Does God exist?

[trapsetter]

A simple yes or no question. Please answer "yes" or "no", and then explain your answer.

Thanks.

[Thythe]

Isn't this the sum of every thread in this forum?

[trapsetter]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the sum of every thread in this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't know. I don't really follow it.

[Phil153]

No.

1. The universe is perfectly explicable without god(s).

2. There are hundreds of religions who all espouse truth yet contradict each other on every possible aspect of god(s) and the afterlife. Yet, millions or billions believe in each. It's easy to see how the concept of God was invented.

3. There is absolutely zero evidence of the existence of any god(s).

4. The concept of god is absurd when one contemplates the enormity of time and the universe.

[atrifix]

None of those should lead you to conclude that God does not exist, except perhaps 4. But I don't understand 4 anyway. It doesn't seem absurd to me.

[Schwartzy61]

I Don't Know

There is no proof he exists

There is no proof he doesn't exist

[Andrew Karpinski]

No. There is absolutely no rational reason for me to believe he exists and so I don't, for the same reason I don't belive that my computer is actually a leopard.

[madnak]

It's impossible to know whether God exists or even to determine a probability thereof.

[MCS]

Yeah.

I have discovered a marvelous proof of this, which the forum is too small to contain.

[SamIAm]

Obviously this question can only be settled with a poll. WTF is wrong with you people?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to know whether God exists or even to determine a probability thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Schwartzy61]

I'm afraid to say no because God might strike me down...

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Please answer "yes" or "no", </font>

No.

<font color="blue"> and then explain your answer. </font>

No explanation is necessary. Not a single human being who has ever walked the earth has seen God. A lot of explanation is necessary if you want to claim God does exist.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to know whether God exists or even to determine a probability thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same way it is impossible to know if a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it?

[Andrew Karpinski]

All the beings in the milky way decided to figure out the answer to this question once and for all. They linked up their computer systems, gathering computational power from over one hundred thousand civilizations, and millions of different planets. They asked their computer one question :

Is there a God.

With lightning quickness it answered.

There is now.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to know whether God exists or even to determine a probability thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I think it would be within God's capacities to make his existence known. He's just a bit of a practical joker with a cruel streak. Like a school bully who wants to be worshipped (why?).

[godBoy]

yes,

Everything that has beginning has a cause..
The universe had a beginning. 1 reason.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple yes or no question. Please answer "yes" or "no", and then explain your answer.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does *what* exist? You are assuming that religion is part of knowledge; that there is a theory of god; that there is a definition which makes it relate to other knowledge and can be disproven theoretically or proven empirically.

This assumption is false.

"Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...sesofmind.shtml (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml)

[MidGe]

NO.

If he did, the only humane, not poker player, response would be to stand up against the tyrant.

For those who think we will never know for sure, it is a totally trivial question since we will only know the answer too late, and till then, there are too many flavours available as choice.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
NO.

If he did, the only humane, not poker player, response would be to stand up against the tyrant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yes.

God : I'm going to pretend I don't exist and if you don't figure out that I do exist despite the fact that I created the universe in a manner so that any rational person finds belief in me impossible I am going to torture you for infinity.

Me : Go to hell [censored].

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO.

If he did, the only humane, not poker player, response would be to stand up against the tyrant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yes.

God : I'm going to pretend I don't exist and if you don't figure out that I do exist despite the fact that I created the universe in a manner so that any rational person finds belief in me impossible I am going to torture you for infinity.

Me : Go to hell [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

well said

[bunny]

Yes. I cant explain the world as I find it without assuming God exists.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I cant explain the world as I find it without assuming God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't explain it whether or not I assume god exists.

chez

[bunny]

Well I can get closer anyhow. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
yes,

Everything that has beginning has a cause..
The universe had a beginning. 1 reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then what created God? This is incredibly lazy thinking. You're basically saying:

"Well, the universe must have begun at some point. Therefore something must have caused it. So I'm going to say a magic fairy waved her wand to make the universe. Nothing needs to have caused the fairy because the fairy is magic and magic doesn't need a cause."

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple yes or no question. Please answer "yes" or "no", and then explain your answer.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does a Zrongoolapser exist?

Please answer only "yes" or "no," then explain your answer.

[doucy]

Yes.

It's impossible to use reason to determine whether or not God exists. Either you believe it or you don't. It's stupid to try to logically explain that He exists, because there is always some counter-argument that will refute whatever you have to say.

