These questions have bothered me for a very long time!

[LoveKettle]

Hello all,

Am so glad to have found this forum.

I have no belief in "a god", so that makes me an atheist, I suppose. I am not ANTI theist, I'm definitely "I don't understand how a person can be a theist" however...I am open to good answers changing my way of thinking, if convincing.

I am very interested in how people can believe in God, specifically Christianity (given that I'm here!). I went to an Alpha course recently because I wanted to meet Christians and ask them the following questions, but I got a very poor standard of response...so I thought I'd either track down a priest, or people with more oomph in the brain department, and ask them..so here I am.

Right...here we go! Any answers to any of these, I'd be grateful for.

1. A classic - if God is omnibenevolent, yet omnisicient, he is all-good and all-knowing, so he knows what is going to happen, and dislikes evil. Alrighty..so why on earth create humans/Adam and Eve/the earth if he knew that he was just going to have to flood the earth/see lots of suffering in the world? And I don't see how the answer "we need evil to know good" is valid, surely it is so much better not to be born than suffer immensely? And why so MUCH evil? And if heaven is true, there isn't any evil there yet supposedly people can appreciate it?

The next two - I realize that evolution no way disproves God, e.g "God could have designed a world that designs itself, or he powers evolution". But it seems odd to argue that knowing God/having altruistic tendencies is innate and therefore this lends God some support, because we could well have obtained them anyway for the sole purpose of reproductive fitness..if you see what I mean.

2. It is claimed that since all cultures seem to have an idea of God, God is somehow known by all at a deep level, so there is some support for his existence. However, there are certainly psychological and evolutionary advantages to such a system, e.g comfort that we arn't going to "end" when we die, comfort in day to day life etc, the feeling that there is "something watching over me"...that are also pretty convincing. So not so much a question but a..."what do you think of that?".

3. Related issue..altruism. There's a good arguement in evolutionary theory for it...to put it briefly, we need give and take for the good of the species as a whole. We don't get all morality from the Bible either, we pick and choose - we arn't stoning people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. I appreciate that the Law (in UK, USA etc) is founded on the Ten Commandments, but I know personally my morality isn't directed by heeding God, and the decisions that do not have a legal implication are guided by my own morality, not "God's". I can see from experience lying and stealing are bad and hurt people, for instance, so I don't do it! Cause and effect. Again..thoughts?

4. I think this is my biggest brain-niggler....if you are a Christian and accept Evolution, then at what point did "we" become "human" and get the human soul from God? I didn't word that well..I'll try again. OK. Well, humans took YEARS to evolve, and it was GRADUAL. If humans had been created by God as they were, a la Adam and Eve, you could see how the soul thing/human status would work. But if you accept the idea that gradually gradually humans evolved, then when did God decide that AHA! THAT ape (I can't remember the names of our ancestors, maybe someone else can), he is a human and so on. As soon as we had the cognitive capacity to think about such matters? Or we "looked" human?

5. Another one that is asked commonly...I can't help but recall the O.T story of God's "testing" of Abraham. How does this illustrate a God of love? It is a truly awful story! So any thoughts on this would be appreciated!

I think I will leave it there for now, those are maybe half my questions!

thankyou very much for reading/replying

[Tanya~]

Hi LoveKettle, welcome to the forum!

Thanks for presenting your questions to us, we are happy to respond. It will be much easier to tackle just one of these at a time. Can you go back over your post and pick the one that is the most important that you would like to see addressed first?

[LoveKettle]

The one about humans slowly evolving and when they got the "soul".

thankyou :)

[BroRog]

Okay, I'm going to give you some answers that you may never have heard before. I'm not writing to convince you of anything, but to see if I can take a new road to the same destination. Also, in order for me, or anyone, to answer your questions, you need to provisionally suspend your atheism. To "hear" the answers is to understand them from within our belief system.

1. A classic - if God is omnibenevolent, yet omnisicient, he is all-good and all-knowing, so he knows what is going to happen, and dislikes evil. Alrighty..so why on earth create humans/Adam and Eve/the earth if he knew that he was just going to have to flood the earth/see lots of suffering in the world?

The answer to your question is found in the significance and implications of being a creator. Ask yourself why we create; what purpose does it serve? For me, creation is a form of self-expression, whether I am trying to evoke an emotion or communicate my worldview.

