By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

 

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
Dulfite on 02 February 2016
Azuren said:
Dulfite said:

God does not use Lucifer like that. The book of Job clearly shows that lucifer himself wants to persuade people away from God. I would encourage you to read this article. I didn't read the entire thing, but the stuff I did read was accurate and is too lengthy to copy/paste into this thread so here you go:

 

here 

And again, humans are the ones rejecting the hand of Christ. You can't say God is sending people to hell. Anyone who desires to be saved in Jesus Christ can be in this life. Those who don't wish to be saved by Jesus Christ are not forced to be. Regardless of what you believe now, there is no changing the eternal truth that God loves you and desires you.

If God really existed and loved man so much, then he wouldn't have created a system that can have them go to hell. If he does exist, he's tyranical. And if that's the case, the only thing separating him from Kim Jong Un is he actually is a god.

 

Also, props to you for quoting the Bible in a thread that already called the Bible out.

I will always use the Bible. If your trying to convince a Christian to not use the Bible that's not going to work. I love people too much, because God loves me first, to not share what the Bible says. And I'd much rather people read the scripture than my, or anyone else's words.

God existed before man. What sin is, is the opposite of God. Sin is the absence of holiness. When God first created man, HE didn't create us into sin. We put ourselves into sin on our own accord. We ate from the tree. We murdered our brother. We worshipped ridiculous idols and statues as if they were what truly created and loved us. We did all these sins. It isn't God's fault that we sinned, it's ours. If we sin, we cannot be in the prescence of God because sin is the absence of God. But what God did for us, out of the ultimate love for us, is provide a way for us to be reunited with HIM. All people have to do is truly believe Jesus Christ loves them and can save them and all they have to do is accept that salvation. Then, we grow in Christ for the rest of our lives (learning to love others more, learning to depend more on God for our needs, etc), but all we have to do to start that process is accept Christ. There is nothing cruel about someone saying, "Yea, God clearly loves me and I accept Jesus as the only being that can save me from my sin." Pride gets in the way for a lot of people (the vast majority of whom would probably not admit), but it's an incredibly simple thing to believe. It's not like you have to have any physical, emotiona, or spiritual pain or discomfort. On the contrary, once you are saved it is an immense weight lifted off of you (very noticible) that you didn't even realize was present before you were saved.

It's not a system that HE created. HE is the "system." HE is what we were created to blissfully be united with for all eternity. We are the ones that walked away from HIM and it's our own fault, not HIS. God desires all to come to HIM.



Around the Network
Scoobes on 02 February 2016
Norris2k said:
Scoobes sai:
Norris2k said:

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !

As someone whose studies science you should also know that unlike faith and "belief", there is peer review, experimentation and critique. Even then, concepts are constantly reviewed, revised and updated. I don't think you can really compare a religious belief to the constant rigor of testing and self-improvement the scientific method has. Whilst I might not understand everything in science, I can view the data directly and discuss with people who work in the field. If I don't know about C14, I can go online and find a whole plethora of data from various instruments and learn how to interpret it.

Your third bullet is even making the same point. Science is contantly adjusting its models to an increasingly large pool of information whereas god/religion is a simplistic explanation that can never be tested or improved upon.

You miss the point about my first bullet. It's not about science and scientists, it's about you, and other people. It's about people that have a biased and very superficial understanding of science, and that, I think, is very similar in a bad way to faith. You could check the data, but you will not. You could discuss with people that knows (and even if I doubt you could understand proves), but you don't. You could learn how to interpret, but you will not. You have no idea how a a peer review works, how long it takes, the problem there is with peer review (lack of time, complaisance), but you don't doubt. You don't question the thing. Science is a lot (but not only), at last in physic, about finding a model that works to describe reality, and confront it with reality, that why everyone is searching for black hole and dark matter. The goal is to understand how things work, not why or who. I will quote a guy I kind of made fun about but I deeply respect, Newton. And please don't ignore that, think about it : "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Another guy, Einstein, said that regarding God he prefered "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

About my third bullet, again you miss the point. If science is adjusting models, you have to accept it's kind of wrong at any step. So, no arrogance, science is not Truth, it's a process for understanding, and we are at the very beginning of this process. And you compare science to God/religion in a way that shows you feel there is some form of competition. Science is not a religion, it should not be.

We're debating in two different directions but we're actually making the same point. Science is not religion but my point always was that they're not comparable. Very often though, people turn to religion in these threads and pit proven scientific theories against heresay. Religion often assumes it has answers for the unknown, but on a number of areas where people take religious texts at face value, they deny robust and proven scietific theories in favour of unproven nonsense. At the worst and extreme end they'll believe religious therapies will cure them of life threatening illness and ignore the scientifically proven treatments that could actually save their life.

