…Continued

The most reliable way we can determine what our experiences mean, however, is to be as objective about them as possible. Science is reliable because objectivity is a tenet of the scientific method. Our subjective feelings, on the other hand, demonstrate to us continuously just how unreliable they are.

<<I figure there are two factors to consider [with regards to God’s apparent deceit and neglect]. One is rebellion against God in general. If I understand it correctly then Saran is an enemy … Our tragic tales of history might be a witness for both ourselves and everyone else as well.>>

(I take it you mean “Satan”, and are not referring to polyethylene food wrap.)

Ignoring for the moment the obvious question of how you know all this: we cannot be to blame, if your theology is correct. It’s so easy to blame people. I did that too when I was a Christian. But doing so ignores the fact that, according to Christian theology, we are not the problem, God is.

The Bible one big book recounting God’s continuous failures where, eventually, instead of just forgiving everyone, He takes the strange step of creating a loophole for rules which He’s in charge of anyway.

Christian theology is absurd.

<<A philosopher's paradox about God has as much impact as a comedian's paradox of how men and women are attracted to one another. The attraction exists, and so does God.>>

You’re missing the point. While the paradoxes may not disprove a god, what they do demonstrate is that if a god does indeed exist, then it cannot exist in the way you believe it does.

There is Karl Popper’s paradox regarding tolerance, too, but it doesn’t disprove the existence of tolerance. What it does is demonstrate that there can never be unlimited tolerance.

Back to God, these paradoxes remain serious issues for Christian theology. They are problems which theologians have struggled with for centuries, and for good reason too. Brushing them off as mere “muck” could never be a solution for anyone who cares about the truth of their beliefs.

<<Appealing to God’s alleged sovereignty doesn’t resolve the problem, it merely introduces yet another complication. >>

Are you familiar with Anerican football? The game is played with offensive team practicing their own "plays" out of their own formation playbook in order to get through the defence's players of the other team. One player (quarterback) throws the foot ball to one of the players running in fomation. If the formation is practiced well enough the quarterback throws the ball to the correct spot one of the runners wil be in to recieve it.

In essence what I'm talking about God being all knowing and all powerful. He can answer a prayer because He knows it's coming and it's already part of His plan to send His answer when the receiver who is praying prays. This is doable because God is all knowing and all powerful. Those don't cause a paradox. They work with eachother not against each other.

<<It sounds to me, then, that by, “cutting through the muck”, you mean ignore the problems or pretend they don’t exist.>>

Philosophical problems aren't real problems. When real problems arise people can have philosophy to get through it, and more to the point they need practical answers to resolve the problem. Philosophy won't change a flat tire, nor cause a heart attack. Understanding how to fix a tire or handle a heart attack helps. But that understanding doesn't cause the problems, and is useless if not acted on. Philosophical aruguing still counts as "muck."

Theology that doesn't serve a purpose outside of arguing and sounding smart is useless to me. Interesting things to think about, with the understanding that whether you figure it all out or not, it will still not change anything. But understanding nor intelect is what saves a person. They help. But in theology and faith the main points are to trust in God, love one another, and follow God's teachings. Believing and trusting in God (at least in Christianity) is the saving element that God holds us to.

<<But how could we achieve that without resolving the issues?>>

Want solid foundation? Consider Mathew 7:28-29. That's the solid ground in both faith and in much of life. Things outside of the scope of Jesus's teachings like specific skills or understanding, you start small. Learn a little get better at it, and learn some more. The more you do this whether it's faith, physics, or welding, the farther your solid ground covers and your discernment of what is right and what isn't.

<<I disagree. Our experiences still require that we think about them before we can come to a conclusion about what they mean.

The most reliable way we can determine what our experiences mean, however, is to be as objective about them as possible. Science is reliable because objectivity is a tenet of the scientific method. Our subjective feelings, on the other hand, demonstrate to us continuously just how unreliable they are.>>

Science is all about experience. The whole point of the scientific method is to have repeatable experiments, repeatable observations, and repeatable experiences. Having a fluke in the results of an experiment that don't match the theory is the kind of thing .i'm talking about where experience corrects our understanding. In fact that's it's rightful place. Coming to conclusions are still second to the actual experiences. Some things we will never know how or why they happened. Even without solid conclusions experience is a better mentor then philosophical understanding. Trial by error works well enough, and can correct incorrect logic.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’m still not sure you’re understanding the issue.

<<He can answer a prayer because He knows it's coming and it's already part of His plan ...>>

This is more touching on the free will paradox.

