Why does God allow suffering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, the major symbol of Christianity was a common torture device in its day. Yes. Suffering is addressed. Over and over again.

I think the question is, “why does suffering exist for good/innocent people or people who did not choose it?” right? Or are you asking why any unhappiness exists at all?

I am an oncology nurse and have seen many good people truly suffer. (Before people think too far; not all cancer patients suffer nor are in pain). I question over and over why good people suffer? What kind of god allows for such pain and suffering? Esp among the young, the people whose cancer came about due to no fault of their own? I see how religion provides comfort to my patients, and I am grateful that it does. I see the strength provided by religion but if asked, I would say god kinda sucks.

I appreciate those here who have suggested philosophy and books to read. That makes more sense than the notion that we can't understand happiness if we can't feel pain. Or the undulating river of ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think of it as "allow." Physical existence happens, with all the highs and lows that come with it. It's how we process that existence - how we cope, support each other, grow personally, learn new things, and rebuild is what living is all about. It's not about "fair" and who deserves to have good things vs. bad things. We all get a taste of both and cope differently. What crushes one person, another finds a way to draw strength from.

And no supernatural being is needed for any of this.

Why do you think of God as a supernatural being? Where did you learn that nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are specks of light floating in the great undulating river of light that flows through time. (Jane Kenyon). God is light and love. God understands earthly pain (Jesus forged that connection of understanding through his Passion of physical death on the cross). There is no doubt that horrible tragedies and painful events happen here on Earth. Jesus taught us that he will help us bear it if we only ask him to take on the pain for us. It really helps (or has helped me) to practice self care (taking time for things that improve my mental and physical health; for me, daily yoga practice, eating well, and getting a good 7 hours of sleep most nights) to get through painful times. But mostly if something is really hurting in my life, I ask God to bear my pain. Sounds weird but it helps. I don’t believe in hell (except that there can be a state of separation from God that we choose through free will) but there is evil in the world. Why doesn’t God change that? No one knows, but I suspect this life is a crucible that refined our soul (that speck of light) so that when we die we emerge in that great river of light that undulates through time.

Sounds like you developed your own religion that works for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

so the babies who starve to death in Somalia do so to teach us a lesson? And we worship the being doing this? If that's the best explanation, then your God sounds pretty evil

I am not the OP but I want to respond to this.

You presume that God is the cause of starving babies rather than the wicked, evil, and ungodly actions of the Somalis themselves. The Somalis are pirates -- sea-thieves, among other things. God has plainly stated in the bible that if you obey God's commandments you will have life. If you don't:

But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away...I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land --Deuteronomy 30:17

therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

God gives all people a choice. The Somalis have chosen to be evil and to do evil. And notice God says to choose life so that thy seed may live. Your seed is your babies. It clearly says the babies will die also. Babies grow up to be adults doing the same evil things their parents did.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days --Deuteronomy 30:19

Choose Jesus, choose Life. It's a choice. It does not make God evil that he judges and holds people accountable for their actions.
Although all this was directed to the Israelites, it pertains to all nations.

You seem to think the Somalis are these innocent people when they are not. They are slave traders:

The terrorist organization [Al-Shabaab] also enslaved an indeterminate number of young girls and exploited them in sexual servitude.
Source: US Dept. of State, '2019 Trafficking in Persons Report: Somalia'

All the outrage in America is directed at statues of long dead slave owners but hardly anything is said about the Somalis who are engaging in slavery in the 21st century! And you somehow think these Somalis are innocent? That God does not see their wicked deeds the stench of which rises up to the throne of heaven itself?

Are you seriously blaming famine and death of children on the actions of pirates who happen to share a country with them?

You are either a horrible monster, incredibly stupid, or both. There is no hell, but if there were, you would be headed straight for it.

DP but it makes a lot more sense than blaming God.

Because God is blameless? People believe he is all powerful and responsible for all the good things that happen. Why not the bad, as well?

I have never heard this. I have heard of God as “all-knowing,” but not as “all responsible.”

Believers view God as responsible for the good things that happen, but give him an out for the bad things, e.g., "God works in mysterious ways."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think of it as "allow." Physical existence happens, with all the highs and lows that come with it. It's how we process that existence - how we cope, support each other, grow personally, learn new things, and rebuild is what living is all about. It's not about "fair" and who deserves to have good things vs. bad things. We all get a taste of both and cope differently. What crushes one person, another finds a way to draw strength from.

And no supernatural being is needed for any of this.

Why do you think of God as a supernatural being? Where did you learn that nonsense?