A close approximation of what God has done is exemplified in the book-author who creates a novel. The author is telling a story incorporating characters, a plot, conflict, a resolution, and etc. The author may include moments of pain, suffering, tragedy, heartache, immorality, injustice and evil in his or her story. Some of the characters may die, while others may thrive. Some characters may lose all wealth and health, while others may remain strong and keep their integrity.

How do we judge the author and his book? If the author has a character murder someone, do we hold the author accountable? Or do we judge the author and his/her book based on whether the character comes to justice?

If the author has a married couple decide to disobey the rules of the hotel, causing the hotel owner to evict them from the premises, are we to hold the author responsible for what happened to the couple?

Suppose a science fiction writer has a group of eight characters survive a planet of evil, oppressive warriors by having them build a spaceship to leave that planet behind, while the weather on the planet causes the destruction of those left behind? Do we hold the author responsible for the deaths of all those on the planet?

You will say, the people living on the earth at the time of the flood weren't fictional characters. They were real people. That is true. But God, as the creator, is more real than us. We don't judge God based on the fact of evil or suffering because he is the author of creation, making the world the way it is as a form of self expression. We don't judge God based on the fact that evil is present in this world, but on whether God approves of the evil or not. Does he punish evil and reward the good, or does he reward evil and punish the good? Does he have evil triumph over good? Does he have builders triumph over destroyers? Is the suffering arbitrary or does it serve a good purpose?

The next two - I realize that evolution no way disproves God, e.g "God could have designed a world that designs itself, or he powers evolution". But it seems odd to argue that knowing God/having altruistic tendencies is innate and therefore this lends God some support, because we could well have obtained them anyway for the sole purpose of reproductive fitness..if you see what I mean.

The idea that love is nothing but the outcome of biological, mechanistic, processes is a bleak picture that isn't attractive to me. Nonetheless, we must admit that certain, seemingly altruistic behaviors might find their locus in biology. However, our ability to be self-sacrificial even against our biological need for self-preservation seems to transcend our physical nature. Self-sacrificial love may have a survival benefit, but the hero must transcend his biology to accomplish it.

2. It is claimed that since all cultures seem to have an idea of God, God is somehow known by all at a deep level, so there is some support for his existence. However, there are certainly psychological and evolutionary advantages to such a system, e.g comfort that we arn't going to "end" when we die, comfort in day to day life etc, the feeling that there is "something watching over me"...that are also pretty convincing. So not so much a question but a..."what do you think of that?".

We must admit that false hope can be a temporary relief from the fear and anxiety that daily exigencies bring. And one could see how mental health is necessary to our survival as a species. But false hope is only a temporary relief and a continual trip to that place is a recipe for insanity.

3. Related issue..altruism. There's a good arguement in evolutionary theory for it...to put it briefly, we need give and take for the good of the species as a whole. We don't get all morality from the Bible either, we pick and choose - we arn't stoning people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. I appreciate that the Law (in UK, USA etc) is founded on the Ten Commandments, but I know personally my morality isn't directed by heeding God, and the decisions that do not have a legal implication are guided by my own morality, not "God's". I can see from experience lying and stealing are bad and hurt people, for instance, so I don't do it! Cause and effect. Again..thoughts?


It is a common error to say that we get our morality from the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be "special" revelation from God in which he tells us things about himself that can't otherwise be known from a pursuit of knowledge through natural means.

That's on the one hand. On the other hand, some Christian philosophers and theologians acknowledge that morality is hardwired into every human being. They would acknowledge that our moral sensitivities are part of the human design and that both theists and atheists both share similar moral sensitivities, not because these morals were dictated from higher up, but because these ideals are primary and self-evident facts of our existence.

What do philosophers mean by primary facts? They mean to say that knowledge builds on previously ascertained, previously apprehended, or previously comprehended facts, and that in order for a child to comprehend the world, he or she must come prewired with a set of "knowns" on which to build.

For instance, while a child must learn that 2+2=4, the child already comes with the ability to analyze and process data in abstract ways. The ability to deal in abstraction is not something that is learned, it's something that is innate in human beings.

Likewise our sense of right and wrong is also innate, hardwired into us from birth. As we grow, we apply that sense of right and wrong to new situations and moral challenges, but the basis of our sense is common to human design. Not only are we creatures with the capacity to apprehend the physical world as it really is, given our sensory apparatus, we are creatures with the capacity to take a moral stand and to judge the actions of others in terms of a built-in moral standard.