You can talk about people blindly having faith in science, but I like to think that most people with a reasonable high school education know enough of the scientific method to know the process of hypothesis, test, conclusion and review (I know I got taught this very basic principle at age 11 if not earlier). That scientific papers get rigorous scrutiny and that experiments are repeated by different groups. That when scientists fake data they get called up on it (the retracted Nature paper on STAP comes to mind). That the science industry has to adhere to a strict process and set of standards before any product born of that science can be released (ISO standards, clinical trials, GLP and GMP). Being a scientist, perhaps I take this for granted, but we're also living in the information age. Data and information is literally a mouse or touchscreen away. The excuses for not being educated in the scientific method are reduced every year.

The point is that science as a way of understanding the world is not comparable to religion, yet too many people put them in direct conflict. And as a method for understanding the world around us, a system that constantly improves its models and admits our ignorance in the face of evidence, science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay).

@bolded I know this is a quote, but why does there even have to be a "who"? This in itself is a completely human concept but one we have no true evidence for. The belief in god is a completely human construct based on a simple and very human view of the world. We give things meaning, we see design when we view and interpret the world/universe around us, but few people actually stop to think "why does there need to be a purpose? a design? or even a point?". And given our limited understanding of the universe (which is why the scientific method came to be), why do human beings attribute this unknown to a god or a religion? Would it not be more accurate to simply admit our ignorance than make assumptions and place meaning where their may be none?




Get your Portable ID!

g911turbo on 02 February 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

g911turbo said:

But if God IS/ARE the laws of physics.  Mind = blown.

You keep suggesting he has to operate outside the laws of physics.  But if that IS God.  Think about it, we are inherently obeying him and bending to his will, because we ALL have to adhere to the LAWs of physics.

 

Either that or an ancient alien.

Tell me this isn't a serious post? This is nothing but label swapping. We already have a term for the laws of physics, it's...the laws of physics.

It can be frustrating to try and wrap your mind around, but you'll eventually get it.



nuckles87 on 02 February 2016
Scoobes said:
Norris2k said:

You miss the point about my first bullet. It's not about science and scientists, it's about you, and other people. It's about people that have a biased and very superficial understanding of science, and that, I think, is very similar in a bad way to faith. You could check the data, but you will not. You could discuss with people that knows (and even if I doubt you could understand proves), but you don't. You could learn how to interpret, but you will not. You have no idea how a a peer review works, how long it takes, the problem there is with peer review (lack of time, complaisance), but you don't doubt. You don't question the thing. Science is a lot (but not only), at last in physic, about finding a model that works to describe reality, and confront it with reality, that why everyone is searching for black hole and dark matter. The goal is to understand how things work, not why or who. I will quote a guy I kind of made fun about but I deeply respect, Newton. And please don't ignore that, think about it : "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Another guy, Einstein, said that regarding God he prefered "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

About my third bullet, again you miss the point. If science is adjusting models, you have to accept it's kind of wrong at any step. So, no arrogance, science is not Truth, it's a process for understanding, and we are at the very beginning of this process. And you compare science to God/religion in a way that shows you feel there is some form of competition. Science is not a religion, it should not be.

We're debating in two different directions but we're actually making the same point. Science is not religion but my point always was that they're not comparable. Very often though, people turn to religion in these threads and pit proven scientific theories against heresay. Religion often assumes it has answers for the unknown, but on a number of areas where people take religious texts at face value, they deny robust and proven scietific theories in favour of unproven nonsense. At the worst and extreme end they'll believe religious therapies will cure them of life threatening illness and ignore the scientifically proven treatments that could actually save their life.

You can talk about people blindly having faith in science, but I like to think that most people with a reasonable high school education know enough of the scientific method to know the process of hypothesis, test, conclusion and review (I know I got taught this very basic principle at age 11 if not earlier). That scientific papers get rigorous scrutiny and that experiments are repeated by different groups. That when scientists fake data they get called up on it (the retracted Nature paper on STAP comes to mind). That the science industry has to adhere to a strict process and set of standards before any product born of that science can be released (ISO standards, clinical trials, GLP and GMP). Being a scientist, perhaps I take this for granted, but we're also living in the information age. Data and information is literally a mouse or touchscreen away. The excuses for not being educated in the scientific method are reduced every year.

The point is that science as a way of understanding the world is not comparable to religion, yet too many people put them in direct conflict. And as a method for understanding the world around us, a system that constantly improves its models and admits our ignorance in the face of evidence, science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay).