<<[Omniscience and omnipotence] work with eachother not against each other.>>

Yes, but a paradox would be created if prayed changed the course of what an omniscient god already knew was going to happen.

<<Philosophical problems aren't real problems.>>

Often they are. They certainly are in law.

<<Philosophy won't change a flat tire, nor cause a heart attack.>>

Of course not, but it can raise valid questions as to what one should to in such situations. It can even provide the answers. Without philosophy, how could you know what to do if you have a tyre puncture? Do you change it, or do you sit there and starve to death? Both options have philosophical implications.

<<Theology that doesn't serve a purpose outside of arguing and sounding smart is useless to me …>>

It serves a purpose to the extent that it highlights problems with one’s belief, and if there are problems with one’s belief, then I would have thought that most would want to either modify the belief, or abandon it. This should be the case for anyone who cares about the truth of their beliefs.

<<Want solid foundation? Consider Mathew 7:28-29. That's the solid ground in both faith and in much of life.>>

So, instead of resolving major problems with your theology, you’re going to simply fall back to an assertion in a book? That doesn’t sound like a very solid foundation to me.

<<Having a fluke in the results of an experiment that don't match the theory is the kind of thing .i'm talking about.>>

Yes, but the fluke would still need to be scientifically tested and repeated. How does one do that with alleged experiences of god, while controlling for more rational explanations?

AJ Phillips,

<<not sure you’re understanding the issue.>>

I understand the issue. You should be able to see this by my comments. I just don't agree with you.

<<Yes, but a paradox would be created if prayed changed the course of what an omniscient god already knew was going to happen.>>

Why would prayer change the course if Gid knew ahead of time that the people would pray? Not every prayer needs to be answered as if God is our servent. But praying gives the issue to God, and with His wisdom He can do as He sees right. The prayer part is for us. So we have a relationship with God.

I said that Theology that doesn't serve a purpose outside of arguing and sounding smart is useless to me. You replied

<<It serves a purpose to the extent that it highlights problems with one’s belief, ... This should be the case for anyone who cares about the truth of their beliefs.>>

how can you support meaningless debate. If there's no value from it then it is a waste; an excuse to divide people up. Look up the difference between truth and belief. Your beliefs do not mean they are true. You would not let a sly conman talk you into something because he out talked you would you? In the same way even if you don't support your beliefs through debate it doesn't mean that you are wrong. The truth might not be something you can reach, but your instincts might still be tight on.

<<...you’re going to simply fall back to an assertion in a book? That doesn’t sound like a very solid foundation to me.>>

Do you know what it means to be a Christian at all? You say you were one at one point in time. Yes I trust the bible. The bible being my foundation to know what's from God holds stronger merrit then experience does. And God holds the merrit that I have Him hold because of both faith and experience.

...based on your attitudes towards worthless arguing, I think we're done here.

I’m sorry, Not_Now.Soon, but when you brush them off as mere muck, you don’t.

<<I understand the issue … I just don't agree with you.>>

However, you now appear to acknowledge that prayer doesn’t change anything, so perhaps now you do.

<<Why would prayer change the course if Gid knew ahead of time that the people would pray?>>>

This, again, is more relevant to the free will paradox.

<<Not every prayer needs to be answered as if God is our servent.>>

Actually, that’s debatable. I haven’t suggested this, however.

<<The prayer part is for us. So we have a relationship with God.>>

Okay, I’m happy to go with that.

<<… how can you support meaningless debate.>>

That it is meaningless is your opinion. I find great value in it.

<<Look up the difference between truth and belief.>>

I understand the difference. I encourage theists to do the same. I would suggest that you look up the difference between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’.

<<Your beliefs do not mean they are true.>>

At no point have suggested otherwise. Indeed, this is why I appeal to reason and evidence.

<<You would not let a sly conman talk you into something because he out talked you would you?>>

No, I wouldn’t.

<<In the same way even if you don't support your beliefs through debate it doesn't mean that you are wrong.>>

Correct.

<<The truth might not be something you can reach, but your instincts might still be tight on.>>

That’s possible, yes. The problem is verifying it.

<<Do you know what it means to be a Christian at all?>>

Yes, I was one for twenty-something years.

<<Yes I trust the bible.>>

I know you do. My baffled-sounding question was asked in the hope that you might question why you trust the Bible, and consider why it is not a solid foundation on which to base anything.

<<...based on your attitudes towards worthless arguing, I think we're done here.>>

My attitude is one of inquiry and scepticism. I’m sorry if you don’t find value in those.