[atrifix]

I don't think that the burden of proof is on the atheist. But I also don't think that failing to come up with evidence for God is a reason to deny his existence, as many on this forum (in the past, importantly, DS) seem to think. And I certainly don't think you can produce a rational argument to conclude that he doesn't exist on this consideration. The inductive argument is as weak as it could possibly be; the sample size is 0.

[atrifix]

The thing that irks me about layman's philosophy of religion is that it is essentially intellectual dishonesty. The cosmological argument was refuted centuries ago. Similar arguments (ontological, teleogolical, etc.) have all been refuted. When a scientific concept is refuted, the community is immediately willing to jettison it. You don't see physicists clinging to Newtonian mechanics. So why do religious advocates continue to espouse philosophical absurdities?

I don't have a problem with the branch of philosophy known as philosophy of religion. I do have a problem with intellectual dishonesty.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">And I certainly don't think you can produce a rational argument to conclude that he doesn't exist on this consideration. </font>

But that's just it... You don't NEED a rational argument to claim the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence for to begin with.

<font color="blue"> The inductive argument is as weak as it could possibly be; the sample size is 0. </font>

Depends on how you look at it. How many people who have ever lived on earth have never seen God? How many days have gone by since God has made Himself known? How many times have bad things happened to good people or good things happen to bad people? This becomes a pretty big sample size dude.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
But that's just it... You don't NEED a rational argument to claim the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence for to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do if you want to make a metaphysical claim ("God does not exist."). For a methodological epistemic claim, you could use Ockham's razor or something to that effect.

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on how you look at it. How many people who have ever lived on earth have never seen God? How many days have gone by since God has made Himself known? How many times have bad things happened to good people or good things happen to bad people? This becomes a pretty big sample size dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you introduce premises like "if there were a God, he would make himself known" or "if there were a God, he would prevent bad things from happening to good people." At that point it seems to me that you could formulate a deductive argument rather than an inductive one. Those premises are much more difficult to justify than ones like "we have no evidence of God".

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> You do if you want to make a metaphysical claim ("God does not exist."). For a methodological epistemic claim, you could use Ockham's razor or something to that effect. </font>

What if I want to make the claim that a falling tree in the middle of a forest makes a sound even when no one is around to hear it? Do I need a rational argument for that claim? And if so, what do you propose it to be?

The fact is, every single instance ever observed of falling trees indicate they make noise, but no one can prove this is so when no one is around to hear it. So am I supposed to go out of my way to make rational claims to show they do in fact make noise whenever they fall? Hardly...



<font color="blue">Only if you introduce premises like "if there were a God, he would make himself known" or "if there were a God, he would prevent bad things from happening to good people." </font>

No, no, no... I don't need to introduce a premise. Non-existence IS the premise! You (or they), need the deductive argument if you want to claim that a God, or a pixie, or an angel, exist.

This is why I've cut down with these debates and have greatly changed my attitude. I'm done trying to provide rationale for belief in the non-existence of something for which there is no proof of existence in the first place. I'll let you (or them), come up with rationale FOR existence before I waste any more of my time. So far, I haven't heard anything of substance yet.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple yes or no question. Please answer "yes" or "no", and then explain your answer.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and when you die you will get his bill for the ammount of BTU's of the sun energy you consumed during your lifetime.

[CallMeIshmael]

"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever. " - Woody

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I want to make the claim that a falling tree in the middle of a forest makes a sound even when no one is around to hear it? Do I need a rational argument for that claim? And if so, what do you propose it to be?

The fact is, every single instance ever observed of falling trees indicate they make noise, but no one can prove this is so when no one is around to hear it. So am I supposed to go out of my way to make rational claims to show they do in fact make noise whenever they fall? Hardly...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this example is nearly as obvious as you seem to. Some modern interpretations of physics would claim that a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound. The inductive argument there is also extremely weak because you have the premise that people are around to hear it.

[ QUOTE ]
No, no, no... I don't need to introduce a premise. Non-existence IS the premise! You (or they), need the deductive argument if you want to claim that a God, or a pixie, or an angel, exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disputing where the burden of proof lies, but you wouldn't think that a failed proof is the same as a negative disproof in mathematics, would you? Why should it be any different in metaphysics?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I don't think this example is nearly as obvious as you seem to. Some modern interpretations of physics would claim that a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound. The inductive argument there is also extremely weak because you have the premise that people are around to hear it. </font>

Could you explain this further? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying you can cite an interpretation of physics that claims noise doesn't exist unless someone is around to hear it?