@bolded I know this is a quote, but why does there even have to be a "who"? This in itself is a completely human concept but one we have no true evidence for. The belief in god is a completely human construct based on a simple and very human view of the world. We give things meaning, we see design when we view and interpret the world/universe around us, but few people actually stop to think "why does there need to be a purpose? a design? or even a point?". And given our limited understanding of the universe (which is why the scientific method came to be), why do human beings attribute this unknown to a god or a religion? Would it not be more accurate to simply admit our ignorance than make assumptions and place meaning where their may be none?

This, exactly this. I couldn't have said it better if I wanted to, but thankfully I don't have to.

I will add, bad research is inevitably ferreted out when other scientists attempt to replicate the results in their own work for their own research. I believe this article is about the Nature papers you're referring to, Scoobes?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/health/time-stem-cell/



StuOhQ on 02 February 2016

The only answer is no. As a long time meditator, whose spiritual fires were first kindled by the words of Jesus of Nazerath, I cherish those things in life that cannot be quantified.

Any concept or classification one might attach to God would not only be frivolous, but would drive one further from reality.

Trying to know God by deductive reasoning is like chasing one's own tail. One may wear themselves out in the process, but they will never come any closer to their end goal.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Around the Network
Norris2k on 03 February 2016
Scoobes said:

We're debating in two different directions but we're actually making the same point. Science is not religion but my point always was that they're not comparable. Very often though, people turn to religion in these threads and pit proven scientific theories against heresay. Religion often assumes it has answers for the unknown, but on a number of areas where people take religious texts at face value, they deny robust and proven scietific theories in favour of unproven nonsense. At the worst and extreme end they'll believe religious therapies will cure them of life threatening illness and ignore the scientifically proven treatments that could actually save their life.

You can talk about people blindly having faith in science, but I like to think that most people with a reasonable high school education know enough of the scientific method to know the process of hypothesis, test, conclusion and review (I know I got taught this very basic principle at age 11 if not earlier). That scientific papers get rigorous scrutiny and that experiments are repeated by different groups. That when scientists fake data they get called up on it (the retracted Nature paper on STAP comes to mind). That the science industry has to adhere to a strict process and set of standards before any product born of that science can be released (ISO standards, clinical trials, GLP and GMP). Being a scientist, perhaps I take this for granted, but we're also living in the information age. Data and information is literally a mouse or touchscreen away. The excuses for not being educated in the scientific method are reduced every year.

The point is that science as a way of understanding the world is not comparable to religion, yet too many people put them in direct conflict. And as a method for understanding the world around us, a system that constantly improves its models and admits our ignorance in the face of evidence, science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay).

@bolded I know this is a quote, but why does there even have to be a "who"? This in itself is a completely human concept but one we have no true evidence for. The belief in god is a completely human construct based on a simple and very human view of the world. We give things meaning, we see design when we view and interpret the world/universe around us, but few people actually stop to think "why does there need to be a purpose? a design? or even a point?". And given our limited understanding of the universe (which is why the scientific method came to be), why do human beings attribute this unknown to a god or a religion? Would it not be more accurate to simply admit our ignorance than make assumptions and place meaning where their may be none?

While apparently reasonnable, you are not, that's why it's never ending. "[...] science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay)". About the bold part... Says who ? Christians don't burn iphone, the Vatican does not claims the earth is flat (and never did btw), the babylonians had science, Einstein has never been an heretic... Most theists in developped countries accept science as a source of progress. But you, you can't resist the need to put religion down here and there, you would never concede a single point against science. You are a zealot. I'm not. I believe in science, I don't believe in God, I don't need a who, but I don't need and I don't think it's fair to define faith as an assumption based on ignorance. Again, that's the point of quoting Newton, he's not an ignorant. I tried to put some balance, so, no, I believe we are not making the same point at all, that's a dead end.



Azuren on 03 February 2016
Dulfite said:
Azuren said:

If God really existed and loved man so much, then he wouldn't have created a system that can have them go to hell. If he does exist, he's tyranical. And if that's the case, the only thing separating him from Kim Jong Un is he actually is a god.

 

Also, props to you for quoting the Bible in a thread that already called the Bible out.

I will always use the Bible. If your trying to convince a Christian to not use the Bible that's not going to work. I love people too much, because God loves me first, to not share what the Bible says. And I'd much rather people read the scripture than my, or anyone else's words.