Contrary to common belief, we didn't get our morality from the Bible or the Church. We got it from God directly as a characteristic of our design. And contrary to common belief, we don't teach each other morality, we discipline our subordinates (children, students, soldiers, employees, etc.) to do what they already know to be right. Immorality isn't caused by a lack of knowledge; it comes from a lack of discipline; or a blunting of the conscience.

5. Another one that is asked commonly...I can't help but recall the O.T story of God's "testing" of Abraham. How does this illustrate a God of love? It is a truly awful story! So any thoughts on this would be appreciated!


When a parent put his or her child through a test of character, it can appear unloving from the outside. But we must admit that in order to teach our children to have character, we must allow them to experience these trials of character, if for no other reason than the positive outcome informs the child that he or she, indeed, has character. But the loving parent would never push their child beyond that child's ability. The trial may be hard for the child, but not an impossible challenge.

While it seems that God is being unloving to put Abraham through such an awful test, the fact that God knew the outcome in advance and that Abraham would learn something from the ordeal, exemplifies God's love in that through the trial, he gave Abraham the confidence in his abilities that he didn't have before the trial.

None of us really know how we would respond in any given situation. But the more we respond with character and fidelity, the more confidence we gain that our character is strong. God puts us through these difficult experiences to help us grow in wisdom and confidence. And we have his assurance, from Abraham's example and others, that God will not push us beyond our ability to survive it.

[Tanya~]

The one about humans slowly evolving and when they got the "soul".

thankyou :)

According to the Bible, humans did not slowly evolve. Man was made in the image of God right at the beginning, and at that time God breathed in him the breath of life and he became a living soul.

Gen 1:27
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NKJV

Gen 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
KJV

There are some who believe that God created by evolution but I don't believe it can be reconciled with what the Bible actually says. The straight-forward Biblical view of Creation (http://www.icr.org/article/331/) is actually quite logical. :)

[Sold Out]

It is incompatible for a someone to claim to be a Christian and embrace evolution as the answer to how we got here.

Next question? (in order of importance)

[Tanya~]

I would like to suggest that you present each question in a separate thread. That will help keep things reasonable for you and for us too! You can continue to discuss on this question in this thread, and start a new thread on another question if you like. This will help keep things from getting to complicated. :)

[LoveKettle]

Thank you very much for taking the time to type plenty in response.

I can't overlook the evidence, e.g fossils, carbon dating, observed natural selection, in favour of evolution. It's just..there! And dinosaurs. It's true that you can't take the Bible literally and believe in Evolution. But evolution has a lot more evidence behind it..I'm not sure "it is true, because it's the word of God."...how to know that? (And in comparison to other peoples' ideas on The Word of God..) And there were dinosaurs, much much much earlier than man, and etc.

Agree to disagree on that one! But thankyou for answering...

The author analogy is an interesting one. I have to say, however, that there is a key difference - when reading a book, it doesn't matter ultimately what happens to the characters, we might wince in pain as someone gets brutally murdered, but that isn't comparable to the actual suffering in the world. Also, the author is responsible for the characters, he created them and knew everything in advance.

False hope might not seem like it in the case of organized religion...there's a quote somewhere, "One person's delusion is madness, a group delusion is religion!".

thankyou again for answering, I don't think I'm anywhere near accepting the viewpoint, though. But its all very interesting.

[Tanya~]

And dinosaurs. ...And there were dinosaurs, much much much earlier than man, and etc.

There is actually a lot more evidence that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time than you might think. The first dinosaur bone found in modern times was found in the US in New Jersey in 1787. Modern scientists began to draw images of dinosaurs based on the reconstruction of their bones. As we have learned more about these animals, these drawings have changed to reflect the more correct understanding. Interestingly, there are old artifacts made by humans, images of dinosaurs in various places giving evidence that man and dinosaurs existed together.

Take a look at the Palestrina mosaic here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/NileMosaicOfPalestrina.jpg/300px-NileMosaicOfPalestrina.jpg

Here is a close-up of one section:
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/4/47/Dinosaur_in_nile_mosaic.JPG

The people who created this image did not understand that dinosaurs weren't supposed to exist at the same time as man, and it depicts some hunters going after what clearly is a type of dinosaur. There are many, many other examples of ancient art showing that people did see dinosaurs. If man had never heard of dinosaurs until relatively modern times, we would not expect to see them in the art or literature of people who should never have known of them. http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html