<font color="blue">I'm not disputing where the burden of proof lies, </font>

Right.. And I don't know I'm even talking about proof per se. I'm talking about the need to discuss it in the first place. Why do we need to discuss proof of whether or not Martian beings are taking over the bodies of people in your community? So if you ask me if your next door neighbor is in fact a Martian, I'm gonna say no. Even though there's some chance he is and I can't prove otherwise.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you explain this further? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying you can cite an interpretation of physics that claims noise doesn't exist unless someone is around to hear it?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but I don't think you can conclusively say that a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. The inductive argument is extremely weak, and deduction simply will not work, so that leaves abduction, if you believe there is such a thing. I have no idea how such an argument would go.

I think there may be a deductive argument against the existence of God, however. I just don't think it can be based in the absence of evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Right.. And I don't know I'm even talking about proof per se. I'm talking about the need to discuss it in the first place. Why do we need to discuss proof of whether or not Martian beings are taking over the bodies of people in your community? So if you ask me if your next door neighbor is in fact a Martian, I'm gonna say no. Even though there's some chance he is and I can't prove otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough, but our discourse would come to a halt rather quickly in this case and I think it would be rather uninteresting. God has certain properties that make his existence an interesting philosophical study. Even though I don't agree with Augustine, Aquinas, et. al., I find their arguments well-thought and interesting. I doubt that one could produce a similar dialectic regarding Martian as body snatchers.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
All the beings in the milky way decided to figure out the answer to this question once and for all. They linked up their computer systems, gathering computational power from over one hundred thousand civilizations, and millions of different planets. They asked their computer one question :

Is there a God...

[/ QUOTE ]

I had this same idea for years now. Thought maybe it would make a good movie.

[Davidius]

LOL!!! You get an A for creativity on that one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[RicherThanRichie]

Man who was 'testing God' killed by lion

June 6, 2006

A lion killed a man who climbed into its enclosure in the Ukrainian capital's zoo, police said today.

The lion attacked the 45-year-old Ukrainian late yesterday after he used a rope to climb down into an enclosure with four lions, said Kiev police spokesman Volodymyr Polishchuk.

He said the man, who was not identified, was acting aggressively and the lion seized him by the throat. The man, an ethnic Azerbaijani, died at the scene.

Ukrainian TV channel NTN broadcast interviews with witnesses who said the man told them that he wanted to test God, believing that God would not allow the lions to hurt him.

Zoo officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500394.html

[godBoy]

I am convinced that there was never a time when there was absolute nothingness...
I haven't heard one theory yet to convince me otherwise.
Whatever that thing was that has existed for eternity is God - I don't see the point in talking to you about magic fairies.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard one theory yet to convince me otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it, you can get convinced by a theory... happened to be god in your case. Ah well, to both points I make!

[godBoy]

If God thought that way, I would respond in the same way..
The thing is you have no clue of the nature of God, yet you still mock Him. That's very brave and stupid.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is you have no clue of the nature of God

[/ QUOTE ]

And you have? LOL

[godBoy]

No, on the contrary - You hold a weightier conviction than I. I'm willing to drop my convictions when/if a better explanation arises...
I can see you however fighting with everything you've got to hold to your hateful God hypothesis, non-existent God contradictions.

[MidGe]

I am glad your god, from your view point, is only hypothetical and that you will drop the concept when you get across better evidence.

[godBoy]

I read this like the common 'I know you are but what am I' taunt that is repeated in pre-school yards at lunch times..

Really MidGe, your wasting kilobytes...

[godBoy]

I'm glad you see the reason in my position MidGe,
I can't say I feel the same way about your concrete footing.

[MidGe]

Don't worry about my footing... it is not faith based, and, as you said, along as it is the same for you, you are NOT DANGEROUS, only misguided. That can be, and probably will be, rectified with futher investigation by yourself. Only a matter of time and, not even, effort.

[godBoy]

I agree with you that blind faith in a religion can be very dangerous, we have all seen or read about the effect of it.

However, a strong faith in a well-interpreted account of the life of Jesus would no doubt have a positive effect on one's life. Lennon and McCartney had the right idea "All you need is love"

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that blind faith in a religion can be very dangerous, we have all seen or read about the effect of it.