God existed before man. What sin is, is the opposite of God. Sin is the absence of holiness. When God first created man, HE didn't create us into sin. We put ourselves into sin on our own accord. We ate from the tree. We murdered our brother. We worshipped ridiculous idols and statues as if they were what truly created and loved us. We did all these sins. It isn't God's fault that we sinned, it's ours. If we sin, we cannot be in the prescence of God because sin is the absence of God. But what God did for us, out of the ultimate love for us, is provide a way for us to be reunited with HIM. All people have to do is truly believe Jesus Christ loves them and can save them and all they have to do is accept that salvation. Then, we grow in Christ for the rest of our lives (learning to love others more, learning to depend more on God for our needs, etc), but all we have to do to start that process is accept Christ. There is nothing cruel about someone saying, "Yea, God clearly loves me and I accept Jesus as the only being that can save me from my sin." Pride gets in the way for a lot of people (the vast majority of whom would probably not admit), but it's an incredibly simple thing to believe. It's not like you have to have any physical, emotiona, or spiritual pain or discomfort. On the contrary, once you are saved it is an immense weight lifted off of you (very noticible) that you didn't even realize was present before you were saved.

It's not a system that HE created. HE is the "system." HE is what we were created to blissfully be united with for all eternity. We are the ones that walked away from HIM and it's our own fault, not HIS. God desires all to come to HIM.

So you trust the written word of primitives unlikely to truly understand the intent and meaning of a non-linear being, and then repeatedly altered throughout one of history's darkest times for reasons that seemed to oddly benefit those in power? Good on you.

Preach all you want, but it doesn't answer the God Paradox. At the end of the day, God created everything from nothing. In this creation, he either messed up (which he apparently can't) and created a system that can damn the things he supposedly loves to eternal torment, OR he simply doesn't love us and would rather subjugate us the way a king subjugates serfs.

So answer me this: Is your god fallible, or is he apathetic?



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Rogerioandrade on 03 February 2016
Mr_No said:

That's a pretty interesting point of view you bring, even if it has already been brought at this thread. Everyone is hellbent on trying to prove to the rest on how God's existence cannot be proven and how faith is irrelevant in any aspect. It's true that faith has to do with the things we don't see, hence why some people find the concept absurd and ridiculize it, demeaning the personal experiences people have had with faith in the name of evidence and facts. But what can you do?

I agree that this topic has been discussed to death on VGC before, and it's a topic I try to stay away from.

 

Yeah..We can´t do nothing s about it actually.

Faith and science are completely different things, but both are, in their way, necessary for our evolution as human beings. There´s no need to conflict them. We are intelligent enough to understand the difference and to live with both concepts. 

Or at least, a small part of us are..... hahaha



Scoobes on 03 February 2016
Norris2k said:
Scoobes said:

We're debating in two different directions but we're actually making the same point. Science is not religion but my point always was that they're not comparable. Very often though, people turn to religion in these threads and pit proven scientific theories against heresay. Religion often assumes it has answers for the unknown, but on a number of areas where people take religious texts at face value, they deny robust and proven scietific theories in favour of unproven nonsense. At the worst and extreme end they'll believe religious therapies will cure them of life threatening illness and ignore the scientifically proven treatments that could actually save their life.

You can talk about people blindly having faith in science, but I like to think that most people with a reasonable high school education know enough of the scientific method to know the process of hypothesis, test, conclusion and review (I know I got taught this very basic principle at age 11 if not earlier). That scientific papers get rigorous scrutiny and that experiments are repeated by different groups. That when scientists fake data they get called up on it (the retracted Nature paper on STAP comes to mind). That the science industry has to adhere to a strict process and set of standards before any product born of that science can be released (ISO standards, clinical trials, GLP and GMP). Being a scientist, perhaps I take this for granted, but we're also living in the information age. Data and information is literally a mouse or touchscreen away. The excuses for not being educated in the scientific method are reduced every year.

The point is that science as a way of understanding the world is not comparable to religion, yet too many people put them in direct conflict. And as a method for understanding the world around us, a system that constantly improves its models and admits our ignorance in the face of evidence, science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay).

@bolded I know this is a quote, but why does there even have to be a "who"? This in itself is a completely human concept but one we have no true evidence for. The belief in god is a completely human construct based on a simple and very human view of the world. We give things meaning, we see design when we view and interpret the world/universe around us, but few people actually stop to think "why does there need to be a purpose? a design? or even a point?". And given our limited understanding of the universe (which is why the scientific method came to be), why do human beings attribute this unknown to a god or a religion? Would it not be more accurate to simply admit our ignorance than make assumptions and place meaning where their may be none?

