"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[Mopsus]

There is a kind of knowing God that involves sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity.  It is not the only way of knowing God.  Knowing God within the Christian understanding is in the most important sense a relationship, which may be open to anyone. It involves a seeking after by the person who would know God, but this seeking after takes many forms.

I don’t think we disagree. Before you can have a personal relationship with God, you have to have the sophistication to understand His will, and the maturity to obey it. At least, I think you have to have those things first. As you say, seeking after takes many forms.

[RFayette]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

Fair enough, but while I agree that 'proof' really isn't the right term for what we're working with here, it is true that various theistic arguments are based on research into cosmology and quantum mechanics (regarding origin of universe and free will/determinism), so it doesn't seem that far-fetched for someone to go into physics in part to look for evidence for their faith.

Going into a scientific investigation with the intent of proving something you already believe, rather than finding the truth, is how you get terrible science.

That's what the scientific method is for.

But as long as someone is doing their work honestly, what is wrong with hoping that their results turn out a certain way?  Scientists of all persuasions have wanted certain results to be true (whether they like the mathematical elegance of their hypothesis, or for some other reason).  While not perfect, the forces of peer review should act as a counterbalance to this. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is a kind of knowing God that involves sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity.  It is not the only way of knowing God.  Knowing God within the Christian understanding is in the most important sense a relationship, which may be open to anyone. It involves a seeking after by the person who would know God, but this seeking after takes many forms.

I don’t think we disagree. Before you can have a personal relationship with God, you have to have the sophistication to understand His will, and the maturity to obey it. At least, I think you have to have those things first. As you say, seeking after takes many forms.

I believe that for most people, most of the time, a sophisticated understanding of God's will comes only as the relationship deepens, rather than being a prerequisite for that relationship.   And there are many times when we do not understand God's will, we can only seek it out and do our best.   Obedience can be a matter of maturity.  It may also be a matter of a child's trust in their parent - this is not immature, but maturity might not be the right term.

[muon2]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

Fair enough, but while I agree that 'proof' really isn't the right term for what we're working with here, it is true that various theistic arguments are based on research into cosmology and quantum mechanics (regarding origin of universe and free will/determinism), so it doesn't seem that far-fetched for someone to go into physics in part to look for evidence for their faith.

Going into a scientific investigation with the intent of proving something you already believe, rather than finding the truth, is how you get terrible science.

That's what the scientific method is for.

But as long as someone is doing their work honestly, what is wrong with hoping that their results turn out a certain way?  Scientists of all persuasions have wanted certain results to be true (whether they like the mathematical elegance of their hypothesis, or for some other reason).  While not perfect, the forces of peer review should act as a counterbalance to this. 

I would go a step further. In my experience it is rare to find a scientist who doesn't have an expectation for their experiment or theoretical inquiry. It's the initial belief in the underlying theory that drives scientists to better measure and confirm that theory. If I proposed an experiment and had no belief that it would have an expected result, it is highly unlikely that I would get funding or other support for that experiment.

[HisGrace]

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

The same human nature that leads to broken marriages and economic issues, also leads to war, murder, and rape. If you want to stop those things, start changing your own nature. Draw God into the world yourself.

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

The reason I accuse people of having daddy issues is that they want a god to come into the world as a strong-armed savior and fix all our problems, and then act bitter when that doesn't happen. To me, it speaks to an emotional and psychological immaturity.

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

You have no idea what the consequences of just "snapping your fingers and ending the war in Syria" might be.  You could be setting the region up for a much deadlier war down the line.  You could be creating a power vacuum for an organization like ISIS to re-fill.

As MOP said, the changes have to come from within each and every one of us.  So far we've not done a real good job with that.  But you can do it for yourself.

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

The reason I accuse people of having daddy issues is that they want a god to come into the world as a strong-armed savior and fix all our problems, and then act bitter when that doesn't happen. To me, it speaks to an emotional and psychological immaturity.

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

Have you considered that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have information you are not privy to that would alter your moral assessment of the situation?  This is why ethical arguments against Christianity such as the argument from evil, argument from hell, etc. can only take you so far because we are ultimately finite human beings, not exactly a suitable place from which to judge the creator of the universe.

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

[Karpatsky]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

An omnipotent god is responsible for literally everything that happens. Presumably, even if it chooses not to intervene in the dominoes it set up after knocking the first one down, it still arranged it such that some people would want to engage in child abuse.

[RINO Tom]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

An omnipotent god is responsible for literally everything that happens. Presumably, even if it chooses not to intervene in the dominoes it set up after knocking the first one down, it still arranged it such that some people would want to engage in child abuse.

Free will is meaningless if the ability to do wrong isn't there.  A God that endows His/Her/Its creations with true freedom is only "responsible" for not intervening when people abuse that freedom in the sense that He/She/It remains committed to letting said creations be truly free.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

An omnipotent god is responsible for literally everything that happens. Presumably, even if it chooses not to intervene in the dominoes it set up after knocking the first one down, it still arranged it such that some people would want to engage in child abuse.