However, a strong faith in a well-interpreted account of the life of Jesus would no doubt have a positive effect on one's life. Lennon and McCartney had the right idea "All you need is love"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes godboy! You also said [ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to drop my convictions when/if a better explanation arises...

[/ QUOTE ]

That satisfy me. You are a man of no faith. Good on you. I hope all of your congregation follow your good and reasonable example.

[godBoy]

Faith is believing in what is not seen..
I hope, therefore I am a man of great faith.

[MidGe]

You may hope all you wish! You are NOT a man of faith as I pointed out. Or, alternatively, when it comes to convictions you are a windvane. One miunute it is one way, the next the other. I tend to think you are probably the latter to be able to hold evidently contrary views (like god perfection and the imperfectis of his creation, love, omnipotence and punishment etc... ).

By the way, has the rooster crowed twice already? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[surftheiop]

"How many times have bad things happened to good people or good things happen to bad people?"

What does that have to do with anything?

Also for all you know there could be millions of people in heaven with god right now making it a fact but we just have no instruments availible to makes this measurement or observation that there is or isnt a heaven (or another dimesion that followers of God are allowed to enter after they die on earth). We cant make any measurements or observations about string theory but it still has quite a following.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Does God exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter.

[KeysrSoze]

I'm in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" camp. Might as well ask if an invisible purple magic monkey (yes, its invisible AND purple: its magic) is actually swinging the earth around the sun on a yo-yo string. No, not gravity and orbits and all that quackery, since its a magic monkey the magic makes it appear like there is a force called gravity doing it. Could it be? Sure. Is there any reason to consider it without overwelming or at least a few scraps of evidence. Naw.

Its a non-question, as the talk-news spin doctors would say.

[surftheiop]

"It doesn't matter"

If he does it could matter alot, posibly more than anything else.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"It doesn't matter"

If he does it could matter alot, posibly more than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]
It could, but given:

a) there's no reason to believe god exists and

b)if god exist, there's no reason to believe our beliefs about god matter

it does make the whole thing pointless. (except for the politics)

chez

[tomdemaine]

If god wanted us to be blindly devoted to him he would've made us that way if not then it doesn't matter if he exists or not. If he made us with free will but wants us to "choose" to be blindly devoted under threat of punishment then he's an illogical fool and nothing we can do can get around a being like that. So I say again it doesn't matter.

[aeest400]

The 3nd paragraph echos some of the sentiments expressed here. From http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19090

Religion from the Outside
By Freeman J. Dyson
Daniel C. Dennett
(click for larger image)
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
by Daniel C. Dennett

Viking Penguin, 448 pp., $25.95
1.

Breaking the spell of religion is a game that many people can play. The best player of this game that I ever knew was Professor G.H. Hardy, a world-famous mathematician who happened to be a passionate atheist. There are two kinds of atheists, ordinary atheists who do not believe in God and passionate atheists who consider God to be their personal enemy. When I was a junior fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, Hardy was my mentor. As a junior fellow I enjoyed the privilege of dining at the high table with the old and famous. During my tenure, Professor Simpson, one of the old and famous fellows, died. Simpson had a strong sentimental attachment to the college and was a religious believer. He left instructions that he should be cremated and his ashes should be scattered on the bowling green in the fellows' garden where he loved to walk and meditate. A few days after he died, a solemn funeral service was held for him in the college chapel. His many years of faithful service to the college and his exemplary role as a Christian scholar and teacher were duly celebrated.

In the evening of the same day I took my place at the high table. One of the neighboring places at the table was empty. Professor Hardy, contrary to his usual habit, was late for dinner. After we had all sat down and the Latin grace had been said, Hardy strolled into the dining hall, ostentatiously scraping his shoes on the wooden floor and complaining in a loud voice for everyone to hear, "What is this awful stuff they have put on the grass in the fellows' garden? I can't get it off my shoes." Hardy, of course, knew very well what the stuff was. He had always disliked religion in general and Simpson's piety in particular, and he was taking his opportunity for a little revenge.

