Is God going to make an appearance?

Each time I question why God would allow suffering, I am presented with the same retort. That first, if God intervened it would defeat the purpose of free-will. And that second, it would make there be no need for faith.

How is this an argument in defense of God’s position? Is that all that is keeping him from intervening? Think of the most horrible suffering imaginable. Would you agree that the prevention of that type of suffering warrants at least a momentary suspension of will? Murderers wouldn’t, but as a society we can agree that these are not the opinions to listen to.

To argue that all actions are subjective, therefore we must even take into account what a psychopath deems as ethical, is in my opinion a faulty conclusion.
You wouldn’t consult an engineer on how best to perform a surgery; just as you would not consult someone who doesn’t value human happiness when deciding which actions deserve to be thwarted.

Next, why is God so set on people believing in his presence when clearly a lack of evidence is presently available? If the question of whether there is evidence or not for an omnipotent, omnipresent being even arises, then this is a failure on God’s part. Is not popping down to earth occasionally in order to make his presence known, worth saving the millions upon millions of people that have rejected him due to this lack of evidence?



  29 comments for “Is God going to make an appearance?

  1. July 11, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    Agree completely, especially with what you said about God’s existence. Can u explain your point about consulting someone who doesn’t value human happiness? Are you saying God doesn’t value human happiness?

    • July 11, 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Sorry if it was unclear. The issue is that the counter-argument to my suggestion of an intervention of “will” usually comes in this form: “Humans have different definitions of what a moral action entails, therefore who says that murder is wrong? If God does not gives us an objective morality, then everything is subjective.”

      So how do we decide who to listen to to solve our questions regarding morality? Well, we will not consult people who do not value human happiness. Morality is subjective, but if a psychopath says it’s moral to kill someone, then we as a society can easily judge this behavior as undesirable.

      Thanks for the comment, and I added to the beginning of that paragraph to hopefully ward off any further confusion.

      • July 11, 2014 at 7:09 pm

        Than makes sense, thanks for clarifying 🙂 what’s your answer to the question, “who do we listen to about human morality.”

      • July 11, 2014 at 7:18 pm

        It is my opinion that we need to listen to what social evolution has to say on the issue.

        Society is in a constant state of evolving practices and beliefs. Slavery for instance, what caused us to all of a sudden realize “oh we’ve had this wrong all along?” It definitely wasn’t a religious text.

        Just as how today many civilized countries are condemning barbarous Islamic practices such as stoning, subjugation of women, stoning, etc. Hopefully the rejection of such practices will catch on even more so in the near future.

  2. July 11, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    Good point about slavery. Social evolution seems vague.. For instance, what does it “say” about female circumcision? I think we can use social evolution to explain trends in the past but it is difficult to use to predict what one “should” do in the present or future.

    • July 11, 2014 at 7:36 pm

      Just as learning more about history can open our eyes to problems we encounter in the present, I believe awareness of social evolution can aid in searching for moral answers.

      Social evolution isn’t the guide book. I don’t believe there is one. However, human happiness and reduction of suffering needs to be a compass in my opinion. Neuroscientist/author Sam Harris wrote a book on the subject of morality without a God called “The Moral Landscape,” which goes much more in depth.

  3. July 11, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Without suffering, there would be no life on Earth.

    So winking God out of existence because the universe doesn’t measure up to Atheist Intelligent Design Standards is a pyrotechnic display of irrationality.

    We have to understand the universe the way it was created and we have to understand the Creator for who he is, not for who we think he ought to be based on a set of completely arbitrary and disconnected-from-reality standards.

    • July 11, 2014 at 8:56 pm

      “Without suffering, there would be no life on earth.”

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there was any suffering when God created “life on earth” to begin with (before people started snatching fruits). So apparently it IS possible. Even if it is by way of ignorance, life can technically exist without suffering.

      Actually, I’m attempting to point out a contradiction between who God says he is and the actual evidence for if he’s held up to those ideals. I’m not simply judging him based off what I believe he “should” be doing, but instead by what he “could” be doing.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:01 pm


        The Bible, like other Great Books in our Western Heritage, meets, greets and explains the conundrum of suffering.

        But we have to measure our understanding of written material against reality.

        And according to reality we wouldn’t exist without suffering.

        That means that horrible as suffering is, it’s end is good.

        To conclude otherwise is a statement of self-loathing since we would not be who we are nor would we be at all, without suffering.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:13 pm

        Statements such as the one you just made exemplify the irrational thought process. To be told that you can’t be who you are without suffering is nonsense.

        Sure, suffering has made people stronger, but how about you tell a family that suffered a loss to a natural disaster that “hey, if this didn’t happen then you wouldn’t be who you are.”

        To make such a presumptuous claim such as, “we wouldn’t exist without suffering” is erroneous.

        You continue to believe that. Meanwhile, the rest of progressive civilization will attempt to REDUCE suffering, and not hold it on a pedestal as something to be admired and awed at, as if we would be any less of “ourselves” without it.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:17 pm


        Quite the contrary. To believe that we can live life without suffering is a departure from reality.

        Every living thing suffers. That’s just the way it is.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm


        To reduce suffering and reproduce is the goal of all life.

        It is the effort to reduce suffering that powers evolution in lower forms of life and it is the effort to reduce suffering that powers human civilization and technology.

        Such efforts are a response to the suffering inherent to our environment and yield improvement.

        Without suffering there would be no need to improve.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm

        “Without suffering there would be no need to improve.”

        This is a non-sequitur. Without suffering there would be no need to “reduce suffering.” That is all that means.