That same logic could be applied to any other sinful act, which humans bear personal responsibility for simply by virtue of us having free agency.  Lacking that free agency, humans would be perfect, rational, moral actors operating under the direct hand of God.  But then life would amount to nothing more than a one-man puppet show, and any dialogue about ethics would be rendered moot.

There is a difference between God's active will and God's passive will.  God's passive will does not signify approval of our own misdeeds.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

[RINO Tom]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

My point was that even if that what you say is true, and I don't see how it can be proven, what is the use of such a belief? Can't a person be good without such a belief? Can't a person own their own power to survive, and why outsource your power to someone else?

edit: it seems to me that it is the difference between Deism and Theism, the former believes that while such a creator exists, it doesn't really matter anyway, since this creator doesn't get involved in anyway with the universe.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope I don't sound like I am making this personal. I can respect someone without accepting their beliefs. I do know Christians whom I respect. I am just defending an unpopular belief (or complete lack thereof more precisely) that is worthy of being defended.

The question of whether a belief is useful is key. It seems possible that believing in something that isn't true can be a good thing, although such a statement seems dangerous.
I will elaborate on that later. I can certainly understand a desire to believe in an afterlife, but
with speculation that life expectancy is increasing, such a belief may become less appealing.

The questions of belief based on reason and belief based on wishful thinking are two things that need to be separated at least a little..

I know that when I was a child, when my father died, the idea that I would see him again was some comfort. (although still a painful experience) So what do you do with that?

[DC Al Fine]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

God isn't always singular; John 1:1.

[DC Al Fine]

I hope I don't sound like I am making this personal. I can respect someone without accepting their beliefs. I do know Christians whom I respect. I am just defending an unpopular belief (or complete lack thereof more precisely) that is worthy of being defended.

The question of whether a belief is useful is key. It seems possible that believing in something that isn't true can be a good thing, although such a statement seems dangerous.
I will elaborate on that later. I can certainly understand a desire to believe in an afterlife, but
with speculation that life expectancy is increasing, such a belief may become less appealing.

The questions of belief based on reason and belief based on wishful thinking are two things that need to be separated at least a little..

I know that when I was a child, when my father died, the idea that I would see him again was some comfort. (although still a painful experience) So what do you do with that?

It's not that you're making it personal. The problem is that you're birdwalking all over the place to use RinoTom's phrase.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

God isn't always singular; John 1:1.

That is an interesting verse to cite when discussing the oneness of God. Is the truth one?
Many people erroneously refer to the book of "Revelation" as "Revelations". Some will speak of the scripture as "the scriptures". Are these "three" persons" the same? If yes, why divide them? If no, why not? The latter would seem to create a problem, a god with a divided mind, like a multiple personality disorder.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope I don't sound like I am making this personal. I can respect someone without accepting their beliefs. I do know Christians whom I respect. I am just defending an unpopular belief (or complete lack thereof more precisely) that is worthy of being defended.

The question of whether a belief is useful is key. It seems possible that believing in something that isn't true can be a good thing, although such a statement seems dangerous.
I will elaborate on that later. I can certainly understand a desire to believe in an afterlife, but
with speculation that life expectancy is increasing, such a belief may become less appealing.

The questions of belief based on reason and belief based on wishful thinking are two things that need to be separated at least a little..

I know that when I was a child, when my father died, the idea that I would see him again was some comfort. (although still a painful experience) So what do you do with that?

It's not that you're making it personal. The problem is that you're birdwalking all over the place to use RinoTom's phrase.

OK, it may sound that way, but I summed it up with the question, which I see as critical, as to whether religion is useful. In some ways it may be, which is problematic since another question is whether something is true even if it appears to be useful.

[muon2]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

God isn't always singular; John 1:1.

That is an interesting verse to cite when discussing the oneness of God. Is the truth one?
Many people erroneously refer to the book of "Revelation" as "Revelations". Some will speak of the scripture as "the scriptures". Are these "three" persons" the same? If yes, why divide them? If no, why not? The latter would seem to create a problem, a god with a divided mind, like a multiple personality disorder.

The expression of different and at times exclusive aspects is not a sign of disorder. It's part of the nature of the universe. In physics an electron can manifest itself as a concrete particle or a wave, but not necessarily both at the same time. The manifest form depends on the state of the observer. Though this seemed contradictory to scientists 100 years ago, we now understand how to use those different expressions of the electron to power the equipment that allows me to write and you to read this post.

We now regularly find other examples in nature of systems that can appear manifestly different in different situations. Why would that be considered disordered in the Divine?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

The doctrine would only be polytheistic if each member of the Trinity was a separate god, but instead they are parts that make up the whole.  I think the best analogy for the Trinity is time.  Time is past, present, and future.  There are not three separate times; each part of the whole of time is by nature time.  Likewise, space is height, width, and depth.  Water exists in a liquid, solid, and gaseous state.  There are tangible differences in all these things, but they all form parts of a whole while fulfilling a different meaning or purpose.

When Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, he was not talking to himself.  The Son did not create Heaven and the earth, and the Father is not the one who played the role of the sacrificial lamb in Jesus' atonement.  The Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but rather God's power in action.  The Son is what sent the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct in their relations to each other and how each one proceeds from the other, but each subsists within the godhead and fulfill God's active will - which is God's plan for the whole of creation.

That, at least, is as much as our finite minds might be able to comprehend.  If God was capable of being fully understood, then He would be too small to worship.

[RINO Tom]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

My point was that even if that what you say is true, and I don't see how it can be proven, what is the use of such a belief? Can't a person be good without such a belief? Can't a person own their own power to survive, and why outsource your power to someone else?

edit: it seems to me that it is the difference between Deism and Theism, the former believes that while such a creator exists, it doesn't really matter anyway, since this creator doesn't get involved in anyway with the universe.

Of course, someone can be a great person and life a worthwhile life without believing in a God; I have never suggested otherwise.  You simply asked what the "point" of believing one is, as if it's some choice.  A belief is simply the culmination of your reasoning on a subject, no?

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

My point was that even if that what you say is true, and I don't see how it can be proven, what is the use of such a belief? Can't a person be good without such a belief? Can't a person own their own power to survive, and why outsource your power to someone else?

edit: it seems to me that it is the difference between Deism and Theism, the former believes that while such a creator exists, it doesn't really matter anyway, since this creator doesn't get involved in anyway with the universe.

Of course, someone can be a great person and life a worthwhile life without believing in a God; I have never suggested otherwise.  You simply asked what the "point" of believing one is, as if it's some choice.  A belief is simply the culmination of your reasoning on a subject, no?

Again, by "point" I was referring to the question of what is the use of belief. A belief in God that doesn't do anything to interfere with human life doesn't seem to have much of a practical use. That doesn't mean it isn't worth believing in such a God, just that this God isn't someone that does much, at least in a visible way. I think we are going around in circles. Certainly, one can believe in God based on reason, although some would argue with that idea. My point was that such a belief doesn't make someone good, obviously. I have said before that is what we do that matters more than our thoughts. Of course, our thoughts ultimately do impact what we do in many cases, but I can have a thought without acting on it.

My whole argument was a response to the idea that evil results from our free choices. My understanding is that the argument from free will, makes it difficult for God to have any impact on our lives without destroying this free will. That is the idea that prompts me to ask, so why believe in a God that can help us. Doesn't it make more to sense to believe that God helps those who help themselves? When a person asks God for something, they don't always get what they want; when that happens, when life is difficult, many people will turn away from their previous belief.
I once saw a bumper sticker that illustrates this point.. "God doesn't believe in atheists"

[HisGrace]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

You could make that same argument about a person, but no one would. If I sat and watched someone get raped or murdered and could have stopped it, but didn't, no one would view "people have free will" as an excuse for my inaction. Most every religious person would agree it would be a sin for a person to not intervene in a situation like that if they were able. People don't/shouldn't have the free will to murder and rape other people. That's the whole reason we have governments and laws. Then of course why doesn't anyone care about the free will of the people having their lives taken from them or being violated?

If an omnipotent god did exist and didn't intervene, that wouldn't make people any less responsible for their own actions. It would just mean that he also bore responsibility for allowing things to happen when he could have stopped it, just as a person in the same circumstance would be held responsible.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

You could make that same argument about a person, but no one would. If I sat and watched someone get raped or murdered and could have stopped it, but didn't, no one would view "people have free will" as an excuse for my inaction. Most every religious person would agree it would be a sin for a person to not intervene in a situation like that if they were able. People don't/shouldn't have the free will to murder and rape other people. That's the whole reason we have governments and laws. Then of course why doesn't anyone care about the free will of the people having their lives taken from them or being violated?

If an omnipotent god did exist and didn't intervene, that wouldn't make people any less responsible for their own actions. It would just mean that he also bore responsibility for allowing things to happen when he could have stopped it, just as a person in the same circumstance would be held responsible.

If God intervened every time a person was going to make a wrong choice, then there would be no free will - or responsibility - for anyone at all.  The price we pay for our free will is that people will not always make the right choice.  But what is the alternative?  If God waved his magic wand every time we did something wrong, we would not have free will and we would not be human; we would be like robots controlled by a programmer who constantly overrides our thoughts and actions.  And if we were always in a state of comfort, then we would lack the will to turn to God at all.

Like RFayette said earlier in the thread, arguments from suffering only go so far because, ultimately, we are finite beings and therefore not in a moral or intellectual position from which to judge the creator of the universe.  But what we do know is that the world is not as it "should" be.  This is not the fault of God, but it is the fault of us who rebel against God and give in to our own carnal and selfish desires.