Paul Erdös was another world-famous mathematician who was a passionate atheist. Erdös always referred to God as SF, short for Supreme Fascist. Erdös had for many years successfully outwitted the dictators of Italy, Germany, and Hungary, moving from country to country to escape from their clutches. He called his God SF because he imagined God to be a fascist dictator like Mussolini, powerful and brutal but rather slow-witted. Erdös was able to outwit SF by moving frequently from one place to another and never allowing his activities to fall into a predictable pattern. SF, like the other dictators, was too stupid to understand Erdös's mathematics. Hardy and Erdös were both lovable characters, contributing more than their fair share to the human comedy. Both of them were gifted clowns as well as great mathematicians.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is believing in what is not seen..


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in what can't be logically proven.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is believing in what is not seen..


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in what can't be logically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in something that is proven wrong.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is believing in what is not seen..


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in what can't be logically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in something that is proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith.

[illusionS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is believing in what is not seen..


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in what can't be logically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in something that is proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
BABY!

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is believing in what is not seen..
I hope, therefore I am a man of great faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you are! No worries on that count.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is believing in what is not seen..


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in what can't be logically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is believing in something that is proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, God has not been proven wrong.

[godBoy]

For people claiming to be 'real' thinkers unlike a person with 'faith'.. you sure post a lot of junk.

Faith is simply hoping and believing in something that hasn't yet happened. You don't have to believe in anything that has been proven wrong.. You just don't need every answer to believe in something, not to say you can't have a lot of reasons to believe. It's because of what is known that someone can have faith in something..

If something has proved itself over and over again, aren't you more likely to trust in that outcome that keeps on occuring?

Kind Regards,

[bocablkr]

Simple answer NO. Does the flying spaghetti monster exists -please explain?

[Popeye]

NO,
Reasoning...last tournament i got far in i was one of the bigger stacks there were about 300 or 400 players ...abou last 17
my AA allin got cracked by AK
then hand after that i was one of the smaller stacks...but not very small....i raised with KJ and got one caller.
i hit a K on the flop bet...he bets all in,i call he has K7...then he hits his 7 on river.
now i'm very shortstacked..'luckily enough' i got AT very next hand and push all in... got called by a worse hand..i think K9 or soemthing and he hits his hand and i'm out.

There is the proof there is no god! wel its a pokerforum isn't it?

now the devil. he might excist..and he might be the cause of this.

Good LORD! err oh he don'tn excist

[Scotch78]

First, I would ask you to please define this word, "god", that you are using. And if you finish sometime before I die, then I'll give you my answer.

Scott

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I would ask you to please define this word, "god", that you are using. And if you finish sometime before I die, then I'll give you my answer.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

cancer?

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I would ask you to please define this word, "god", that you are using. And if you finish sometime before I die, then I'll give you my answer.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

cancer?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've obviously never tried to adequately define "god".

Scott

[bunny]

The creator of the universe who knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The creator of the universe who knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done?

[/ QUOTE ]
Knows everything and leave things as they are??? He must be either incompetent or evil!

[bunny]

A succinct version of one of the strongest atheist arguments, imo. I was merely trying to provide a definition of what I mean by God, not to persuade anyone it is accurate. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
The creator of the universe who knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done?

[/ QUOTE ]

The nature of this creation (think birth v. painting) influences god's nature.

The nature of the universe (think infinite v indefinite) influences god's nature.

Also, your current definitions of omniscience and omnipotence are circular and unproductive.

Oh, and you neglected any discussion of how god interacts with his creation.

Scott

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The nature of this creation (think birth v. painting) influences god's nature.

The nature of the universe (think infinite v indefinite) influences god's nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see why either of these mean he is ill-defined. The nature of the universe influences my nature, yet I am well defined.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, your current definitions of omniscience and omnipotence are circular and unproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt use either of these terms in my definition.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and you neglected any discussion of how god interacts with his creation.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
You didnt ask me how god interacts with his creation, you asked me what I meant by god. If saying what I mean includes listing all of his properties and attributes then I have failed to define god. Similarly, I have failed to define any word at all.

[Dave I]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I cant explain the world as I find it without assuming God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]


This, my friends, is why anyone has to ask the question.

Alternatively, I can't fathom a God with the world how I find it.

[Beantown]

[ QUOTE ]
No. There is absolutely no rational reason for me to believe he exists and so I don't, for the same reason I don't belive that my computer is actually a leopard.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The creator of the universe who knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done?

[/ QUOTE ]
Knows everything and leave things as they are??? He must be either incompetent or evil!

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you prefer? The rapture?

I think you might call God both incompetent and evil, but much in the same way that children call their parents selfish for witholding sweets.

