants to save us indeed, we are the problem. We don't want to be saved.


Again, read the Heidelberg Catechism. It's quite in the beginning (every question you ask actually).


What's wrong with it if He is the answer to our questions? And I can live with it if things can't be explained, it's not necessary. And impossible, since you should have picked up by now that His existance is beyond the human comprehension (yes, also my comprehension). We humans are arrogant, our nature keeps us from being humble, it's not God's fault, by our fault. We shouldn't have given in to satan.

Oh do I?
Well thats a tricky question. I am well aware of the theology behind him thanks to 11 years of religion studies from the first grade onwards and I have been confirmated.
Being sceptical isn't lack of knowledge or understanding. Usually the most sceptical ones (in any category) are the ones who actually know most about the subject.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-atheists-agnostics-score-highest

The reason why that is a tricky question is that While I know what he is considered to be I can't say I understand him because he is such a contradictory character behaving in such an illogical way. The problem is that religions don't need prooves or rationality and therefore they are perfectly arbitary assumptions.


How can anything be our fault when God made us this way. He should have made us not capable of screwing things up and if he is almighty and absolutely good he would have done exactly that. The world would be very different from what it is if it indeed was created by a God described by the bible.

If he wants to save us he should be able to do so. I don't think this God is much of a creator if his creations go this wrong. Actually God as an explanation for all existence is quite bad. You have said it yourself when you critisized science for bringing up more questions it can answer. The Idea of a God that created everything works in a similar way. Instead of explaining things it gives us more questions than we can ever answer.

Then again. How do you know what he wants? If you read that in a book I could just give you another book to say otherwise. It would be pretty difficult to prove either one of them represents Gods opinnion as all books so far are written by people.


You seem to like resolving to authority in answers. I could just as well recommend you read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. At least the introduction. It is a very good book and even though it might not change your mind it brings up many cases of religon causing unnecessary problems in the modern society.


I could never throw away the truth like that. Saying something can't be known or understood is actually a really really bad argument. Let me tell you of Russells tea pot.
Bertrand Russell was a philosopher in the early 1900s. He was actually a pasifist and an atheist. His legendary answer for the question what will you answer if God asks you after you have died why didn't you believe in him: Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence. (thats exactly the point. Why should we believe in something that the world as it is doesn't back up.) Russells tea pot was an answer to agnostics.
So the story as I remember it:
There is a tea pot out there in space somewhere between the earth and mars. No one can see it because it is so small but no one can prove it is not there either. Right now saying that there is a tea pot in there seems simply stupid. It doesn't make sense. However if someone found old writings saying that there indeed is a tea pot in there and if that was taught to people since they were children and everyone would worship the tea pot every sunday then saying it doesn't exist would make you seem like a weirdo. So how we see the tea pot isn't dependant on the existance of the tea pot itself (the same between scenarios 1 and 2) but it's status in the society.

So why belief would matter to God. I barely understand how could such a being be interested in our morals but why would our beliefs matter to him in any way. Does he have weak selfesteem or something? Doesn't seem logical at all that he would throw this pasifist Russell to be tortured in the flames of hell and someone who believes in him out of fear of what awaits in the afterlife would get to heaven. Christainity seems to be simply a manipulative story to make it easy to control people and to make all our real questions of life disappear so we wouldn't have to worry about them.

You might think in a similar way to Blaise Pascal the mathematician. He thought it would be wise to believe in God because:
Scenario 1: God exists
A) you believe in God =>You get to heaven
B) you don't believe in God => you go to hell
Scenario 2: God doesn't exist
A) You believe in God => nothing happens
B) You don't believe in God => nothing happens

So believing in God doesn't seem to do negative things for you.
There are two problems with this however:
1: You can't actually decide to believe in something.
2: There are thousands of other scenarios for which God happens to exist. For example meeting Odin in the afterlife wouldn't be so nice if you believed in the God of the Old Testament when you lived. In most scenarios you would propably be totrured worse than atheists.

But this is not a reason to be an atheist and I am not saying this is a proper proof just wanted to show that Pascals way of thinking doesn't work either.

Eleven years of studying? Then your study wasn't very effective so far, I'm sad to say. And I've heard enough atheist theories to make me sceptical towards my own faith, they just don't apply. And believe me, I'm very honest with myself when I think about them.


So you're with Wittgenstein? If something isn't logical, it means nothing? To make you understand things better, there's a text in the Bible which says that the Lord works in mysterious ways. The Dutch version is better (translated): God's ways can't be understood by humans. And I'm glad it's true.


That doesn't sound like my "religion" (I don't like that word)


This is what the Greeks called hubris, placing yourself above God. You imply you know better what is good or bad than the very Being without whom nothing would have existed?


Again, not His fault, ours.


He still does, what do you think what happened to me a few months ago?


There's a major difference between God and science. God created us, science is created by us. But indeed, in both cases, questions remain. But I am at peace with the knowledge that I can't understand Him, I can have that from the One who made everything and everyone. I do have an idea about Him, but it's so limited.


I don't, noone knows.


I never said it's an authority, every statement in it has a reference to the relevant part in the Bible. I never say it as an authority argument, I'm just trying to help you understand things better, you seek answers and I tell you where you can find them.


I'm familiar with the concept, I can't say I approve. Relgions aren't the problem, it's how humans use religion. My "religion" isn't something you can use. If all people in the world would be following these rules which are the very center of christianity: love God above all and all humans like you love yourself, then it would be a way better world than it is right now.


You already have, multiple times. Still, it's not too late, but I don't think I can help much.


Even if everyone believed there's a tea pot out there, then there's no reason to worship that tea pot, so it's an ineffective allegory. But the almighty Creator of all, who can give us eternal life, believing in Him actually makes sense.


This isn't the case. Believing means having no fear at all. It means to love God for not doing with us what we deserve (instant death and hell), and to walk the right path which shows love towards everyone, this is also an outing of gratefulness towards Him.


I can only hope I have proven otherwise.


Well, there's 25% chance to go to hell, I think this is actually big enough to be sure you don't go there

As far as it isn't clear yet, you seem to have questions and I'm trying to help you find the answers. As far as I can judge, you seem to think I'm arguing with you. This is not the case, it would only prove I'm not a real christian.

Humans aren't meant to think and spend their whole lifetime thinking how did it all start and how it ends. We don't know anything, we can only believe. As Hansi says in the song Wheel Of Time: there's no beginning, no end. It's best to stay that way for us. We'll never know and that's where this story ends. These novels are becoming boring (don't relate this post of mine to your earlier posts, I haven't read them, but I know what's all the discussion about).

Yeah, it wasn't my intention to write novels, but some things I can't let pass by.