While apparently reasonnable, you are not, that's why it's never ending. "[...] science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay)". About the bold part... Says who ? Christians don't burn iphone, the Vatican does not claims the earth is flat (and never did btw), the babylonians had science, Einstein has never been an heretic... Most theists in developped countries accept science as a source of progress. But you, you can't resist the need to put religion down here and there, you would never concede a single point against science. You are a zealot. I'm not. I believe in science, I don't believe in God, I don't need a who, but I don't need and I don't think it's fair to define faith as an assumption based on ignorance. Again, that's the point of quoting Newton, he's not an ignorant. I tried to put some balance, so, no, I believe we are not making the same point at all, that's a dead end.

Nothing of what you said goes against what I did. Religious groups didn't come up with those theories, science and scientists did. By its nature, the way religion tries to explain things is through faith, which when you boil it down to religious texts is essentially unverifiable stories written by human beings (aka heresay). I'm not putting it down so much as stating a simple fact. Religion serves different purposes to different people, but if someone is going to use it to explain the world contrary to the actual evidence then they shouldn't be surprised when someone questions that.

That said, at no point did I say all religious people think science is wrong (and some of the greatest scientific and engineering ideas have come from theists), but there are a minority that put faith above robust scientific theory which at times can be dangerous (as I pointed out). For those people, the scientific method as a self-improving system is always going to be more accurate than their faith.




Get your Portable ID!

Dulfite on 03 February 2016
Azuren said:
Dulfite said:

I will always use the Bible. If your trying to convince a Christian to not use the Bible that's not going to work. I love people too much, because God loves me first, to not share what the Bible says. And I'd much rather people read the scripture than my, or anyone else's words.

God existed before man. What sin is, is the opposite of God. Sin is the absence of holiness. When God first created man, HE didn't create us into sin. We put ourselves into sin on our own accord. We ate from the tree. We murdered our brother. We worshipped ridiculous idols and statues as if they were what truly created and loved us. We did all these sins. It isn't God's fault that we sinned, it's ours. If we sin, we cannot be in the prescence of God because sin is the absence of God. But what God did for us, out of the ultimate love for us, is provide a way for us to be reunited with HIM. All people have to do is truly believe Jesus Christ loves them and can save them and all they have to do is accept that salvation. Then, we grow in Christ for the rest of our lives (learning to love others more, learning to depend more on God for our needs, etc), but all we have to do to start that process is accept Christ. There is nothing cruel about someone saying, "Yea, God clearly loves me and I accept Jesus as the only being that can save me from my sin." Pride gets in the way for a lot of people (the vast majority of whom would probably not admit), but it's an incredibly simple thing to believe. It's not like you have to have any physical, emotiona, or spiritual pain or discomfort. On the contrary, once you are saved it is an immense weight lifted off of you (very noticible) that you didn't even realize was present before you were saved.

It's not a system that HE created. HE is the "system." HE is what we were created to blissfully be united with for all eternity. We are the ones that walked away from HIM and it's our own fault, not HIS. God desires all to come to HIM.

So you trust the written word of primitives unlikely to truly understand the intent and meaning of a non-linear being, and then repeatedly altered throughout one of history's darkest times for reasons that seemed to oddly benefit those in power? Good on you.

Preach all you want, but it doesn't answer the God Paradox. At the end of the day, God created everything from nothing. In this creation, he either messed up (which he apparently can't) and created a system that can damn the things he supposedly loves to eternal torment, OR he simply doesn't love us and would rather subjugate us the way a king subjugates serfs.

So answer me this: Is your god fallible, or is he apathetic?

I believe scripture is God breathed. God went through man to write it. I don't believe God would allow HIS word to be altered by man into anything that isn't true. If one accepts that God exists (which I do), and one accepts that God is all powerful (which I do), and one accepts that nothing that happens could ever alter what God has planned (which I do), then believing God's scripture is infallible is not difficult.

God isn't fallible or apathetic. Do you honestly believe I'd be talking to you, or even caring about my own existence or life if I thought otherwise? I mean, how depressing would it be to live life with no hope whatesoever? Why not just kill myself now and get it over with if I know hell is waiting for me? I do not believe either of those at all. Apathetic would be if HE didn't give us a way out of our condemnation. He gave us Jesus Christ, who died the worst death in history (way beyond just physical pain), despite not sinning once. And he didn't mess up. He gave humans brains to think for themselves and people chose to hurt themselves (by sinning and distancing themselves from God). We are a destructive race, but that doesn't mean God created us wrong. With choice comes temptation to do what isn't right, and we do that all the time. Praise be to God that HE gave us salvation through Jesus Christ, despite all the terrible things I do in my life.