I have no idea why you think God is leaving things as they are. I would agree that the world still seems to have a collective morality of a six year old, but I think everyone would agree that things have changed during history.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you might call God both incompetent and evil, but much in the same way that children call their parents selfish for witholding sweets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the right argument, bunny. Parents do not have omnipotence or omniscience. In fact their lives are at the merci of the very incomptence or evil, unfortunately.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you might call God both incompetent and evil, but much in the same way that children call their parents selfish for witholding sweets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the right argument, bunny. Parents do not have omnipotence or omniscience. In fact their lives are at the merci of the very incomptence or evil, unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]
First to clarify that it was Pilliwinks, not me who made this argument so this response may not match what he was trying to get across...

As I understood his post, I think the point was not that parents are omnipotent and omniscient merely morepotent and morescient than their children. I dont think the omni is required for the argument to have some weight.

[MidGe]

Hiya bunny,

Sorry about the confusion between pilliwinks and yourself.


I think it is precisely the "omni" that makes the argument for god being evil. Anything less and you admit that the behaviour may not be perfect, merely incompetent.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"How many times have bad things happened to good people or good things happen to bad people?"

What does that have to do with anything?

Also for all you know there could be millions of people in heaven with god right now making it a fact but we just have no instruments availible to makes this measurement or observation that there is or isnt a heaven (or another dimesion that followers of God are allowed to enter after they die on earth). We cant make any measurements or observations about string theory but it still has quite a following.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but what a ridiculous way to think! We don't have instruments to measure or be able to see, a big bowl of marinara sauce floating in the comsmos that a flying spaghetti monster has created for all the good people to relish after they die either.

What's your point?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You don't have to believe in anything that has been proven wrong.. </font>

How old do you think the earth is?

<font color="blue"> If something has proved itself over and over again, aren't you more likely to trust in that outcome that keeps on occuring? </font>

How old do you think the earth is?

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya bunny,

Sorry about the confusion between pilliwinks and yourself.


I think it is precisely the "omni" that makes the argument for god being evil. Anything less and you admit that the behaviour may not be perfect, merely incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I'm trying to make is that parents in witholding sweets are not being evil or incompetent. They are being wise and loving.

The fact that you interpret wise and loving treatment as either evil or incompetent just reflects the limitations of your viewpoint, not the constraints on their behaviour.

Of course you will argue again that there are so many horrible things that God allows that he cannot be just witholding treats, but you/we have no perspective from which to judge that. We know that mollycoddling children ruins them, and that discipline benefits them - can you be sure we are not undergoing the necessary boot camp training for eternity?

[MidGe]

hiya pilliwinks,

[ QUOTE ]
We know that mollycoddling children ruins them, and that discipline benefits them - can you be sure we are not undergoing the necessary boot camp training for eternity?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems very fascist (evil) to me, and more, this is all within a context we/aprents have no choice about, and would not choose. If god created me with the ability to discriminate between good and evil, I don't see why I should not apply the standard to him. Given "omni" potence, he could have set it up without needless suffering. To see it differently is to see good and evil as not applicable to god. That to me is truly anathema. /images/graemlins/smile.gif It is simply the most basic self-contradiction in a theism that sees god as good.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
can you be sure we are not undergoing the necessary boot camp training for eternity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. See: Hell.

Or do you wanna explain how eternal torture is good for the soul?

A temporary hell? Maybe. Suffering on earth? Maybe. But an eternity of torment that never ends or goes anywhere, by definition can't be for the good of the "child." This isn't a parent withholding treats, it's a parent saying to a child, "You can never eat anything ever again. Tough luck if you starve. But I love you!"

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The point I'm trying to make is that parents in witholding sweets are not being evil or incompetent. They are being wise and loving.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when an infant drowns to death in a tsunami, is that God witholding sweets?

Again, to me the problem of evil is the one I always come back to. I've read some apologetics books recently, but have yet to hear a good argument for why horrific things happen to innocent people on a daily basis.

[RyanCMU]

No.

One of the problems I have always had with the existent of God and religious figures is how certain religions and cultures have mulitple gods, and if every religion has a god or gods, which god is the real god? is there even a real god? So which religions are corect and which are BS?

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
So when an infant drowns to death in a tsunami, is that God witholding sweets?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, to me the problem of evil is the one I always come back to. I've read some apologetics books recently, but have yet to hear a good argument for why horrific things happen to innocent people on a daily basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the horrific things that happen to innocent people is caused by man. Personally, I found a good answer to the question of suffering in Lee Strobel's 'Case for Faith'. It attempts to answer all of the biggies, a good read - if your interested in that sort of thing...

You avatar looks like a pretty Keith Richards..

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the horrific things that happen to innocent people is caused by man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but then "most" is not all. I guess your god is "mostly" just. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I found a good answer to the question of suffering in Lee Strobel's 'Case for Faith'. It attempts to answer all of the biggies, a good read - if your interested in that sort of thing...


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reccomendation. I actually just finished reading "The Case for Faith". And, while some of it was good, the section on the problem of evil was inadequate (at least IMO).


In the book, Strobel interviews someone named Peter Kreeft, and he offers this anology about evil in the world:

[ QUOTE ]
"Okay, then, imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear's confidence, but he can't do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realize that this is being done out of compassion.

Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring. If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he's not a human being."

Kreeft let the illustration sink in for a moment. "Now," he concluded, "how can anyone be certain that's not an analogy between us and God? I believe God does the same to us sometimes, and we can't comprehend why he does it any more than the bear can understand the motivations of the hunter. As the bear could have trusted the hunter, so we can trust God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Kreeft also argues that evil can actually be an argument FOR God, because the outrage humans feel at the suffering proves the existence of a supreme good, or else we wouldn't be outraged. He also says, "the fact that God deliberately allows certain things, which if we allowed them would turn us into monsters, doesn't necessarily count against God." To me, these all sound like the tired old, "we can't understand God's ways" argument, which lately just isn't working for me.

As for the bear analogy, I guess he's trying to argue that God is actually trying to HELP an innocent child by making him get cancer and die a long and horribly painful death - it's just that we don't realize it's help at the time. I'm sorry but I can't buy it. Is he arguing that without all that suffering, that child would somehow not get into heaven? I personally find that argument weak, and actually borderline offensive.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Kreeft also argues that evil can actually be an argument FOR God, because the outrage humans feel at the suffering proves the existence of a supreme good, or else we wouldn't be outraged. He also says, "the fact that God deliberately allows certain things, which if we allowed them would turn us into monsters, doesn't necessarily count against God." To me, these all sound like the tired old, "we can't understand God's ways" argument, which lately just isn't working for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my view the only value to the argument is to support the claim that omnibenevolence is not inconsistent with evil's existence. From my observations, the argument that we cant know god's purpose has very little value in persuading an unbeliever that God exists - I have seen people try and use it in this way but I cant see it ever working.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the bear analogy, I guess he's trying to argue that God is actually trying to HELP an innocent child by making him get cancer and die a long and horribly painful death - it's just that we don't realize it's help at the time. I'm sorry but I can't buy it. Is he arguing that without all that suffering, that child would somehow not get into heaven? I personally find that argument weak, and actually borderline offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt you will find it any more persuasive, but I think the argument he's probably making is that the world as a whole is better off, not necessarily the individual child. I think this idea was first proposed by Liebniz (?) basically saying that this world is as good as the world can possibly be.

The problem of evil remains the toughest for a theist to answer, as far as I can see. I've certainly never heard a completely satisfying answer.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I found a good answer to the question of suffering in Lee Strobel's 'Case for Faith'. It attempts to answer all of the biggies, a good read - if your interested in that sort of thing...

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read it, but based on Paul Doland's critique (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html) it doesn't sound worthwhile. It sounds like a book for Christians who want to get acquainted with the basic arguments, not for hard-hitting atheists.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the bear analogy, I guess he's trying to argue that God is actually trying to HELP an innocent child by making him get cancer and die a long and horribly painful death - it's just that we don't realize it's help at the time. I'm sorry but I can't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the bear argument, it's impossible for you to buy it. You are no more capable of believing that God is helping the child than the bear is capable of believing the hunter is helping him. Remember, it's beyond your comprehension.

And since your outrage over the suffering is a noble thing, representing your inherent goodness, God should be proud of you for feeling such outrage over the death of an innocent child. After all, based on your limited comprehension it's evil, and outrage is the appropriate response. You're also trying your best to make sense of the world around you and have a desire to see wrongs righted.

But God isn't proud of you - for all this, you get "rewarded" with hell. Something doesn't add up.

[Cyrus]

Call my agent already.

Medamnit.