In sunday school, in church. did you learn that God is a regular human? who lives and dies? if so, where did you learn that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am Catholic and grew up looking at Jesus on the cross and hearing the stories of martyred saints. The idea that suffering was something that happened as a punishment never occurred to me. Nor have I ever thought that suffering was something that God could, or would even wish to, end.

That being said, I just started reading “City if God” by St Augustine with my book club. The book was written around 400 AD, not long after the sack of Rome, and was partly a response to Roman pagans who blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome. He talks about suffering in the book. The pagan premise for suffering was that suffering was distributed by angry Gods. Augustine attempts to explain that suffering affects both good people and evil people. He basically says that the reason for it is two-fold: 1). This is how you show that you are a good person. If you are never tested, then good and evil look just alike. If there is never danger, then there is never courage. If there is never temptation, then you cannot resist temptation.
2). This is how you separate true virtue from accidental virtue. We talk all of the time about inequality. Some people are born with more: better looks, better health, more money, etc. But it is through suffering and adversity that you show your real virtue and worth. If you are always smiling and kind because you are beautiful and wealthy and life has always been kind to you, then that is an accidental virtue. However, if you remain kind when you are frightened or in pain, then your kindness is s true virtue.

Anyway, I believe that this underlying idea of suffering has been incorporated into much of Christianity, or at least Catholicism. Our greatest role models in the catholic faith (from Mary and the apostles to Joan of Arc to Marcelo Labor) did not avoid suffering and adversity, but face it with strength and virtue.

I want to join your book club!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Catholic and grew up looking at Jesus on the cross and hearing the stories of martyred saints. The idea that suffering was something that happened as a punishment never occurred to me. Nor have I ever thought that suffering was something that God could, or would even wish to, end.

That being said, I just started reading “City if God” by St Augustine with my book club. The book was written around 400 AD, not long after the sack of Rome, and was partly a response to Roman pagans who blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome. He talks about suffering in the book. The pagan premise for suffering was that suffering was distributed by angry Gods. Augustine attempts to explain that suffering affects both good people and evil people. He basically says that the reason for it is two-fold: 1). This is how you show that you are a good person. If you are never tested, then good and evil look just alike. If there is never danger, then there is never courage. If there is never temptation, then you cannot resist temptation.
2). This is how you separate true virtue from accidental virtue. We talk all of the time about inequality. Some people are born with more: better looks, better health, more money, etc. But it is through suffering and adversity that you show your real virtue and worth. If you are always smiling and kind because you are beautiful and wealthy and life has always been kind to you, then that is an accidental virtue. However, if you remain kind when you are frightened or in pain, then your kindness is s true virtue.

Anyway, I believe that this underlying idea of suffering has been incorporated into much of Christianity, or at least Catholicism. Our greatest role models in the catholic faith (from Mary and the apostles to Joan of Arc to Marcelo Labor) did not avoid suffering and adversity, but face it with strength and virtue.

I want to join your book club!

I feel lucky to be in it!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

Again, your logic massively fails. You don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. And the ball thing was a metaphor, and you continue to support its premise.

Do you believe in unicorns or leprechauns? Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

Again, your logic massively fails. You don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. And the ball thing was a metaphor, and you continue to support its premise.

Do you believe in unicorns or leprechauns? Why not?

I’m really sorry. I cannot continue this with you.
You aren’t really presenting an argument other than to tell me, without explanation, that I am wrong. This isnt really an interesting debate or discussion. I wish you well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

Again, your logic massively fails. You don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. And the ball thing was a metaphor, and you continue to support its premise.

Do you believe in unicorns or leprechauns? Why not?

I’m really sorry. I cannot continue this with you.
You aren’t really presenting an argument other than to tell me, without explanation, that I am wrong. This isnt really an interesting debate or discussion. I wish you well.

I know it is difficult and uninteresting to you to have to answer hard questions that put your foundational beliefs in questions. And TO BE CLEAR: I am not claiming you are wrong in your beliefs. Just that your logic in defense of them is incredibly faulty.

I think you understand that it is, or you would answer the questions.

[Anonymous]

This angry person eventually shows up on every thread, demanding proof of things that require faith. All the faithful need to pray for this person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This angry person eventually shows up on every thread, demanding proof of things that require faith. All the faithful need to pray for this person.

Don't waste you time. Pray for something that might actually happen, (like for president -- there's a 50/50 chance your prayers will be answered).

"This angry person" has thought things through and doesn't believe in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This angry person eventually shows up on every thread, demanding proof of things that require faith. All the faithful need to pray for this person.

Some corrections:

1. PP, and not angry
2. There are way more than one of us
3. Asking for proof of claims made and requesting proper logic and reason, not demanding anything
4. Politely suggest you not waste your prayers on me, they won't help regardless of which of us is right

Have a nice evening!