        Without suffering, we would continue as a civilization to improve technology, medicine, etc.

        For example, what if we no longer could experience pain from disease and infection? It wouldn’t stop the need to improve medicine. We would still try to combat disease because it would prolong life.

        And yes, without suffering we would still desire to prolong life, because we would still desire to experience pleasure. The feeling of neutrality is then what we would experience when not experiencing suffering (if indeed suffering ceased to exist).

        Suffering is not a requirement for existence, but rather, a flaw. A flaw that we have been trying to correct.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:34 pm


        I realize that as an atheist you have 100% faith that everything happens all by itself.

        Nevertheless, life is government by a 1st principle called self-interest.

        Without self-interest there is no life.

        And each creature avoids suffering because of self-interest.

        Self-interest + suffering = development.

        Those who survive development, improve.

        That’s what evolution is.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:39 pm

        I don’t know which “Evolution of species” book you read, but “Suffering” IS NOT a condition.

        Read an elementary science book and you will realize that “avoiding inefficiency” and “maximizing reproduction potential” is what evolution is really about.

        I guess that’s another shortcoming of the bible. A failure to explain elementary evolutionary ideas.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:46 pm


        Smash your thumb with a hammer and tell your mother you are not in a condition of suffering.

        She may believe you, or at least act like she believes you because she is your mother.

        But I have no reason to believe your unbelievable claims.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:49 pm


        Please read what I’m about to say once and maybe twice.

        Suffering by definition “is an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual.”

        Therefore a nervous system/consciousness IS needed in order to experience suffering. The life form must be able to “perceive” it. I don’t care how much danger the cell is in. By definition, perception must be there.

        If you can’t accept a definition, then you are speaking babble. Do your research.

      • July 11, 2014 at 9:53 pm


        Suffering is integral to the existence of all living things. If there were no suffering, there would be no evolution.

        Since evolution is a central dogma of science and an attribute of all living things your atheist viewpoint is a rejection of science.

      • July 11, 2014 at 10:01 pm

        I’ll let this be my last comment, seeing as you can’t read a definition.

        Single-celled organisms evolved. They do not have a nervous system or consciousness and cannot perceive suffering. The definition of suffering is predicated by the perception.

        Therefore, life can and does evolve without suffering. Evolution does not say (repeating myself here) that suffering is necessary, but is concerned with reproductive potential and efficiency.

        You can kill 1 billion single-celled organisms and not one will suffer. I’m sorry, but you’re changing science so that it will fit your construed world-view. Ironically the exact thing you accuse me of.

        I hate to say it, but your wrong. First by definition, and secondly by science.

        Thanks for the comments!

  4. July 11, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    “Every living thing suffers. That’s just the way it is.”

    You do realize that there are MANY life forms that do not even have a nervous system or consciousness?

    • July 11, 2014 at 9:44 pm


      All living things have to contend with a hostile environment.

      Whether or not a creature has the capacity to physically sense that hostility has no bearing on the way of things.

      • July 17, 2014 at 8:45 pm

        As such, SOM, is not an Omnimalevolent Creator more reasonable than a benevolent one?

      • July 18, 2014 at 1:09 am


        We know from our Platonist philosophy that God is the measure of all things good.

        That is, God is infinitely beautiful, infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, and infinitely loving.

        So the idea of an Omni malevolent God is yet another example of atheist irrationality.

      • July 18, 2014 at 11:30 am

        Ah, Platonic thought proves all that, does it? 🙂

        You’re a treasure, SOM.

      • July 18, 2014 at 11:42 am


        The systematic thinking developed by the ancient Greeks beginning with Socrates is essential to reasoning correctly.

        That is, the pursuit of truth is not possible without systematic thinking.

        Atheists renounce the Western Heritage which includes systematic thinking.

        For that reason alone everything atheists think about philosophically is always, yes always, wrong.

        The reason for that is because the hodge-podge of ideas that inhabit the atheist mind are strung together by logical fallacies, factual errors or what I call the atheist hallucination of alternate universes.

        Consequently it is impossible for the atheist to reason his way to a true conclusion or, in the parlance of philosophers, self-evident truth.

      • July 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm

        “That is, the pursuit of truth is not possible without systematic thinking.”

        Precisely, and by the power of deduction one must conclude this universe is the product of an Omnimalevolent Creator. Malevolence, not benevolence, is the natural, effortless conclusion. It is, as such, logically more reasonable.

      • July 18, 2014 at 12:24 pm


        The absurd idea of an Omni malevolent God is an example of the atheist problem with reasoning.

        First, since God, by definition, is the measure of all good things.

        So your deduction is based on a false premise which in fact is an example of an atheist hallucination of an alternative universe.

        Only in the atheist alternative universe can God be redefined.

        It’s the same with the idiot idea of gay marriage. Only in a hallucinated alternative universe is a man-man or woman-woman union equal to a man-woman union.

        In the atheist alternative universe it is possible to hallucinate different natures for everything including God and man.

      • July 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm

        I do so love your brand of circus tricks, SOM.

        Perhaps you can detail why its more reasonable to conclude this universe was designed by a benevolent hand, as opposed to a malevolent one? Surely there must be indicators pointing to the conclusion you seem so (reasonably) certain of….

      • July 18, 2014 at 12:35 pm


        Human beings by nature of being finite creatures can have no idea about why God did what.

        That means your question, “why its more reasonable to conclude this universe was designed by a benevolent hand, as opposed to a malevolent one?” is an absurdity.

        The atheists presents absurdities as if they were based on facts or systematic thinking.

        But it is through systematic thinking that atheist ideas are proven absurd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: